W ORLD TOWN P LANNING DAY
S ESSION 2 – 10 N OV 2011
Purpose & Value of Pre-Application Negotiations
A LWYN L AUBSCHER
PRE-APPLICATION
NEGOTIATIONS


Three Parties

City Fathers & Officials

Developers & Consultants

Interested & Affected Parties
Common Ground

We all need a growing City

We need development & economic growth

We wish for a win-win result
PRE-APPLICATION
NEGOTIATIONS

What is holding us back?

Complexity of Issues

Uniqueness of Applications

Growing requirements due to legislation

Extensive work load
PRE-APPLICATION
NEGOTIATIONS

How do we overcome this?

Legislation - leave to Prof Jaap de Visser

We have to address


Uniqueness of application

Complexity of process

Burden of work loads
Answer lies in Pre-Application
Negotiations
PRE-APPLICATION
NEGOTIATIONS


Purpose of the Pre-meeting

For City to understand the concept

For Developer to be made aware of pitfalls

All parties to understand time frames
Who should attend

All relevant local representatives from City

Professional team for Developer

Developer
PRE-APPLICATION
NEGOTIATIONS

Value to the City

Effective use of time

Foundation for further follow up meetings

Understand developer’s vision/plan

Learning experience for all concerned
PRE-APPLICATION
NEGOTIATIONS

Value to Developer

Opportunity to discuss

Process

Issues

Timelines

Pitfalls

Understand City’s requirements of what
constitutes a complete application

Personal contact with officials

Receive constructive input & direction on his
plans from senior experienced staff members
PRE-APPLICATION
NEGOTIATIONS

General Advantages

Everybody understands the financial
realities to make the development work

Team members are more accountable
through regular meetings where


They have to report back

Explain new issues

They have to take decisions
Negotiated end product
PRE-APPLICATION
NEGOTIATIONS

Value

Use of pre-meetings often left to
interpretation of local managers

Developer/Consultants do not engage with
authorities or engage at late stage

Therefore it will add value to consider it as
part of legislative reform
M ARIANA V OLSCHENK
C URRENT A PPEALS P ROCESS

Everybody strives to be legally compliant

It is the City’s responsibility to allow all
I&AP’s the opportunity to comment

Objections should be well motivated & in
context


Is it fair, adding value and is it in line with
the intention of the legislation
Delays caused by the double appeals system
C URRENT A PPEALS P ROCESS


It is also the City’s responsibility to act if the
process is being abused

Certain Community Forums that object to
each & every proposal within their broader
area

Who is asking them to explain themselves?
The impact of such habitual objections are
costing the economy millions
C URRENT A PPEALS P ROCESS

Professional Objectors

People that regularly object in an effort to be
bought off

Individuals

Ratepayers organisations that does this to
fund their cash stream

IT HAPPENS!

Surely this is corruption of the highest order
C URRENT A PPEALS P ROCESS

Opportunistic Objectors

Using their position/property to blackmail
the developer

Position – Example : An environmental official
who demands trade-offs which are not law

Property – Example : Next door
neighbour/property across the access point.
Taking advantage by demanding unjustified
financial compensation

IT HAPPENS!! – R500 000 going rate is not
unheard of

WHY? Developers cannot wait for unjustified
appeals to be dealt with in the legislative
processing - it can take years
A DVERTISING

Newspaper publication is a must

Cost of registered mail


A whole township - Removal of Restrictive
Title Conditions is exorbitant with limited
value added

Registered mail in certain communities are
never collected
Signage to be displayed on the subject
property

Including visual / artist impressions of
proposed development
A DVERTISING

Internal Circulation

Time taken to respond

Understanding the concept


Important that everybody is part of the PreSubmission negotiations
Departments acting outside their mandate in
terms of conditions proposed
A DVERTISING

Circulation to Government Departments


Need to keep these departments to the
legislative timeframes for commenting
Strict adherence to deadlines for submission
of objections

Should not become another delaying factor
THANK YOU