Oudtshoorn Ratepayers Association (ORPA) petition on private commercial flight training school

Meeting report

Oudtshoorn Ratepayers Association (ORPA) briefing
Mr Robert Keene, Correspondent and Management Committee Member of ORPA, indicated that the Association had written to the Committee seeking urgent intervention on the alleged unlawful and unregulated establishment of private commercial flight training in the residential environments of Oudtshoorn. The Ratepayers Association had a record of numerous correspondence items and supporting evidence which had been exchanged with both the Municipal and Provincial Administrative Offices in Oudtshoorn on this unregulated private commercial flight training, but all this had fallen on deaf ears. The Municipality has denied the public proper and transparent participation by allowing a proper open forum for residents and established stakeholders in the town to engage and address their concerns. The Association was also particularly concerned that the Municipality had ignored any tender process or alternative land use of the facilities of the airfield.

Mr Keen highlighted other concerns raised by the Association to the Municipality and these included:
- Failure to provide a declaration of the business activities and future plans of lessee
- Failure to take into consideration of the conditions and regulations of the National Environmental Management Act and provincial environmental laws
- Refusal by the Municipality to conduct a proper Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), which residents were assured of by the Provincial Government and Oudtshoorn Municipality
- Refusal by the Municipality  to conduct a proper risk management analysis on safety issues, physical and mental health and safety study into the effects of repetitive low level flight training traffic over the residential environments.
- There was also a failure to apply the local by laws governing noise pollution and nuisance caused by the low level flight training.

The Ratepayers Association had approached the Committee seeking intervention to ensure that proper and lawful remedy was followed. The Association hoped that the Committee could provide assistance in ensuring that the current arrangements, which are not yet properly contracted with the occupant of the airfield and operators of the flight training and related businesses, be stopped immediately so as to follow a transparent process that would involve the communities. This would assist in determining the appropriateness of such commercial activities over established residential environments such as schools and the like. The community members of Oudtshoorn had complained on numerous occasions that their constitutional rights to have fair use of their property without disturbance had been violated as community members are exposed to the inherent danger of living under up to 130 aircraft circuits (up to one every 2.5 minutes) each day between 07:00 and 18:00, 7 days a week. The Association also hoped that the Committee could assist in ensuring that the operators are compelled to relocate their businesses away from the built-up environment of the town, and find alternative suitable places around Western Cape.

The Municipality needs to be held accountable for damages arising from the direct loss of amenities, demonstrable devaluation in property values, revenue losses by the affected hospitality businesses, and general and actual damages for mental and physical health-related issues suffered by some residents as a direct result of this activity. The Association concluded that those councillors, directors and managers that are directly involved in and responsible for having promoted this activity outside of their mandates, in contravention of applicable municipal regulations and in breach of the principles of administrative justice, indeed in every respect in a manner contemptuous of the rule of law, be censured appropriately. The Association strongly believed that the Municipality needed to implement the findings of the Patel Report in resolving the matter in Oudtshoorn. 

Discussion 
Mr G Michalakis (DA) complained that the presentationmade by ORPA was only sent this morning, as this had denied Members an opportunity to engage in the meeting. It would be important for the Committee to get a clear idea as to where the airport for the flight training is located in proximity to Oudtshoorn. 

Mr Keen responded that the airport was located about 60 yard metres away from the local primary school, literally inside the residential area of Oudtshoorn.  

The Chairperson assured Members that this would not happen in the future as everyone should be given adequate time to engage with the presentation before the meeting.

Mr D Ximbi (ANC) asked if any consultation was done by the Municipality and the Provincial Government before the commencement of the private commercial flight training in the residential environments of Oudtshoorn.

Mr Keen responded that the only reason the issue was brought to the attention of the local Municipality was upon noticing the aeroplanes that started to fly in the area. No announcement was made by the Municipality prior to this about the intention to build an airport in the area. The Municipality appointed the Western Cape Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) to conduct Section 24G hearing. ORPA was invited to that meeting, although it is believed that the meeting was chaired by the DEA representatives who had been appointed by the owners of the private commercial flight.

