houtbay.org.za

Home

Supplement to Hout & About

SPELUM Minutes 2009/10/14

Fires in Imizamo Yethu

About Hout Bay

RAHB Vision and Mission

Rates

Signage

RAHB Newsletters

RAHB Submissions

ExCo Minutes

RAHB ExCo Portfolios

RAHB Membership Form

RAHB Contact Details

Submit a message online

Hout Bay Information and Links

City Parks Mowing and Maintainance Program

Topics covered in the July 2010 Hout & About

• Len’s Lines: A message from the Chairperson
• How rate changes will hit you
• Are we facing a water shortage?
• A proven need for additional schools in Imizamo Yethu
• Premier and Mayor meet with London Mayor
• Right of access to Hout Bay beach via Mariners’ Wharf car park
• A warning to cyclists
• Ongoing controversy over ‘The Breakers’
• To join the Residents Association
• Success at 4 Barry Road, Penzance
• Fire at Imizamu Yethu

Click here to read ...

When taking the high ground can be a hazard

by Erik Shaug of Afrikom Strategic Communications (published in the Cape Times on Monday 5 October 2009)

The recent rainy season in the Cape led to the flooding of low-lying informal settlements. It seems that informal settlements, or any low-cost housing projects, should be built anywhere but in low-lying areas. Areas which are level, or nearly level, and slightly elevated, are preferable.

Building them on a sloping site can cause even more serious difficulties. After all, if you build houses up on stilts, as they do in many places in the East, seasonal flooding does not cause too much of a problem in low-lying areas.

The Residents' Association of Hout Bay thinks that the problems of Imizamo Yetu in Hout Bay - built on a slope - are so serious that it is planning to bring court action because no proper sewerage system is planned for the development. The consequence is an extreme health hazard to residents as well as the surrounding community.

In the Cape Peninsula, much of the most expensive housing is built on sloping sites, because of the splendid views you get from them. Only the rich can afford such sites, not only because they are sought after by other rich people, but because the cost of building is significantly higher.

If you want to build a house on a sloping site you have to level the ground, which means expensive retaining walls or banks. Road access has to take the slope into account, which could mean zig-zagging the road so that it doesn't get too steep. This is expensive, as it uses up more space and, like the sites, involves retaining walls or banks.

Water supply might need a reservoir at a high point, with a pump to get the water up to it.

Sewers also have their difficulties on sloping sites: sewer pipes only operate successfully if they are at an acceptable angle, not too shallow and not too steep.

These technical problems significantly increase the cost of housing for the poor on sloping sites, which means that fewer poor people can get housing.

Every so often Imizamo Yethu (IY) finds itself in the news. The problem is ongoing slow-motion environmental disasters. And the primary physical cause behind them is the steeply sloping mountainside that IY is built upon.

The council's latest development scheme for the lower slopes of Imizamo Yethu includes 1 100 two- and three-storey flats. The geotechnical survey for the area revealed that there was a lot of unstable detritus to a depth of 3m, and a lot of clay - this is in addition to the problems of sloping ground.

This means that the foundations will have to be special: expensive piles would need to be driven, and structural ground beams constructed, as well as the retaining walls or banks for the necessary levelling.

Professional estimates of the cost of building these flats make for startling reading. Each flat would be only 40m2, and its construction would be very basic: cement blocks, vinyl floors, steel windows. The cost of each, taking into account the cost of site preparation, would be in the order of R250 000.

That's why only the rich can afford to build on sloping sites. One might argue that the poor should not be discriminated against, but there is a finite amount of money available for their housing.

Spending a quarter of a million rands on each dwelling for the poor on a sloping site means that the poor elsewhere will not get houses until much later.

This is contrary to the principle of "the greatest good for the greatest number".

At the highest point of Imizamo Yethu is a large cluster of about 1 100 shacks, known as Dontse Yakhe.

A few years ago it was discovered that some residents had been pouring their sewage into what they thought was a sewer; only it turned out to be a stormwater drain.

Others in Dontse Yakhe had forgone this procedure, and used a nearby tract of the mountainside as a huge public toilet. Whenever it rained heavily, this sewage poured down through peoples' properties - including other residents of IY - en route to the Disa River, where the stormwater drain also discharged.

The consequences were dire. In 2006 Dr Justin O'Riain, together with Stellenbosch University epidemiologist Dr Jo Barnes, tested a sample of water from the river . The safe maximum E coli count per 100cc is 300; anything over this figure is considered dangerous. The analysis revealed a staggering 9 billion. Subsequent samples taken each year since then show that very high levels persist.

Because Dontse Yakhe is so high up, there is not enough water pressure available to provide proper toilets, so ward councillor Marga Haywood arranged for 1 100 chemical cartridge toilets to be delivered to the residents free of charge.

Each household would receive a toilet plus two cartridges; every two weeks council workers would collect the full cartridge and replace it with a new one.

