News from Residents’
Association of
rahb@houtbay.org.za
www.houtbay.org.za
January
2009
The
Inside Story on the Beach Club
The following letter was received by the RAHB from Bernard Oberholzer
and appeared in the Sentinel News in December:
“I am concerned about the letter in the Sentinel News from Richard
Walton of the City's Planning Office relating to the Beach Club development in
which he condemns the statement made by the Residents Association that the
development was approved "under a black cloud of public opposition".
This appears to be splitting hairs. If there was no black cloud of public
opposition, the development was certainly highly controversial at the time, and
officials at the former WCRSC would have known this.
As the author of the 1989 Hout Bay Beachfront Development Plan, and
consultant to the former WCRSC, I feel that it is important for residents of
When the proposal was first sent by the Council in 1993 to the then
Ratepayers Association for comment, they in turn asked me as an advisor to give
my input on the proposals. I spent several hours of my consulting time at no
charge to the Ratepayers preparing a memorandum listing many of the problems of
developing in the dynamic coastal zone of the
Officials of the former Council knew that it was a controversial site,
and personally told me at the time that they were disappointed at the letter from
the Ratepayers, as officials usually rely on public comment in their reports to
Council, and were hoping for something more substantial to address the serious
nature of the proposed development. The officials, in their concern, then
proceeded to brief me as a paid consultant to prepare guidelines for the Hout
Bay Beachfront, with particular reference to the Beach Club site. The
guidelines dealt with setbacks from the dunes and the river, as well as other
environmental and architectural controls. When I look at the Beach Club today,
I cannot see any correlation between the guidelines and the built development.
I can only guess at what happened to the guidelines.
The problems faced by the Beach Club today are legend, and could easily
have been predicted. When I last visited the site some years ago, 2 men were
permanently employed to remove the relentless wind-blown beach sand, not only
from the ground level, but from the upper balconies as well. More serious is
the hazard of major storm events. The development flies in the face of all the
wonderful principles and guidelines for the coastal zone that have been put out
by the Department of Environmental Affairs, the Province and the City of
Furthermore, the site was previously zoned for "Amenity" uses,
the main purpose of which was to provide for coastal related recreation
facilities for the public and perhaps some rentable holiday accommodation and
ideally not for private luxury apartments, although this is difficult when the
land is privately owned.
Finally, on a more general note, most of the information is available
today to map areas prone to storm hazards, coastal erosion, flooding, rock
falls, veld fires, sensitive habitats etc. Is it not time that these maps were
put on the walls of the City Council so that decision-makers are well informed,
as well as in municipal libraries, so that developers and estate agents cannot
say that they did not know? Rather than splitting hairs about who said what, we
should be more concerned about ensuring that the approval of plans does not put
people's lives and property at risk, or which compromise our natural heritage.”
Bernard Oberholzer
Landscape Architect and Environmental Planner
The
Coastal Protection Zone (CPZ)
The Coastal Protection Zone will be presented
to the City in February. It outlines the Cost vs Benefit and what it will cost
the City if developments continue as they do at present. The question of where
the decision making and liability lie will be of interest as some Developers
already talk of making major claims on the City for damages. The CPZ “defines
aspects where existing developments & buildings already are and shouldn’t
be, for example
Noise
Pollution
Business in a residential area
Noise pollution
within the
According to Shaun Graham Smith, the Noise Nuisance By-law defines a
noise nuisance as being any sound which impairs or may disturb or impair the
convenience of peace of any person. No noise measurements are needed, but a
sworn complaint is required.
Imizamo Yethu Shebeens
Christmas and New
Year are a busy time for shebeens and this past festive season has been no exception. The noise pollution created by loud music
emanating from IY has gone unaddressed for years. Local resident Tessa Timms writes:
“Every weekend and on
a great many weekday evenings the loud music is blasted across the
was a similar occurrence
when the music played until 2am in the morning.
