News from
Residents’Association of Hout Bay
PO Box 27031, Hout Bay, 7872
rahb@houtbay.org.za
www.houtbay.org.za
May 2006
The
Residents’ Association of Hout Bay held its AGM on Monday evening, May 08, with
Albert Schuitmaker, Executive Director, Cape Town Regional Chamber of Commerce
and Industry, as the guest speaker. What
follows is an abridged text of the Chairman’s Annual Report:
Once again our AGM gives us an opportunity to reflect on our activities over the past few years, especially this last year, and to look forward to the coming year, bearing in mind our Vision and Mission statements, which are based on the original reasons for founding the Association 10 years ago!
Our Vision is to inform, encourage and activate the community
of Hout Bay for the common good; and our Mission Statement is to
generate public awareness in order to harness the energy of the community for
action, and to provide community-based information to decision-makers for the
betterment of Hout Bay.
Within these broad guidelines, and within the confines of being a Community-Based Organization with no real decision-making power, our Association acts so as to bring issues of community concern to the attention of the Authorities (and the Public) by way of the various public participation mechanisms available. In this way we can sometimes influence official decisions.
Our areas of involvement can be grouped roughly into two interlinking sectors, which are the social and the physical components of community life.
Firstly, our social concerns include health and community development, and safety and security.
Here I would like to make special mention of Professor Cecil Bloch, who has represented us in this area for many years on various fora, including the Health Forum, the Community Policing Forum, and others as they come and go. Cecil has involved himself in many projects, including the Clinic, the Aids Clinic, Disability pensions, Rotary projects bringing medical supplies from overseas by the container-load (!) and even bringing a small fire-engine from England to Hout Bay so it could work more effectively, than our normal big engines, in the more confined areas of Imizamo Yethu!
Cecil was our Founding Chairman and, today on our 10th anniversary, it is fitting that we pay a very special tribute to him for the many contributions he has made over the years, but especially for the moral fibre with which this association has been built. On many occasions Cecil has spoken out on what he believes to be the right thing to do (and we acknowledge him for this), and he has provided unfailing support, guidance and encouragement to our committee and the Association, both as chairperson and as ordinary ExCo member. We are sad to announce, this evening, that Cecil and Sue have sold their Hughendon home of many years, and are moving to Noordhoek later this month where they will be closer to one of Cecil’s sons.
We are fortunate that the safety and security portfolio was passed on to Brad Geyser and Sandra Maquire earlier this year. Brad is a sector leader for the Neighbourhood Watch and also a key pin in the NSIR. Clearly the Watch has made a significant difference to the crime situation in Hout Bay, and we are pleased that many of our members are doing regular duties – but more people are needed to make sure that this fine effort is sustained. Please encourage others to ‘do their bit’.
The Community Policing Forum, has also made progress on the other front, which addresses the more fundamental issues underlying crime and breakdown in law-enforcement in Hout Bay with regard to the development of Imizamo Yethu, and the resultant impacts on the community and the environment. A legal letter was sent on 19 April, by CPF chairperson, Margo Hayward, with Sinethemba Civic Association representing the interests of the original beneficiaries, detailing issues of concern and giving government (local, provincial and national government) 20 days to respond and explain their plans and strategies for Hout Bay and Imizamo Yethu.
And now, our concerns associated more with the Physical environment:
As many of you know, our Association puts considerable effort into planning and environmental issues, which lay the foundations for the well being of the community. These involve land-use and development, spatial planning, roads, engineering, building and signage regulations, and environmental conservation. These considerations are particularly relevant to Hout Bay where space is at more and more of a premium, infrastructures (especially roads) are overloaded, the cumulative effects of continuous ad hoc development are ignored, and the policy of densification is being applied indiscriminately.
Environmental conservation: Hout Bay is blessed with more than its ‘fair share’ of beauty; a ‘rural’ valley flanked by mountains, edged by the sea, with a river connecting the two. Such bounty leaves us, the residents, with more than our ‘fair share’ of responsibility - to protect our incredible natural (and cultural) environment for the benefit of current and future generations.
We were delighted when Dr Justin O’Riain joined our team last year, complementing efforts by Xandrine Semple who continues to keep her ear to the ground on matters environmental. Dr Justin O’Riain is involved in the local Working on Wetlands project and has focussed his energies on wetland and beach-related issues.
