News from
Residents’Association of
rahb@houtbay.org.za
www.houtbay.org.za
January
2008
The
Residents’ Association of
NEW APPLICATION
Erf 559 South of
Proposed Rezoning from Amenities to subdivisional area in order to permit the subdivision of
the site into 4 Single Residential and one Open Space zoned portion, by the
The planners who zoned the primary dune fields and beach precinct as
“Amenities” obviously intended that
one of
Apart from the apparent economic benefit to the Owners, there does not seem to be a very strong motive why the community at large should accede to the loss of vegetation and topographical forms resulting from the construction of these buildings.
As this is a vitally important matter, to save our dune system, we provide for your information, the full objection submitted by RAHB in March 2007 to this application, we hope you will do the same. New extended deadline for objections is 11 February 2008.
OBJECTION
Summary of Application: A proposal has been submitted on behalf of the owners (D Groep BV) in terms of Section 24 of the Land Use Planning Ordinance (LUPO), 1985 (Ordinance 15 of 1985) to rezone a 2.2 hectare erf from Amenities to Subdivisional Area in order to permit the subdivision of the site into four Single Residential erven and one Private Open Space.
The Residents’ Association of
1. Environmental Sensitivity:
This application may, on first appearance, seem to be a reasonable subdivision for such a relatively large site (2.2 hectares). However, closer examination reveals that the proposal is for a deep sandy site with high, very steep dunes and a wetland situated within the ‘dune field’ between Princess Street and the Hout Bay Beach not far from the Hout Bay River. As such, the residential hard development aspect of the proposal is not appropriate, particularly in view of the fact that this is a very environmentally-sensitive site as has been acknowledged in the various studies appended to the full application document (as apposed to the one page summary sent out by the Council).
We would draw your attention to the fact that this erf is situated in a
dune field between
Nonetheless, the
remaining beach ‘dune field’ (on which erf 559 is situated) is largely still intact and should be protected
from hard development. Princess
Street is now the logical boundary separating the developed residential area
from the existing dune field and beach, which, together, comprise a natural
entity that has, over the years, been identified as worthy of protection. The integrity of this entity is now being
seriously threatened.
Dune fields, by their
nature, are not stable but they can provide a natural and sustainable
protective buffer to the area inland of the beach and the predominating
south-east wind. These dunes here need
to be retained in tact as a natural amenity for all time, as not only do they form part of the essential
character of Hout Bay and provide an important ‘sense
of place’ (that will be lost should this proposed development and subsequent
ones be allowed), but also provide an environmental buffer protecting the
residential area, to a certain extent, from extreme wind and flying sand.
In other words, the remaining dune field constitutes an important natural interface between the beach and the residential area acting not only to absorb much of the energy and sand generated by the southeaster (which can blow onshore very intensely – as it has for the past few days - for days or even weeks at a time between September and April) and so pre-empt some of the costly day-to-day problems such as sand blocking drains, covering roads, etc., but also acting to maintain an aesthetic and environmental boundary heralding the beach area and creating the unique identity that makes Hout Bay the special place that it is. Such practically-useful and aesthetic qualities are worth conserving.
2. Precedents, differences and consequences of following suit
Hard development as proposed in this application would set a bad precedent for the area generally and others would follow it. This would inevitably result in the eventual destruction of the beach dune field – which would be most unfortunate.
It is important to bear in mind that the natural beauty of
The visual impact of the proposed development (and of others that would inevitably follow) will be considerable as the four large houses will be perched high on the dunes – they cannot go in the low land as that is a wetland (part of the original river delta) that is required to be conserved. And in any case, were they to be place lower down, the chances are that they would soon be covered in sand and/or water depending on the state of the weather.
Erf 559 is zoned Amenities,
which is in line with the
Other development in the area is used to
justify the rezoning and development of this erf. Below we wish to address these issues.
