From the Department of Environmental Affairs: "But we have told you over and over this is not permissible."

..... and this has been "communicated to interested and affected parties on several occasions":

 

 Emphasis added to the letter below:
 

                                                                                                                 

 

Ref: 02/1/5/2 

MINISTER

QUESTION NO. 1353 FOR WRITTEN REPLY: NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

A draft reply to Mr G R Morgan (DA) to the above-mentioned question is enclosed for your consideration.

 

Ms Nosipho Ngcaba

DIRECTOR-GENERAL 

DATE:  

DRAFT REPLY APPROVED/AMENDED

 

MRS B E E MOLEWA, MP

MINISTER OF WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS 

DATE:

 

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

(For written reply)

 

QUESTION NO. 1353

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 12 NW1499E       

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 21 April 2011

 

1353.    Mr G R Morgan (DA) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

(1)        Whether, with reference to the notice that was published by the Minister of Transport in The Mercury on 11 April 2011 regarding his intention to enter into a lease agreement with eThekwini Municipality in terms of Section 4 of the Seashore Act, Act 21 of 1935, for the purpose of leasing the seashore and seabed between Vetch's Pier and the North Pier of Durban Harbour, her department has been consulted on the matter; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, what are the relevant details;

(2)        on what legislative grounds will the provisions of the Seashore Act override the provisions of the National Environmental Management: Integrated Coastal Management Act (NEMICMA), Act 24 of 2008, under any circumstances

(3)        whether she intends to exclude the specified land from coastal public property in terms of section 27(4) of the National Environmental Management: Integrated Coastal Management

(4)        whether she stands by the contents of the letter written by the former head of the Office of the Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (name furnished) to a certain law firm in Durban (name furnished) on 14 January 2009 stating that Portnet never owned the sea and that areas reclaimed from the sea do not belong to them; if not, what is the position in

(5)        whether she will make a statement on the matter?          

 

 

Mr G R Morgan (DA)

SECRETARY TO PARLIAMENT

HANSARD

PAPERS OFFICE

PRESS

 

 

 

1353. THE MINISTER OF WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ANSWERS:

 

 (1)       No, the Department of Environmental Affairs was not formally consulted regarding the proposed lease of the sea-shore, sea and seabed between Vetch’s Pier and the North Pier of theDurbanharbour. The Minister of Transport takes the lead in terms of the Seashore Act, 1935 (Act no. 21 of 1935) (Seashore Act) when an application is received to lease any area below the high water mark in a proclaimed harbour area because the relevant sections of the National Environmental Management: Integrated Coastal Management Act, 2008 (Act no. 24 of 2008) (ICM Act) are not yet in force.

           

2)         The Seashore Act cannot override the ICM Act as the ICM Act is a more recent Act and specifically states that it will prevail over any other legislation on coastal issues.   If there are conflicting provisions in the two Acts the ICM Act will therefore prevail. If the Sea Shore Act covers issues which are not covered in the ICM Act or issues which are in the ICM Act, but which are not yet in force, then only those relevant sections of the Seashore Act will prevail. Although the ICM Act contains provisions for the leasing of coastal public property, which includes the sea and seashore (sections 65 and 66), these sections of the ICM Act are not in force and therefore any such leases will have to be concluded in terms of the Seashore Act. On the other hand, if both the Seashore Act and the ICM Act contain provisions that deal with a specific issue, such as reclamation from the sea, the provisions of the ICM Act will prevail and reclamation will be administered under the provisions of the ICM Act.

 (3)       No application has yet been received to exclude any areas from coastal public property in the Durban Point area.

(4)        Yes, I still stand by the contents of that specific letter.

 (5)       I do not think it is necessary for me to make a specific statement on this matter. The ICM Act is quite clear and the views of the Department of Environmental Affairs and my predecessor have been communicated to interested and affected parties on several occasions

 

---ooOoo---