After months of renovations, the Stellenbosch Root 44 market recently had their land occupation certificate denied by Stellenbosch Municipality for the third time. Representatives of Root 44 claimed that the municipality provided inadequate reasoning for the multiple denials.
This was according to a Root 44 Facebook post from 27 September. The post, which also called for assistance from the DA, was deleted on 29 September, a day after Stellenbosch Municipality responded with a statement by Geraldine Mettler, municipal manager at the municipality.
A since-deleted Facebook post made by Root 44 on 27 September claimed that Stellenbosch Municipality has supplied inadequate reasoning for the denial of the Root 44 developer’s land occupation application. PHOTO: Facebook/Root44
“The municipality is aware that there are several misrepresentations of the facts around the Root 44 development. There are various allegations that are unashamedly baseless, and we deem these as malicious attempts to implement land uses which were not properly applied for or permitted,” said Mettler in the statement.
The root of the issue
The municipality’s stance against the development of Root 44 is based on semantics, according to Bruce Massop, a Root 44 stakeholder. According to Massop, the municipality has used the word “emporium” increasingly when referring to the development, despite the fact that the word did not appear in the approved 2009 land-use agreement between Root 44 and Stellenbosch Municipality.
“The work that [Dax Hunt, the developer of Root 44, has] done, and the work that all the traders have done, is to physically bring the world-class facility to Stellenbosch. We’re all losing money, obviously, because we’re not trading,” said Massop.
According to an anonymous source, the two previous applications have also been denied, one in May and one in July this year.
Bruce Massop, a Root 44 stakeholder and owner of a Vietnamese food stall, explains the impact that the failure to reopen the market has had on himself, his family and his employees. AUDIO: James Cameron Heron
Approximately 80 traders rely on the Root 44 market to make a living, according to Massop. On average, each trader has invested upward of R80 000 in their stalls, he said.
“Some people [have invested] up to R300 000. It’s their livelihood,” said Massop. “We’ve got pensioners there that have put in R100 000 or R80 000, hoping that they would be trading a year ago.”
Before the recent developments, the market accommodated food, cuisine, and craft stalls. The traders have been unable to use the facilities for about a year, according to Massop.
Neil de Beer, the president of the United Independent Movement and current mayoral candidate for the City of Cape Town, filmed an address outside Root 44 on 28 September, questioning how the completed renovations at the market were allowed to take place without communication from the municipality.
“How can a R200 million structure be constructed under the auspices of the city government? And they don’t see the problem coming up and actually advise the developer, […] that these are the consequences, these are the challenges. Can they fix it?” said De Beer, during a phone interview with MatieMedia’s James Cameron Heron. “You are talking about a thousand human beings that are denied access to jobs, to earn an income, in an era of Covid.”
Conflicting statements
Between 2009 and 2017, the Root 44 developers had plans for a “tourist facility”, which qualified as a “wine emporium”, approved by Stellenbosch Municipality, said Mettler in the municipality’s statement from 28 September.
The Root 44 market, which has undergone renovations, is currently closed to the public after allegedly failing to meet the specific requirements for the acceptance of a land occupation certificate for the development, as set out by the Stellenbosch Municipality, according to Bruce Massop, a Root 44 stakeholder. PHOTO: James Cameron Heron
According to the statement, there is a “clear distinction” between a wine emporium and a “farmers market”. It was agreed that the developers elected to build the former, and as a result, forfeit the latter.
“This application was approved by the Municipal Planning Tribunal, subject to a condition that the original 2009 approval for the wine emporium is withdrawn and cancelled,” said Mettler in the statement.
However, the developers of Root 44, the Daxon Development Trust (DDT), issued a response to the municipality’s statement on 29 September, which was intended to “resolve differences of opinion between the Trust and the municipality” and to disclose all the “relevant facts” that the municipal statement allegedly did not. The statement was issued by Dax Hunt, owner of DDT.
The approved plans for the Root 44 development. The developers of Root 44 claim that they did meet the requirement (coloured blocks) set out for the development by Stellenbosch Municipality. PHOTOS: Facebook/Root44
“I make this statement because Ms Mettler’s statement released yesterday fails to disclose certain relevant facts, and calls on the developer ‘to share the full story with members of the public’,” said Hunt in the media statement.
The DDT’s statement is focused on the absence of the word “emporium” in the 2009 application.
“The application [in 2009], which is the approved application, was not for an emporium. In fact, the word “emporium” was not used in the revised application, nor in the Committee’s resolution approving the same, nor in the conditions of approval,” said Hunt in the statement.
DDT built the facility according to the plans that were approved by the municipality, which included designated areas for “Wine tasting & sales”, “Cuisine” and “Art craft tourism”, according to Hunt.
After communication between the attorney of Daxon Development Trust’s (DDT), the developers of Root 44, and Stellenbosch Municipality’s senior manager for development management, the DDT chose to cease debating the issues around the denial of Root 44’s land occupation certificate through press statements. Instead, the developers are looking to meet and discuss issues with the municipal manager and the mayor, according to Dax Hunt, owner of DDT, in their statement on 29 September. “Under the circumstances, we have real concerns as to the basis upon which the occupation certificate is being refused, but in the interest of a sensible resolution to the situation, will refrain from debating them at this stage,” said Hunt. PHOTO: James Cameron Heron