After about a month the council workers reported that only about 50 cartridges had been exchanged. It turned out that most of the residents of Dontse Yakhe are Ovambos, and they said that using toilets, chemical or waterborne, was against their culture and traditions, and that they would therefore continue to use the nearby mountainside for their ablutions.

In the latest proposal for the development of Imizamo Yethu, the council has come up with a scheme to deal with this. A detention pond would be constructed on the lower slopes, near the Hout Bay Main Road.

Detention ponds normally serve to retain the large amount of water which accumulates in an area whenever there's a lot of rain. It is then gradually discharged into the stormwater disposal system.

But this would be a detention pond with a difference: on the drawings it is identified as a "dual purpose detention pond (stormwater cleansing)".

What is meant by this is that it would also deal with the informal sewage problem of Imizamo Yethu. During the first heavy rains of winter, when summer's accumulation of human faeces washes down from the upper slopes, it would be collected in the pond as a "first flush", and discharged into the sewage system. Subsequent "flushes", bearing a reduced amount of faeces, would be discharged into the Disa River.

The idea of retention ponds being used for the disposal of human faeces is not only disquieting, it is against building regulations. The National Building Regulations (Part P3: Control of Objectionable Discharge) states:

1. No person shall on any site cause or permit any sewage to enter -
1. any street, stormwater drain, stormwater sewer or excavated or constructed watercourse; or
2. subject to the Water Act, 1956 (Act No 54 of 1956), any river, stream or natural watercourse whether ordinarily dry or otherwise.
2. No person shall cause or permit stormwater to enter any drainage installation on any site.

So the idea of collecting the "first flush" of faeces-laden stormwater of the rainy season in a detention pond and then discharging it into the sewer system would be a contravention of the regulations.

The subsequent collection of stormwater from the same source later in the rainy season and discharging it into the stormwater system (which discharges into the Disa River) would also be a contravention, as those who habitually use the open mountainside as a public toilet are not going to stop doing so after the first rains.

This might raise an interesting legal issue. The squatters who occupy Dontse Yakhe are doing so illegally. If the council were to go ahead with their plan to accommodate the traditions and culture of Ovambos in contravention of the National Building Regulations, it might be argued that they were giving tacit permission to stay - and continue using the slopes of the mountain as a mega public toilet.

The slope of the land in IY, combined with gravity, hydraulics and unacceptable human behaviour, is causing an environmental disaster. It should be stopped.

Which is what the Hout Bay Residents' Association intends to do. Chairman Len Swimmer states that the residents of Dontse Yakhe are there illegally, as the area they occupy is outside the demarcated area of Imizamo Yethu.

In a letter sent to the City of Cape Town and the Provincial Administration of the Western Cape the association says: "We contend that this land is not intended to be used as an informal settlement, and as owners of the unlawfully occupied land, we urgently request you to comply with the zoning scheme of the Land Use Planning Ordinance and remove the informal settlers off your land."

Swimmer attributes the lack of progress so far to "inaction by senior city officials and their consultants who appear to have been either hamstrung by lack of political will or unwillingness in themselves to act firmly".

Goodman Ngwangwa, chairman of the Sinethemba Civic Association in Imizamo Yethu, expresses the plight of those who live below Dontse Yakhe:

"The sewerage and drain water from Donste Yakhe pours down our streets and makes us sick. "We agreed that we would not have any new informal settlements, but Donste Yakhe is exactly like a new informal settlement. Nothing is being done about the difficulties caused by so many people living without services that affect us and people living in Hughenden and in Penzance."

He goes on to say: "We want and need progress in Imizamo Yethu badly. We do not want to hold up the development, but the behaviour of the officials - their neglect of us, the way they ignore our councillor and ward committee and the way they always find reasons for not doing something instead of using their skills for which they were employed to solve problems - makes us distrustful".

If the council and the province don't respond satisfactorily, the residents' association intends to take the matter to the high court, alleging contravention of the National Environment Management Act and of the Land Use Planning Ordinance.

Land Use Complaint Form

Here you can download a very useful form for residents to complain about illegal land use and nuisance caused. Please ensure your complaint is copied to Anita.Fabe@capetown.gov.za

Right click on the link of the desired version and select "Save Target as..." in the drop down menu.

MS Word version which can be completed elctronically

PDF version which can be printed out and completed by hand

REPORT TO THE JUNE 2009 CBRRA AGM ON THE POSSIBLE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE WIEHAHN OUDEKRAAL PROPERTIES

This report was filched from the excellent Camps Bay Ratepayers Association's website: http://campsbayratepayers.blogspot.com/

BACKGROUND

“The Oudekraal property on the western slopes of Table Mountain is one of the top handful of undeveloped urban land parcels anywhere in the world and its future is a matter of international and not just local concern”. So stated the Argus newspaper on 5 June 2009 after a recent meeting held by a possible Developer with important conservationalists and stakeholders.