- The Beach Club (situated adjacent to this erf, between
it and the west bank of the
The inappropriateness of hard development on the Beach dune field has been clearly demonstrated by this unfortunate development (The Beach Club). Our Association has been quite closely involved with the residents here who have had endless problems with wind-blown sand piling up against and scouring their houses to such an extent that large window panes have had to be replaced at considerable cost and bulldozers used to remove the sand. Also, the solution being sought by the homeowners to alleviate the problem is costing hundreds of thousands of rand and is not environmentally desirable or sustainable, but rather is a ‘make do’ situation which should never have been allowed to arise in the first instance. The ‘solution’ being attempted (stabilization of the wind-/seaward land i.e. in the estuary and beach areas) is imposing on and compromising public open space – this is not appropriate (and certainly not desirable) as the requirements for the successful implementation of each development should be contained within its own erf.
A similar situation would develop for erf 559 which would also rely on the stabilization of the
/windward land, viz. the adjacent erf 3655 and the
beach itself. While one could argue that
they (developer/owners) will have brought it upon themselves and must bear the
consequences, we believe that the negative effects of allowing such
irresponsible development must be avoided as they effect the broader
environment, the infrastructure, and the sense
of place of this area, and thereby effect the public well-being and
eventually (by setting a precedent for further such development) the very
resource base and economy of the area. A bad precedent should not be repeated.
- Beach
edges: While
some of the edges of the Beach and its dune fields have been developed
(possibly not ideally, but it has been done), as precedents these are not
comparable as they are mostly situated on the interface between where hard
development exists and the beach/dune – e.g. the Old Yacht Club/Police Station
(now used for community uses), The Beach House, the development on Beach Road. The current proposal (559) is placing a hard
structure in and on dunes contained within a dune field. We cannot support such folly. When Beach Estate was being planned,
consultants were employed by Council to set out guidelines. None of
these were taken into account at the time by architects, nor were they enforced
by Council subsequently.
- The Old Yacht Club building is on public
land. There is reason to say that this building should never have been
built in this area next to the beach – the yacht club had continuous problems
with the dune building up next to it and having to cut it down periodically so
they could see the sea and not be covered by the dune (they eventually moved to
more suitable premises having wasted a lot on money on the building which then
became Council property) - presumably the problem continues. But at least
it is on the edge of the dune system and abuts the hard development coming from
the harbour precinct. Moreover there is
a hardened parking area to the east of it, essentially forming a substantial
interface separating it from the main beach dune field.
- The Beach House
is also in an interface area and not comparable with the current
proposal. It lies at the conflux of
- Small erven on map: We
are aware that on the maps provided with the full application document (Figures
2-6), there are a number of small erven marked on
the seaward side of
3. Context:
The applicant has tried to argue that the erf is part of an urban development area and, as such, they
imply that there is no good reason not to
develop it as proposed, and this argument is made in spite of the environmental sensitivities that are highlighted in
the various special reports that accompany the application! On the contrary, there is good reason to retain the status
quo, - the area is not a normal bit
a land available for development, it is an active dune field
which has never been successfully inhabited in past history (see Archaeological
report) and there is good reason for this.
It is not suitable for habitation
- and should never be inhabited but rather used as a buffer area which in
itself is an important amenity.
Previous approval in 1995 occurred during a period when there was a gap in civic
vigilance and when a ‘develop at all costs’ attitude pervaded the remnants of
the civic association of that time.
Fortunately this past ‘approval’ has lapsed and cognizance can now be
taken of the environmental context and the very negative precedents that have
been set nearby - see above - and there is now an opportunity to make sure
these mistakes are not repeated. Our
request to those in authority is that they use this opportunity effectively to
prevent any further hard development on the dunes.
4. Need and desirability:
As regards the need for the proposed rezoning and
development, there is no need
nor is it desirable from the public
perspective (it is desirable only from the financial perspective and gain of
the applicant). There is no need to support the development proposal
as there are many houses available in
We also draw your attention to the issue of need and desirability as it relates to rezoning and departures in terms of the relevant law, i.e. the Land Use Planning Ordinance (LUPO).
