This includes commissioning a top audit firm to investigate whistleblower Marga Haywood, the DA\u2019s ward councillor for the area.<\/p>\n
The allegations revolve around the city\u2019s decision in June last year to approve the building plans of Bakoven homeowner Carol Strong. A group of eight of her neighbours and a ratepayers\u2019 association have applied to the high court in Cape Town to overturn the decision.<\/p>\n
Led by McCain Foods director Mark McCain, they argue that they were not all informed of the plans in good time, that Strong\u2019s plans are undesirable and that the city\u2019s decision was irrational and irregular. The city has denied this.<\/p>\n Strong\u2019s plans include arguably minor departures from the area\u2019s unique and strict heritage rules: a larger building than is allowed, the removal of boundary trees and the installation of a solar water heater.<\/p>\n Such breaches require the city council\u2019s consent, and it is not unusual for this to be granted. But it is the allegation of donor bias coupled with the city\u2019s substantial efforts to counter McCain and Haywood that have raised concerns.<\/p>\n A subpoena has now been issued for Haywood to testify before the high court in October.<\/p>\n Until the credibility of her claims is tested under oath, her version is contained only in a second-hand account by McCain\u2019s lawyer in an affidavit before court.<\/p>\n According to this, DA councillor Errol Anstey told Haywood during a visit to the property that Strong and her family had been \u201cbig donors to the Democratic Alliance and that this should be taken into consideration\u201d for Strong\u2019s application.<\/p>\n She reported this to the council speaker, the DA\u2019s Dirk Smit.<\/p>\n AmaBhungane could find no other witnesses to this statement. Anstey denied it, saying: \u201cI did not make remarks to the effect that the Strongs were DA donors.\u201d<\/p>\n Strong\u2019s plans were approved a month later, in spite of Haywood\u2019s vocal dissent during the council meeting \u2013 but these circumstances have been disputed.<\/p>\n Strong\u2019s husband, Dixie, said she would not comment because the matter was before court. Haywood also refused to talk.<\/p>\n DA spokesperson Jonathan Moakes said: \u201cThe DA does not discuss who does or does not contribute to the party. As a result, we are un-able to comment.\u201d<\/p>\n The Strongs co-own the fish-and-chips chain Snoekies. Dixie chaired Kauai\u2019s board until recently, and the board of HSBC Securities South Africa in the 1990s.<\/p>\n De Lille and the council have favoured the Strongs in three ways:<\/p>\n DA chairperson Demetri Qually dismissed Haywood\u2019s belated input and closed the meeting.<\/p>\n Qually told amaBhungane it would not have been legally permissible to discuss the matter further.<\/p>\n This was contradicted last week by the sub-council\u2019s ANC representative, Bheki Hadebe, who did not attend the meeting. Hadebe said further discussion would ordinarily have been allowed, and that the events pointed to strong \u201cdivisions\u201d among DA councillors.<\/p>\n Qually, Anstey and the DA\u2019s Dave Bryant filed statements under oath in the high court saying: \u201cHaywood did not express any opposition to the application.\u201d This seems incorrect.<\/p>\n AmaBhungane has seen emails from a city legal official to McCain\u2019s lawyer saying that officials had met and decided that the city would not oppose McCain \u2013 subject to De Lille\u2019s approval. It was unlikely De Lille would oppose, the official said.<\/p>\n All that was needed was De Lille\u2019s signature on top of five others, but the mayor held out for a month before instructing that the city must oppose. She defended her decision this week, saying it had nothing to do with the Strongs.<\/p>\n She said that, following advice from Smit, \u201cit was decided that it was most appropriate to defend the systems of a structure of council\u201d.<\/p>\n The investigation centres on a motion tabled by her immediately after the June 2014 meeting where Carol Strong\u2019s application was approved. Haywood motivated that the decision was \u201cerroneous\u201d and should be rescinded and reviewed.<\/p>\n But the councillors agreed to refer the matter to Smit to determine what action, if any, should be taken. It took him eight months to initiate an investigation, which seemed to focus on Haywood herself.<\/p>\n In his affidavit, Qually said: \u201cWhen councillor Haywood\u2019s \u2018motion to rescind\u2019 came before the speaker\u2019s office, there was a concern that [she] had transgressed the sub-council rules and code of conduct. As a result, KPMG was appointed to conduct a forensic investigation into her conduct in relation to the application and the motion she attempted\u00a0to introduce.\u201d<\/p>\n Smit added: \u201cI wish to make clear that the investigation, which I\u00a0have initiated, is related to [Haywood\u2019s] motion.\u201d<\/p>\n McCain\u2019s lawyer Sean Rosenberg said in court: \u201cIt is not at all apparent why the unfortunate Haywood should have been rounded on and be the subject of an investigation by\u00a0the speaker.\u201d<\/p>\n But last week Smit said: \u201cHaywood was not \u2018targeted\u2019 as an individual; \u2018other matters\u2019 were targeted.\u201d<\/p>\n He said her allegation that Anstey was biased towards the Strongs \u201cis currently under investigation and consideration\u201d.<\/p>\n * Got a tip-off for us about this story? Email [email\u00a0protected]<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n![](\"http:\/\/cdn.mg.co.za\/crop\/content\/images\/2015\/08\/20\/13dacouncillormargahaywood.jpg\/400x600\")
\nDA councillor Marga Haywood. (David Harrison, M&G)<\/em><\/p>\n\n
\n
![](\"http:\/\/cdn.mg.co.za\/content\/images\/2015\/08\/20\/dixiestrong.jpg\")
\nDixie Strong’s plans to rebuild their Bakoven house might have been biased. (David Harrison, M&G)<\/em><\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
\n
![](\"http:\/\/cdn.mg.co.za\/uploads\/2010\/07\/16\/amabhunganelogo2circlesmaller-708.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\n