Unlawful trading
Atterbury is one of 10 applicants in the pending litigation which, among others, includes unrelated landowners.
Atterbury is not authorised to issue statements on behalf of other applicants, thus discussion of the merits of the case is inappropriate as it is pending before court.
However, in this instance Atterbury needs to highlight certain aspects.
The offences in question and the subject of the pending court case relates to multiple unlawful activities. It not only relates to the unlawful trading of restaurants, as several current sets of laws are transgressed.
Atterbury has never had any issue with lawful competition in terms of consistently applied decisions by the municipality. Not one of the activities and actions that form part of the court application meets this requirement.
When lawlessness impacts negatively upon infrastructure, the entire character of the environment, property values and the economic viability of businesses trading lawfully and the municipality fails to comply with its statutory obligations, entities such as the applicants are forced to intervene to correct a culture of inconsistency and disregard for the law.
It is irrelevant if there are pending applications or approved rights for the use of land with respect to the properties in question. If such rights cannot be implemented by way of approved site development and building plans due to non-compliance with the conditions under which such rights are considered or issued, all actions, including construction and business operations, remain unlawful.
It is regrettable that members of the private sector, at their own risk and cost, need to resort to court orders to ensure enforcement of the law. It is for this reason that the municipality is also named as a respondent in the case. In addition a cost order is sought against the municipality.