The High Court has recently given attention to the
proper interpretation of the provisions of section 36 of the Land Use
Planning Ordinance and has held that notwithstanding the double negative
wording in subsections (1) and (2) thereof, the provisions establish a positive
test. In other words the application must be refused unless it
can be said on an objective consideration that approving it will contribute positively to the amenities
currently enjoyed by the area under the generally applicable provisions
of the zoning scheme. See Hayes and
Another v Minister of Finance and development Planning,
7. Summary and
Conclusions
The City and the Province need to be aware that to approve this application (and to ignore the need for a full EIA should the proposal go further than this) would compromise the ecological integrity of the ‘dune fields’ and the coastal zone generally. The natural mobility of the dunes (vertically and horizontally) renders the area unsuitable for this sort of development. Approval of hard development will mean the piece-meal destruction of the dune fields and that would constitute a travesty of environmental justice.
The land was never intended for hard development. That it is zoned ‘Amenities’ does not give the owner automatic rights to have it rezoned to an inappropriate usage just because he/she wants to realize profits and because the land is in private ownership. The physical conditions of the land are clearly unsuitable for the proposed development, and approval (should it be recommended) will result in further applications in the same vein following suit, which would be very much in contradiction of the current national attempt to protect the coastal zone, as mentioned previously.
Here, again, we draw the City Council’s and the
Provincial Administration’s attention to the new Bill, the long-awaited
‘Integrated Coastal Management Bill’ soon to pass into law and designed to protect the vulnerable
coastal zone from exactly these sorts of developments thereby helping to stave
off the piece-meal erosion of natural coastal areas by rampant
development. Even the Financial Mail
(22 Dec 2006) draws attention to this new legislation saying “SA’s coast is a treasure and a new law makes sure
it stays that way”. We
therefore submit, that this application flies in the
face of this new legislation and, for all the above reasons, this Application should be refused
outright and without further wastage of time or delay. We therefore repeat:
In short, the
Residents’ Association of Hout Bay reserves the right
to legally challenge the City Council and the Provincial Administration should
they see fit to press ahead with this application without recognizing the need
to conduct a proper Environmental Impact Assessment with full public
participation so as to come to grips with the environmental sensitivities of
the application.
A request is hereby made that should this application come before the SPELUM Committee, or the Planning & General Appeals Committee, or the Sub-Council or Council Planning Committee (or a Provincial equivalent), that our Association be given the opportunity of a verbal interview with the said Committee. Should the recommendation by the Municipal Planners be in line with our recommendation, and should the applicant accept this, then we would withdraw our request for an interview after being informed about the issue. We also request that we be given timeous notice of the meeting and that a copy of the Municipal planners’ recommendation to Council (and any other relevant information including the applicant’s response to our comments) is posted to us in good time before the meeting so that our Committee has an opportunity to study and evaluate it.
The dunes should not be
compromised and subjected to hard development of any kind. The Beach Club have
had to suffer many consequences of development on the beach.
Comments and objections may be sent 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 Mrs. Dhilshaad Samaai. The general telephone number for the SPA is 710-8000.
Kronendal Farm folk – happy
ending!
Due to donations received, RAHB were able to pay R6000,00 for replaced cable kindly sent by Clive Mervis from Kwa Zulu Natal (at no cost for transport). Eskom came to the party and fitted the remaining cable to the pump and so water & irrigation has been restored to water the new bulbs, flowers & crops. A big thanks to our Members who came swiftly to the rallying call to donate freely and to Rotary, Social Community assistant Roy Graham for their donation and close working ties with RAHB to bring this matter to a successful conclusion – although the cable thieves have gone unpunished. The remainder of our funds amounting to R10 500,00 collected, has been paid into Rotary’s Bank a/c to be distributed to poor children to make a difference to their Xmas.
SOME MORE USEFUL TEL
NUMBERS
SA POLICE
Services: Main
Switch Board (office hours): 021-791
8660;
All hours Police Centre: 10111
All City emergency services 021 480 7700
City Fire fighting 107 or 021 480 7715
W
(R50 per couple, R30 per
individual)
Forms from
Chairperson or Library. Association’s Banking Details: FNB,
Subscriptions may be paid electronically (please
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
If you prefer, payment may also be dropped into our wooden box
at the Library (next to the Hall doors) or posted to our Post Office Box: 27031
Chairperson, Residents’ Assoc of
Tel: 790-0268, Email: lens@telkomsa.net