Of special mention here is the controversial interface between ‘The Beach Club’ development on the west bank of the estuary, and the beach itself. The very windy conditions prevailing during this past summer have caused havoc for the Beach Club residents by piling sand amongst the houses to such an extent that they used bulldozers to get rid of accumulated piles of sand. But, in doing so, they seem to have dumped rubble along with the sand onto the adjacent beach. They removed the rubble after we registered a complaint with the Provincial Dept of Environmental Affairs and the Municipality. This eventually led to the Beach Club homeowners convening a meeting with Council officials and local associations in an attempt to solve their problem of shifting sands. The homeowners have employed a specialist consultant to research the problem and draw up a plan of action, which was presented last month. In essence, they plan to stabilize the adjacent dune areas with appropriate vegetation and periodically remove excess sand before it gets in amongst the houses. The estimated cost of doing this seemingly simple plan is about R250 000 (!) the cost of which is to be shared amongst the 18 homeowners. [One of them told us that he also had to replace his windows and doors because the glass had been pitted so badly that he could hardly see out of them!] The homeowners are keen to get our co-operation because 250 grand is a lot of money to spend and they want all parties to agree to a plan of action.
The fundamental problem here is, that the development should not have been allowed there in the first place, and that further development in this area should be avoided. The existing hard development has interfered with the movement of the mouth of the river in an unacceptable manner – normally this river mouth should be left to meander over a swath of about 500-600 metres or more – it will be interesting to monitor this development for sustainability because the forces of Nature will inevitably take their toll in time – the wind, the sand, river floods, sea storms, and sea-level rise – the question being ‘when and how’ rather than ‘if’. Nature’s forces will win in the end, but at what cost?
Planning: Applications to Council for rezoning, departures from land-use regulations, subdivisions, leases, EIAs, etc. – a mammoth task, are dealt with by a Sub-Committee, the core of which consist of Norman Briggs, Penny Brown and myself.
Of particular relevance here, is the fact that Hout Bay’s unique natural and cultural heritage provides the basic resource on which our economy hinges and, as such, must be protected in the interests of sustainable development.
The infamous example of the small Spanish coastal
village of Benidorm bears some comparison.
This was a lovely little fishing village bounded by mountains and the
sea, with a population of about 2000 people; rather like Hout Bay some years
ago! A development process was
inadvertently set in motion without sufficient curbs, and now Benidorm is a
concrete jungle that is so over-developed that people don’t want to go there any
more as it has lost the charm that originally brought them there! We want to avoid this scenario. However, some people think that we are on the
same slippery slope - a recent Sentinel News headline “Welcome to Concrete
Bay,” says it all!
The question of ‘how far on this path have we
gone?’- is not so easy to answer, because once processes are set in motion and
bad precedents are used to justify further unwise development, it is almost
impossible to pull back, as the ‘development momentum’ rolls on regardless. This can happen quite easily, particularly
when good people stand back and do nothing.
Also, quite often, people don’t want to be seen as ‘spoilers’ – stopping
others from doing what they ‘want to do’!
We believe, however, that our prime function as a civic association is
that of ‘watchdog’; to draw urgent attention to situations or applications
which will lead to (now or later) unsustainable practices and situations where
infrastructure and environment will be compromised to the disadvantage of the
community.
So what do we
do?
While realizing that developers play a valuable role
in society in providing the engines for the development of cities and towns, we
also realize that they do need to be curbed to a certain extent, particularly when the development is not
sustainable, or when the necessary infrastructure is not available (or potentially available) or when the
development is just not desirable and does not fit into the plans for the
area.
Hout Bay has long since being declared a ‘special
area’ due to its unique circumstances, its physical restraints (like the
difficulty of access), and its natural attributes which have been acknowledged
as worth conserving, including its ‘rural’ ambiance.
Currently many developers are virtually given carte blanche to do more or less what
they want because they are perceived to be the providers of jobs and agents of
city ‘densification’. While jobs are
obviously important to communities, job provision is not an appropriate reason
to allow or dis-allow a proposed development.
The recent Council obsession with ‘densification at all costs’ stems
from the reasonable realization by the Urban Edge studies that densification of
cities is desirable in that it can
help curb ‘urban sprawl’ into valuable farmlands and sensitive natural
areas. We understand this. The Metropolitan Spatial Development
Framework (MSDF) applied this principle sensibly, by advising that
densification be first encouraged along the major arterial routes where
infrastructure is available and the need to densify is greatest.
Hout Bay was never even considered as a target area
for densification, but developers were quick to pick up on the idea because
they used it as justification for rezonings, departures, sub-divisions, etc.
because the financial pickings are much greater here than on the Cape Flats,
for example, where the need for development is much greater and more
desirable.
The Council, on the other hand, should have been the
appropriate ‘curb’, but the majority on the recent Spatial, Planning,
Environment, Land Use Management committee (SPELUM) was so mesmerized by the
idea of more and more rates to pay for their many schemes and salaries, that it
seems they were only too happy to “pass all applications in the name of
densification”. They applied a “one
scheme fits all” policy and ignored the essence of the local plans, development
frameworks, policies, etc. as well as the desirability within the local context
and whether the infrastructure had the potential to cope.