 It was disappointing to observe that despite early (and repeated) assurances by municipal officials that the AIFA parties’ modus operandi in Oudtshoorn was “unacceptable” and the matter would be addressed and remedied , it has since become abundantly clear that none of the parties involved – both from the Oudtshoorn Municipality and the business interests concerned – have any intention of complying with the raft of municipal, provincial and national laws which regulate such matters for the protection of the rights and interests of citizens, unless absolutely compelled to do so. 

Mr M Mohapi (ANC) suggested that it would be appropriate to also hear from the representatives of the local Municipality in Oudtshoorn and the Western Cape Government on why there was lack of consultation done prior on the intention to build an airport in the area.

Mr Kam Chetty, Administrator at Oudtshoorn Municipality, responded that the Municipality was currently dealing with the matter raised by ORPA. The Municipality still had a range of other critical issues to deal with, and these included financial management, lack of a credible budget, liquidity crisis and high levels of debts and lack of service delivery in some areas. There is also a task team appointed to look at the matter. It must be highlighted that it was national government and not local municipalities that were responsible for the functions of aviation. The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) is the one responsible for providing of licences, airports, flying routes and the inspection of aircrafts to ensure that they comply with the required standard.

The concern raised about air pollution and the nuisance caused by private commercial flight training in the residential environments was the competence of the national and provincial government. The Western Cape Government has issued a noise pollution regulation that is managed and overseen by the DEA within the provincial government. The environmental health issues are the distinct competence of the district municipalities. In essence, there are still a number of parties that need to answer to the questions and concerns raised by ORPA. The Municipality was responsible for the lease agreement with Avic International Flight Training Association (AIFA) for the operation of flight training in Outshoorn, but the operation of the airport has been given to the licensing authority (CAA) and the National Department of Transport.

Mr Chetty added that the priority of the Municipality was to ensure that the private commercial flight training in the residential environments of Oudtshoorn was not in contravention of relevant municipal by-laws and provincial and national environmental laws. The Committee could be provided with evidence from the records of the Municipality which shows that there was public participation prior to the leasing of the contract to AIFA. The Asset Transfer Regulation Act was also applied in the awarding of the leasing contract to AIFA. The management of fixed property is determined by the Act. It was the responsibility of the district municipality to ensure that the noise pollution is regulated in the area. The Provincial Government has tasked the competent authority to test the noise level in Oudtshoorn. The results proved that the noise level was within the acceptable standard, both in terms of regulation and legislation. In essence, the district municipality together with the Provincial Government have complied with the regulations and legislation about noise pollution in Oudtshoorn.

The Municipality was cognisant of the complaints that had been flagged by various organisations like ORPA around the private commercial flight training in Oudtshoorn. However, there are also a large number of stakeholders who are in support of the operation of the airport as they believe that the operation of the airport was creating job opportunities and had the potential to boost economic activities in the area. The business chambers have also indicated that they had no objection to the flight training in the area. It would be useful for the Committee to engage with various other stakeholders who are in support of the airport in the area, so as to get a balanced view. The lease agreement agreed upon by the Municipality and AIFA in 2014 is legally binding; therefore it could not be terminated unilaterally. The contract for the lease agreement was ending in 2017 and the Municipality together with various stakeholders would need to produce a cogent legal case to support the termination of the contract.

Mr Chetty indicated that the Patel Report which had been adopted by the councillors had a number of deficiencies to it, as there are recommendations where the municipality is to intervene in matters where it is not have the municipal competence to intervene. It is therefore difficult for the Municipality to intervene based on the Report where there is no authority to do so. The audit report of 2014/15 has shown that the Municipality had a budget deficit of R150 million out of the R500 million budget allocation and this once again points to a “bleeding Municipality”. The Municipality would take on board all the concerns flagged by ORPA, and the councillor would have to consider the gravity of all the positions raised by different stakeholders in order to come to a conclusion. It would be unfair for anyone to take a position on the matter at the moment, until hearing different views from all the stakeholders involved.

It would be difficult to ascribe the decline in property value in Oudtshoorn to a single factor as there are other economic factors that need to be taken into consideration, and these included unemployment and lack of economic activity. There is a need to conduct solid research that would delve into other factors that have contributed to the decline the property value in Oudtshoorn. In conclusion, the Municipality was conducting a forensic report that would prove whether or not the local councillors were involved in the promotion of the private commercial flight training in the areas.