This pristine property, with the exception of the Oudekraal Hotel, between the southern border of Camps Bay and the northern boundary of Llandudno, is owned by Mr. Kasper Wiehahn. He has been involved in litigation against the Cape Town City Council for many years in an attempt to enable him to develop them after his father’s applications to do so were turned down in the 1950s on technicalities and the presence of Muslim graves.

At present, Mr. Wiehahn has appealed to the Supreme Court to have judgments in previous court cases against him overturned and this case is currently still ongoing.

Recently, Mr. Wiehahn has entered into an agreement with a Developer, Property Promotions and Management (Pty) Ltd, that it be given an option to purchase all the erven, regardless of the outcome of the present court case, should it consider the properties financially viable to develop.

Whereas Mr, Wiehahn is bound by the agreement to sell, depending on the price offered being acceptable, the Developer can elect not to make an offer to purchase, should he find that the financial feasibility is not favourable or public reaction is insuperable.

To this end, the potential Developer has been given permission by Mr. Wiehahn’s company, Oudekraal Estates, to make an environmental investigation of the site and examine all the issues and characteristics thereof. It is currently appointing expert consultants over a wide range of disciplines to complete a preliminary report to enable the Developer to decide as to whether to invest a considerable mount of risk capital to convince it of its feasibility and possibility.

5 JUNE 2009 NON-PUBLIC MEETING WITH INVITED STAKEHOLDERS

To this end, Messrs. Doug Jeffery Environmental Consultants, acting for the Developer, held a meeting with important invited stakeholders and conservationalists on 4 June 2009 to brief them and to obtain an initial reaction from them. CBRRA was invited as a stakeholder.

The Consultants stressed that no development plans were on the table, that no formal statutory EIA study or application process for development had started and that over the next six months the Developer would concentrate on a range of specialist studies on issues like flora, fauna, geology, water, heritage and Muslim graves existing on the sites.

The whole area was divided into seven sub-erven, each with agricultural zoning with one single dwelling being permitted on each sub-erf.

The Wiehahns had applied for the development of the 44 hectare sub-erf (Portion 7) nearest to Camps Bay being developed into a township, which had been disallowed by the Council.

This information gathering initiative was aimed at gathering sufficient baseline material to see whether any of the total 370 hectares were suitable for possible development.

After completion of the technical report, the Developer would then take a decision on whether and how to proceed or not. The Developer had the right not to take up its option if it so decided.

The meeting cautioned the Developer that there could be massive opposition to any development on the site, even if the specialist studies did indicate that development was feasible and it was not a logical conclusion that development would automatically follow a positive environmental report.

Furthermore, the invited audience also advised the Developer that their presence at these meetings did not bind them to the support of any development, regardless of their advice as to whether the site was suitable for development or not.

THE FUTURE

The Environmental Consultants hope to have the environmental report finished before the end of this year (2009) and in due course, CBRRA hopes to bring their presentation of the report to one of our future public meetings.

This meeting, therefore will not be asked to vote on what it thinks should or should not be done on the site. This will be left to future meetings once the whole investigatory process is further down the line or is completed. A full public participation process has been promised should the Developer decide to proceed with a proposal in due course.

As the closest stakeholder to the site, CBRRA is determined to keep a careful watching brief on all stages of the present investigatory process and will keep its public fully informed every step along the way.

John Powell

CBRRA

Let's get Chappies back! Protest march Sunday 19 April 2009

For a video report of the Chapman's Peak Protest March click on the 790tv logo below.

Sibanye Township Restaurant, Imizamo Yethu

Sibanye-Restaurant hopes to create a comfortable, safe and intriguing meeting place where people can connect through their diversity, irrespective of pigment, nationality or belief.

Come and join us for a meal of tasty, traditional, African cuisine, in our authentically designed restaurant, and experience this one of a kind ...

"South African Township Experience".

For more details visit Sibanye's website at http://www.sibanye-restaurant.com/

Great Coffee!

The Friends of Hout Bay Library have opened a small coffee shop at the Library. This is ably run by Audrey and Bernadette of Imizamo Yethu. As 50% profit shareholders, Audrey and Bernadette welcome you to join them for breakfast, or a coffee or tea and a delicious sandwich or muffin. The shop is open between 10am and 5pm every day and Saturday until 1pm. There is a heater (in winter) and comfortable chairs to make your experience cosy. Please support this fantastic local initiative that is creating employment and also supporting our local library.

Ethnic B&B

For a once in a life-time ethnic experience why not stay over at Veronica's B&B in the Coloured Fishing Community Village of Hout Bay. The cost is R250 per person for bed & breakfast. Dinner can also be prepared.   For bookings telephone Veronica: +27 21 790 3331 in the evening.

This website has been established by the Residents' Association of Hout Bay with the intention to serve the community of Hout Bay by providing

• a source of information, or links to information, of use and interest to residents of Hout Bay
• an index of links to non-commercial or non-profit organizations of relevance to Hout Bay
• a diary of social and cultural events in Hout Bay and surrounding areas