Recent correspondence with our Ward Councilor

From: Patrick Chapple
Sent: Sunday, 20 September 2020 07:18
To: Leslie London

Subject: RE: Interview additions: special meeting 18 Sept

Dear Leslie,


Paddy Chapple
Ward 57
Ithemba Constituency
Community Services Portfolio
Sub Council 16
021 447 9630

From: Leslie London
Sent: Saturday, 19 September 2020 10:24
To: Patrick Chapple

Subject: RE: Interview additions: special meeting 18 Sept


Firstly, you know as well as I do that a private email to an official on the morning of the Tribunal means nothing when the process requires formal input from our Councillor when they are asked.
The application process requires a Councillor to comment and that input is read into the report.
The report said you had nothing to say on the matter, and neither the Case officer nor the Chair of the Hearing mentioned any emails.
It’s the role of the Councillor to make formal comments on behalf of his constituency, it is not the role to send informal emails on the morning of a Tribunal.

Secondly, this is not the first time this has happened. When the Anson got away with an extra floor against the recommendations of City’s Heritage, you also did not comment.
You said, when I asked you about it, that you sent a private email to the Mayor at the time, but that email did not change anything.
When we met with Mathew Kempthorne to ask about the Anson appeal at the time, he seemed taken aback you had not commented. In fact, he thought maybe you had forgotten.
He did not say it was an accepted practice to send a private email to protest a decision or process.

Thirdly, I see no mention of why the appeal process is flawed in your emails, only mention that the “objector list, I believe, is incorrect and will be a fatal administrative flaw.” If that was the entire substance of your objection, then the Chair can well be understood to have considered this email from you to be immaterial.
No mention of the fact that two years of process around this development has generated an HIA that does not comply with the law?
And that none of those reports served before the Tribunal?
All the points I raised with you as our Ward Councillor was not take up.
And neither of the two emails you sent to Cheryl Walters and Osman Asmal was copied to me until after the Tribunal.

I am not trying to vilify you and nor is the OCA. I would love to have a Councillor who works with the Civic, who responds to concerns the Civic raises in an open and transparent way. Who is willing to hear feedback about matters concerning the community. And who takes responsibility when he drops the ball.

You should have commented on the application.
You did not comment on the application.
The community deserve to know the reason

The OCA will work with its Councillor when the Councillor works with the Civic.
That is how the system is meant to work.
But if the Councillor does not do his job, which is to comment on land use application, in line with what he thinks is best for the community, we will ask for accountability.

That is not vilification. That is a democratic municipal system as in the Municipal Services Act.

As for the consequence of this decision, it should not be lost on you and Councillor Badroodien that when it comes to poor people, the flood plain is seen as a no-go area for housing.
But if rich and powerful developer applies to build in the flood plain, the City waves them through any obstacles.

I was approached by a journalist from the Argus for comment on the Tribunal decision.
I have commented as the OCA and have also forwarded them the email you send me during the Tribunal and suggested they contact you for comment.

If you do want to repair the relationship with the OCA, both parties will need to acknowledge what they have done wrong.