Ms B Engelbrecht (DA) expressed concern that the Municipality seemed to be abdicating its responsibility to national and provincial government while all municipalities had the legislative and executive power to make the decision and particularly in the case of land use.

Mr Chetty responded that it was indeed correct that all municipalities had legislative and executive power to take the decision around land use. 

Mr Mohapi appreciated the explanation provided by Mr Chetty as it shed a light on the complexity of the matter in Oudtshoorn and on knowing exactly the people who are supposed to be appearing before the Committee. It would be important for the Committee to be given more information on the authenticity of the Patel Report, the deficiencies picked up in the Report and the terms of reference used when Mr Patel was appointed by the Municipality.

Mr Chetty responded that the terms of reference for the Patel Report were very broad and the Committee could be forwarded the Report so as to get a broader view. The main critique of the Report is that it failed to distinguish between the different spheres of government, as already indicated. The Report managed to look at the multiple other factors that could be taken into consideration, but still needed to a get a step further in how the Municipality could represent the interests of both the community and the business side.

The Chairperson suggested that the Report should be forwarded to Members with the terms of reference.

Mr Ximbi asked if there was any reason the Municipality did not consult the community members before commencing with the application to have the operation of the airport in Oudtshoorn.

Ms Engelbrecht asked if the community members were aware of the extent of the lease agreement of the airport agreed upon by the Municipality and the new company. What was the ultimate outcome of the public participation? It would be important to know if there were any exclusions or restraints that were in the lease agreement, and whether the public managed to participate in those restraints or exclusions.  

Mr Chetty responded that there was indeed public participation that was applied to make the public aware of the extent of the airport agreed upon by the Municipality and the new company.

Ms Engelbrecht requested the Committee be forwarded the minutes of the public participation process on the lease agreement to verify if the public was indeed involved in the whole process.

Mr Keen said that there was damning evidence which proved that the noise level test conducted by the competent authority was deeply flawed.

Mr Chetty corrected himself saying that there was no public participation required for the new lease agreement to be awarded to the new company.

The Chairperson asked when was the lease agreement signed.

Mr Chetty responded that the lease agreement was signed in November 2014. There are minutes available for the meeting on Section 24G.   

Mr Ayab Mohammed, Chief Director: Environmental Governance, Western Cape DEA, indicated that the Provincial Government was not invited by the Municipality to the meeting for the lease agreement. There was indeed public participation in the awarding of a leasing agreement between AIFA and the Municipality, including a public hearing and there were notices in various local newspapers. The flight training in Oudtshoorn was authorised by the CAA as already alluded to, and the Provincial Government did not have a competency to intervene in the granting of the licence.

Mr Mohapi welcomed the briefing done by the Western Cape DEA as this was information that would assist the Committee to arrive at a certain determination. It would also be important for the Committee to get a written presentation from both the Western Cape DEA and ORPA in order to get full details on how the decision to authorise the operation of the flight training airport in Oudtshoorn, was made.

Ms Engelbrecht wanted to confirm whether the only public participation undertaken was the one of the 2014 lease agreement. It is now clear that there was never any public participation around the use of the airport, as the Municipal Structures Act required that there should be public participation for any change in land use.

The Chairperson corrected her saying that the airport in Oudtshoorn started operating a long time ago. The only concern of ORPA and the Committee was around its expansion.

Mr Mohapi said that it would be unfair for the Committee to expect the Municipality to conduct public participation on a matter that was not under its competence.

Mr Chetty responded that the public participation was done in terms of the Asset Transfer Regulation and there was no change in the land use of the area.

The Chairperson indicated that the Committee would also request the input of the Department of Cooperative and Traditional Affairs and the Civil Aviation Authority so as to add voices to the matter that had been discussed.

 Adoption of minutes
The Committee adopted the minutes of 19 November 2016 without amendments.

Adoption of the Committee First Term Programme
The Committee Term Programme was adopted without amendments.

The meeting was adjourned.