Within the course of this year (together with other
concerned local groups), we hope to meet with the city authorities, and
hopefully the Mayor and Councillors for Planning, Environment, Infrastructure,
etc to discuss these issues. We would
hope to find some way forward for Hout Bay in terms of planning, to perhaps
update the structure plan and develop some sort of ‘growth management
plan’which would allow development, but limit it according to the restraints of
the area.
Currently, the new SPELUM committee has not been
formed so there has been a halt in the processing of applications. This is a problem in that it will cause
backlogs to build up. However, it is
more important the Council’s officials and politicians get to grips with
existing policies and establish sensible densification policy so that
reasonable decision-making can take place instead of the disastrous ad hoc or ‘one size fits all’ mode of
decision-making that the previous SPELUM had adopted by default.
Signage: At a different level, signage pollution is an issue, which has received quite a lot of attention during the last two years especially with the advent of the new regulations. Mary Brodziak has been working to make sure that the by-laws are adhered to, aided, more recently by Norman Briggs. Two large signs in Victoria Road (advertising the Kronendal Retirement Village) were removed by Council in April, only to reappear. Investigation revealed that the allegations by some estate agents, that permits had been obtained from the Council, were not true. It transpires that the developer of this property had originally applied for permission to erect a large sign but this had been rejected by the Council. The Council official responsible for signage has indicated that no permits were issued for these signs, nor will be, and notice will be served on the estate agents concerned to remove them. Under a recent Council Bye-Law it is an offence to erect any obtrusive sign on the scenic routes of Hout Bay and there is zero tolerance on this policy. Likewise notice was served on another agent to remove a mobile advertising board in Main Road after a second offence involving the advertising board. This type of advertising, while contravening the Law, is also pollutive and if not eliminated will transform Hout Bay into an area more resembling Miami Beach.
I
wish to thank ExCo for their dedication and hard work this last year and hope
that they’ll be active for years to come.
We always need help, however, and ask more residents to get involved.
Many thanks also to all who have helped us in one way or another Working as a
team there is no limit to what we can achieve.
Len
Swimmer
Chairperson
Erf 1120, Beach Crescent. Proposed rezoning and departures. (1) Application for rezoning from single to general residential to permit a block of 12 flats. (2) Application for departures from zoning scheme to allow a 17% increase in coverage from 30% to 35% and to allow 3 instead of 2 storeys and (3) application for departure for the lateral building line from 6 or 4,5 to 4m. Deadline was 15 May 06. We have opposed this application on a number of issues.
Erf 122, 147 Victoria Avenue. Application for removal of restrictive title conditions and conditional use. The applicant wishes to encroach the Title Deed building line and operate a crèche. In terms of the Removal of Restrictions Act, Act 84 of 1967, the Law is very specific and states that this should not be for the benefit of the Applicant but for the Public at large. We have no problem with a crèche per se but have in principle objected to this proposal. Deadline was 15 May 06.
Erf 8622 Lilford Road. Proposed land use departure to permit the operation of a guesthouse. Deadline Fri 2 June 06
Erf 4558 Saddlers Row. Appeal against SPELUM decision to allow subdivision.
We have not yet received the documents but have been alerted by an adjoining neighbour. We will submit an Appeal. Deadline has passed but no notification was served on us therefore process will be delayed further until our documentation is received.
Council: Comments and
objections may be sent (before the specified deadline in each case) to: The
Municipal Manager, Urban and Environmental Services, South Peninsula Admin,
City of Cape Town, Private Bag X5, Plumstead 7801 or faxed to 021 710-8283
(tel.-8202); attention Mr. M. Barnes.
The general telephone number for the SPA is 710-8000.
DEADP: Comments to be sent to Dept of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning: Directorate Integrated Environmental Management, Region B1, Private Bag X9086 Cape Town 8000 or fax to 483-3098 (tel. -2700 for Environment and -4789 for Planning) in time to arrive by the deadline.
Please
remember that your subscriptions
were due on at the beginning of March 2006.
They may be paid electronically (use your full name as a reference on
the payment – to ensure that we correctly credit your membership as this
information appears on our Bank Statement.
Banking Details: First National Bank, Hout Bay Branch (branch
code 204 009), Account name - Residents Association of Hout Bay, Account Number
– 5345 1027 173
Chairperson, Residents’ Assoc of Hout Bay
Tel: 790-0268, Email: lens@telkomsa.net
(R50
per couple, R30 per individual)
Forms from Chairperson or Library.
May 2006