EMAIL

TO: TATIB Foundation 24 November 2010

ATT: Mr Jurgen Schirmacher Our ref. GN Daniels/jb/T25-001
EMAIL: tatibfoundation@gmail.com greg@greencounsel.co.za

AND TO: Mr Ian Odendaal

EMAIL: ianodendaal@mweb.co.za

AND TO: Amanda Odendaal

EMAIL: amandaodendaal@gmail.com

Total pages: 3

The information contained in this document is confidential and intended for the exclusive attention of the addressee. Unauthorised
disclosure or distribution of the information is prohibited. Please advise us immediately should you have received this document in error.

Dear Jurgen

STIAS VINEYARDS

I refer to your email of 24 November 2010. I have considered the memorandum provided by the
Acting Executive Director Economic Facilitation Services, which memorandum was addressed to the
Municipal Manager. I have also looked at Professor Swerling’s document.

As previously mentioned in the opinion that we provided to TATIB, the STIAS vineyard consists of the
following:

• a total of 872 vines;

• the vineyard comprises the full extent of the Erf;
• there is no residential on the Erf, or remaining space to build a residence;
• the vineyard was established for experimental purposes (and is named the “Perold
vineyard”);
• approximately one third of the total of the vines are sponsored by the general public;
• the vineyard is managed in accordance with Integrated Production of Wine Principles
which involves agricultural production practises for weed, insect and fungal control, as
well as fertilisation;
 2

• the grape yield of the vineyard is harvested, and wine is produced from the grapes;
and
• the vineyard and wine production from the vineyard, is a commercial venture.

In response to that memorandum we point out the following:

• The rezoning of Erf 6338 was refused. Accordingly, the current zoning of the
property, which is “single residential” remains in force. The fact that the Erf was
historically used as cultivated fields is irrelevant. When the property was zoned as
single residential it is that zoning that finds application. The historic use of the
property is irrelevant for the purposes of the Land Use Planning Ordinance 15 of 1985
and its Scheme Regulations, unless one had to determine what the zoning of the
property is. As previously mentioned, its clear from the municipal records that the
property is zoned single residential. Accordingly, the historical is irrelevant and
continued use in accordance with the historical use of the property is unlawful.
• Reference is made to an environmental impact assessment that required that Erf 6338
be utilised to allow for a green strip to be retained along Marias Street to act as an
ecological corridor linking the Jan Marias Park with the Eerste River. It is mentioned
that that report also refers to an indigenous garden on the property. Although it is not
clear, it seems that the EIA Report was commissioned when erven 1539 and 3361
were being rezoned. Although it is not clear what this ecological corridor should be, it
is difficult to consider the vineyard as such an ecological corridor. Accordingly, not
only is the property used for a purpose that is not in line with its current zoning, it may
also be used unlawfully in terms of Record of Decision issued under the Environment
Conservation Act 73 of 1989 which now would be regarded as issued under the
National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998.
• The Acting Executive Director, in concluding that there is no condition of approval
prohibiting the planting of vineyards on the site appears to have approached the
matter from the incorrect angle. If the approach suggested in the Memorandum is
taken to its logical conclusion it would mean that the property could be used for
industrial purposes as in no condition of approval prohibiting the use of the property
for industrial purposes either. Accordingly, that approach is incorrect. The uses
identified in the Scheme Regulations under LUPO are the land uses that are permitted
on the property, any other use is impermissible.
• It is correct that any other plants may be indeed planted on the property. The
reasoning of the Acting Executive Director is incorrect as it states that if the property is
actively farmed as business, the rezoning of the property for agricultural purposes
might be needed. In order to determine the factual use of the property as previously
mentioned one has consider from a purely factual point of view some outwardly
manifestation on the property. In our view it is clear that the owner’s outward
manifestation on the Erf is not single residential use as provided in the Zoning Scheme
Regulations but for farming purposes. Please refer to page 3 of the opinion that we
have prepared for TATIB previously.

P:\C&A files (active)\T25 TATIB Foundation\001 Erf 6338, Stellenbosch\Correspondence\TATIB letter 241110.doc
 3

• The approach adopted by the Municipality appears to be an expedient one and there is
no basis for such a conclusion. The nature, extent and of the use of the Erf, it is clear
that it is being used for agricultural purposes no other conclusion can be reached on
the facts. Accordingly, the use of the erven for the cultural purposes is unlawful.

Yours sincerely

GREGORY DANIELS

P:\C&A files (active)\T25 TATIB Foundation\001 Erf 6338, Stellenbosch\Correspondence\TATIB letter 241110.doc