For residents who
wish to live a quiet and peaceful existence, life is becoming intolerable. It is not reasonable to expect law abiding
citizens to have to endure the continuous loud and unwanted noise that blasts from
loudspeakers in Imizamo Yethu
towards our home, night after night, weekend after weekend.”
The RAHB supports the
efforts to control the noise pollution we are currently exposed to by illegal
shebeen operators. Chairman, Len Swimmer
advises residents
“It's not the SA
Police that deal with this City of
This means that
residents need to go to the Police Station and sign a sworn affidavit with the
name and address of the shebeen. Len Swimmer suggests residents ask SAPS for
the names and addresses of the offending shebeens prior to obtaining the
affidavit. Residents are then asked to
lodge their affidavit with Law Enforcement on Fax 021 7108219 in order for them
to then apply the law and enforce noise pollution compliance. The Association strongly encourages residents
to follow the required procedure in order for Law Enforcement to apply the rule
of law.
News Update:
Redevelopment of
Sites in IY
The following
document has been sent to Interested & Affected Parties registered for the
redevelopment of IY.
“The City of
The properties,
measuring about 19 hectares in total, consist of Site 1 (next to Hughenden
Estate), Site 2 (occupied by the Old Fire Station) and Site 3 (next to the YMCA
and Penzance Estate).
In November 2007,
several legislative processes were initiated.
These included an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), a land use
application and the amendment of a proclamation in terms of the Less Formal
Township Establishment Act (LEFTEA).
What has happened to date?
The EIA and its
associated public engagement process was initiated in
April 2008 with the publication of a Basic Information Document (BID)
containing four potential development alternatives.
Members of the public
registered as Interested and Affected Parties (I&APs) and took part in the
process.
During May and June
2008, public comments on the four alternatives were incorporated into a Draft
Basic Assessment report, which was advertised for public review.
This was followed by
a series of Focus Group meetings and an Open House meeting to which I&APs
were invited to provide further inputs.
All comments were incorporated into a draft issues trail report, and are
to be responded to within the Final Basic Assessment Report.
What happens next?
It was evident from
the public feedback that a fifth development alternative was needed to address
key issues raised by I&APs.
The City is thus
expediting the following steps:
Next phase of public engagement
A second phase of
public engagement is thus planned for early 2009 to refine the preferred
development alternative.
This will include a
further round of Focus Group meetings and an Open House meeting. Thereafter the City will re-advertise the
public review of the Final Basic Assessment Report (30 days), its intention to
amend the LEFTEA proclamation, and its land use application.
The preferred
development option will then be submitted to the appropriate decision makers.
The City wishes to
thank the public most sincerely for their constructive engagement and valuable
input towards the securing of a positive development outcome for Imizamo Yethu
and Hout Bay.”
The RAHB received a letter from Don and Judy Jepson following an
unpleasant incident accessing the start of a hike on
“We are keen mountaineers and enjoy starting our hikes early in order to
avoid the summer heat. A favourite hike right on our doorstep is the Chapmans
Peak route which starts at the last bend before the 'look out' point (where one
has to turn back under the current 'day pass' system).
Unfortunately, we have had numerous bad experiences at the toll
where, because the toll is not open at the agreed upon time i.e. 6am, we have
to travel on the opposite side of the road to gain access to the route that we
wish to hike. On a number of occasions we have found the toll to be closed even
at 8am, as we did this morning.
We are then subjected to various forms of petty 'rules' such as
having to reverse back to the 'office' to fetch a pass, or being told to drive
out on the wrong side of the road. Needless to say, this transforms a relaxing
excursion on the mountain to an unpleasant experience having to deal with the
petty bureaucracy.”
A
Big Thank You
The RAHB would like
to thank SAPS, LEA, Neighbourhood Watch, Watchcon, CERT, Surf Rescue, Metro,
Fire Department and NSRI for all their work over the festive season keeping our
Valley safe and responding to the accidents that did occur. The professionalism and dedication of these
organizations and its members is appreciated.
(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: