News from Residents’
Association of
rahb@houtbay.org.za
www.houtbay.org.za
March
2009
Operation Outreach - Let Us Help Each Other
The Hughenden top gate access to Imizamo
Yethu and Dontse Yakhe (informal settlement) is soon about to be
upgraded. This valuable improvement will
ensure greater security for Hughenden residents, halt the deterioration of the
road surface and improve access for Emergency services to access the upper
areas of the informal settlement especially in the event of fire.
In order to carry out this work, 35 informal shacks
built on
The City has allocated 35 pre fabricated cement BRU’s
(basic residential units) for those requiring relocation. The existing neighbours in
This is an
opportunity for us to work together towards the common goal of an improved
living environment whilst putting aside our disparate socio-economic
backgrounds and cultures in attempt to solve some of the very basic problems we
face in Hout Bay.
CPD ... The Road Less Travelled
Developments in respect of
On the 15th
of February the Premier’s Office announced a high level investigation into Chapman’s Peak Drive Toll Road and the Public Private
Partnership between the Western Cape Provincial Government and Entilini
Concessions (Pty) Ltd.
The Premier appointed
a task team comprising Joey Pillay and Terence Arendse of the Western Cape
Provincial Treasury; Hannes
Mouton of the Department of Transport and Public Works; and William Dachs and
James Aiello of the National Treasury PPP Unit, to be supported by financial,
geotechnical and legal consultants, and a representative from the office of the
Auditor-General.
The team’s mandate is to carry out a
comprehensive review of the project including, the PPP Agreement, Toll
revenues, traffic flows, an assessment of the financial transactions on the
project to date and Contract management processes and procedures of the
Provincial Government.
The estimated completion date is 31 March 2009.
In response, the RAHB together with nine other civic organizations
submitted an Open Letter to the Premier dated 18 February (quoted in full
below).
Dear Hon. Premier Brown,
We welcome your call for an enquiry into the
operation of
Our concerns centre on the composition of the
board of enquiry which is in our opinion too closely aligned to the interests
of the participants in the public private partnership and inadequately aligned
to represent the interests of the public.
We highlight this particular point as public
pressure has been instrumental in calling for the establishment of this enquiry
from the onset of the problems associated with the management of
It is therefore our strong and informed
opinion that the interests of the public would be best served by your appointment of a
duly nominated representatives, to put forward the views and concerns of
surrounding affected communities.
We therefore nominate Mr Keith Fawcett, a
former executive member of the Residents Association of Hout Bay, together with
one other publicly nominated representative as our joint and several
representatives to this enquiry. We note that Mr. Fawcett has already informed
you of his availability and willingness to assist the enquiry in any way that
he can.
We consider that it would be most useful for
the enquiry to have and share access to the significant amounts of information
that Mr Fawcett is able to present. This information has been acquired by him
and these mandated civic and other groups over many years through various
channels.
Therefore we, the mandated representatives of
the undersigned groups, would be grateful for the soonest inclusion of Mr
Fawcett into the team in order that full public transparency and disclosure can
be assured.
Signed by
Rod Gryzinski, Chair, Kommetjie Ratepayers
Association.
Len Swimmer, Chair, Residents’ Association of Hout
Bay.
Ingrid Awerbach, Chair, Noordhoek Environmental Action
Group.
Richard Timms, Chair, Hout Bay & Llandudno
Heritage Trust
Richard Timms, Chair, Hout Bay & Llandudno Environment Conservation Group
Wally Petersen, Kommetjie Envrionmental Awareness
Group.
Simon Liell Cock, Chair, Far
Rory Sales, Chair, Noordhoek Conservancy.
Len Swimmer, exco rep Planning, Land Use
and environment, Greater
Simon Eliott, Town Planner and Participant
in EIA/ Planning process.
The RAHB is still waiting on a response from
the Premier but it is hoped with the inclusion of Keith Fawcett on the task
team that the views and opinions of the surrounding community will be
incorporated.
Imizamo Yethu Development
With just 8 days notice, three focus group
meetings (by invitation only) were called by the Public Participation Process
co-ordinators South South North, regarding the re-development of IY.
The meeting was held at
It became clear during the course of the
meetings many participants felt their comments had not been considered and
incorporated into the fifth option.
In light of this highly unsatisfactory outcome, the
RAHB, together with SANCA, Sinethemba. Hout Bay
& Llandudno Heritage Trust, the Hout Bay Rate Payers’ Association and
Hangberg Solution Seekers), requested a meeting with Mayor Helen Zille.
A constructive two hour meeting with Mayor
Helen Zille, housing official Basil Davidson and Cathy Stone (Planning) was
held on the 16th February in the Mayor’s board room.
The next formal steps that will be taken with
regard to the IY development process were outlined by Stef Raubenheimer of
South South North at the meeting on the 12th February, as follows:
Here’s the submission to Chand Consultants to the process by Erik Schaug:
IY TECHNICAL FOCUS GROUP: OPTION 5
ERIK SCHAUG
I was disappointed that most, if not all,
of my previous submissions seem to have been ignored:
A
“2. The size of dwellings, and their density upon the site,
need to be investigated in much more depth if the above principles are
to be implemented. The number of dwellings is not the real issue; what really
matters is how many people can be housed. A more accurate way of determining
this is to establish how many beds can be accommodated, in accordance with the
guiding principles.”
Things seem to have got worse. The size of the flats have shrunk from 50 square metres to 40
square metres. These are what are known as bachelor flats, and are not adequate
for families. A variety of sizes is required, based on a thorough analysis of
family sizes in IY.
“3. A geotechnical investigation is under way. (p.11) Will it cover the entire
area where people are living, including those who are squatting high up the
slopes of the mountain? This is important, as there are those who might try to insist
on staying, and if the investigation reveals that the ground upon which they
are squatting is either unsuitable or would lead to excessive building costs,
they would have to leave for practical reasons.”
No mention has been made of this.
“4. Although there is no vegetation on the sites (p.12) there should be a plan
to rehabilitate the natural vegetation, if only to stabilise the soil. Some
areas may be more suitable than others for this process, and this should inform
the layout of the built environment.”
Nothing was shown which suggested this
was done, or why it was not done.
“5. Sites ranging in size from 75 to 100 square metres are not acceptable.
(Appendix G(vi) (p.3). There is no way you can create
an environment that is in accordance with sustainability and dignity with such
small sites. Such sites are the hallmark of apartheid era planning.”
140 square metres is an improvement, but
is still not large enough. 180 square metres is the absolute minimum, and even
this is not adequate for housing in the transitional zone, which is supposed to
be ‘middle class’ housing.
“6. It is suggested that the principle of ‘mixed-use’ be extended so that it
applies not only to the development area, but to individual buildings as well.”
After eight months, one expected to see
very much more than what was shown. Many of the assumptions need to be tested
by detail design, showing examples of the various types of buildings envisaged.
“7. The provision of a high school for IY is necessary, but the siting of it should
be decided on sound planning principles, and not upon impractical ideology.
This issue needs to be very thoroughly thrashed out.”
This vital issue was not dealt with,
other than by saying that the education department did not want to locate the
high school within IY itself. Is this a new policy of the department? If so, it
must be a world first. The idea that locating a school
anywhere but conveniently close to those who will attend it can be attributed
only to a hidden political agenda, logical incoherence or something involving
clinical self-delusion. Or perhaps all three.
“9. The Social Impact Assessment is disappointing. It is mostly an appraisal of
the historical background of the problem, but the social analysis seams to be
very superficial. There are very few statistics: the population figures are
almost certainly out of date. The breakdown of ages is into only two groups:
those 21 years of age and older, and the rest. We need to know more, if only to
determine the needs for primary and senior schools.
The employment figures are also thin: 72% is ‘employed’ but employment is not
defined. No figures are given for how many are employed in the various
categories. Most of the figures come from a 2003 DAG study, which is out of
date. One would have expected some effort to determine more accurate and
up-to-date figures.
A social impact assessment should surely go into matters much more than what
has been done. What would the social impact be for each of the options? Which
of the options would lead to the greatest improvement in social impact, and
why? Would other design options perhaps be better, and why?
I suggest that social scientists with experience in this field be employed to
work with and as part of the design team.”
There was no evidence that these matters
had been addressed, or reasons given why they were not.
B
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
(a) any street, stormwater drain, stormwater sewer or excavated or constructed
watercourse; or
(b) 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 retention ponds and
then discharging it into the sewer system would be a contravention. 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.
The IJR resolution stated that there is a limited
number of people who can be accommodated in IY, and all those in excess of this
number will have to be moved. Implementing this decision will be a far better
solution to the sewage problem than what has been proposed.
C
That there was no budget, cost estimate, or any form of business plan, after
some eight months of work was a surprise. Equally surprising was that the
council representative didn’t seem to know the difference between a budget and
a financial allocation.
No building enterprise can commence
without a clear idea of what the financial implications are, and these matters
have to be soberly considered before raising peoples’ hopes. There is
sufficient information to hand to have got a quantity surveyor to do a
preliminary estimate of costs, which could have given all of us an idea about
whether the proposals could be paid for.
D
I was disappointed that we seem to have reverted to the old-fashioned format of
lengthy preliminary presentations preceding public participation. Over 50% of
the time was taken up with these preliminary matters, and even when, finally,
we had a chance to express our views, over 50% of this time was taken up by the
defence or detailed explanation of the proposal by the presentation team.
Something radically different needs to be
done in terms of public participation if there is to be any hope of a positive
consensus emerging. Public participation is at present organised so that the
public are kept passive and reactive, only being asked to comment after
planning has taken place. Real proactive public participation ought to take
place from the inception of a project.
This is something which may be difficult to contemplate, and may be threatening
to built environment professionals, but it is a nettle which needs to be
grasped.
-------------------------------------------
The RAHB encourages all residents to keep
abreast of the process and contribute where necessary, to ensure that the
situation in IY is improved, a balance of housing, recreational and mixed use
is maintained and the integrity of the neighbouring communities is maintained.
ERF
666
Erf 666 adjacent to Bay Mews has recently again come under the spotlight.
On the 11th
November 2007, an application for a land use departure for Erf 666 to permit
storage of earth moving vehicles and equipment was objected to by the RAHB and
refused in terms of Section 15 (1) (b) of LUPO.
Significant earth
moving has continued on this erf over the last month and now two large open-earth
berms dominate the boundary.
The RAHB submitted a letter to the District Executive of Planning and
Building Development Management on 9 February giving notice of the RAHB’s intended legal
action in terms of section28 of NEMA.
“After many complaints by the surrounding
neighbours and direct interventions by our Association the activities on this
erf continue daily further degrading this site. It is quite clear that nothing
is going to be done to stop and reverse the environmental degradation on erf
666 without court action.”
The
letter was then re-directed to Mr Justin Truter, Director: Law Enforcement DEA
& DP on the 19th of February requesting urgent action and response due to erf deterioration.
On the 20th of February the Association
wrote to Mr Achmat Ebrahim, City Manager
”I write to you as Chairman of the Residents' Association of Hout Bay,
on behalf of the residents living in Bay Mews adjacent to erf 666 Main Road
Hout Bay and other neighbours in Berg-en-dal who have consistently complained
to our Association and to the Southern District in Plumstead concerning this
gross abuse of the property in question, turning this area into a veritable
industrial zone, contrary to the zoning scheme and especially as the
application for a temporary land use departure was refused in 2007 by
Subcouncil 16.”
The
letter was acknowledged and referred to the Director: Planning
and Building Development Management, Ms Cheryl Walters.
An e-mail was received on Friday the 27th
February from Mr Emil Schnackenberg, Director of the Southern Region, City of
Cape Town which reads:
Your letter
dated 20 February 2009 refers.
This Department,
in cooperation with the Municipal Prosecutor's Office, have again investigated
the complaint of the alleged illegal land use on "Erf 666 Main Road".
This included a number of site inspections by officials of the City Of Cape
Town. We concluded that the current activities on the property do not
constitute a land use contravention.
Therefore, your request for legal action against the alleged illegal land use from our Department against the property owner cannot be met and this is the final position of the Department. As mentioned to you previously, possible action, in terms of environmental legislation, is still under consideration by the relevant officials.
Please note that any litigation sought by yourselves on the land use contravention matter will be
defended by the City Of Cape Town and a cost order sought against the applicant
RAHB has asked the City Planning Department to verify the Zoning of erf 666 and to specify any departures that may have been granted.
Erf 3302,
Removal of Restrictions & Conditional Use
The RAHB objected to the application for:
-
the removal of a restrictive
title condition so as to allow vehicular access to the property directly from
- ‘conditional use’ to permit an educational institution (pre-school for about 100 children) on the property.
The Association
pointed out that
The Association
conditionally supported the LUPO application in principle but required that the
access should not be directly onto
Erf 4769 – Proposed
construction of a Vodacom Base Station – Baviaans Close
On the 19th of
February, the RAHB registered with (Environmental Planning and Impact Assessment Consultants)
as an Interested and Affected Party in this Public Participation Process.
The Association requested information on the status quo of the proposed construction
of the Base Station and information on the ownership/lessee of the land.
The Association is concerned with the Visual Impact and the
health aspects (perceived or actual) of placing a cellular base station in a
residential area with nearby homes and their occupants (including children)
constantly impacted by the low level radiation.
Erf 1556 Wolvekrantz,
FIRE
HAZARD
Location: The highest point above
Marais Roads & Andrews Road, Scott Estate.
The RAHB reported to the City, the mature invasive
alien vegetation on Erf 1556
as a significant fire hazard. The Association requested the City
representative, Mr George Hendriks, to take the practical action needed to
remove the hazard.
The RAHB acknowledged the important work the City is
doing to deal with run-away fires over the summer period, and reiterated the
importance of working together to prevent fires in this particular area.
Erf
3353 Subdivision & Departure Refused
The RAHB is happy to report that through the combined efforts of the
Association, the
Neighbourliness
As members of the
Despite the magnitude of many of these issues, it is
important to remember the simple underlying principles of
“Neighbourliness”.
Respect and regard for our neighbours and an
acknowledgement that obeying the rules is part and parcel of life and does not
put one at a disadvantage! A few issues
raised by members of the community highlight some basic issues and the
Association would welcome comments and input:
Traffic
A number of drivers drive recklessly fast on our roads, posing a serious
threat to the safety of pedestrians and pets.
Question: Is it possible to set a safer speed limit in residential
areas, e.g. 20 or 30kph, with legal backing? A speed limit of 60km/h
seems much too fast for these roads.
Dogs
Some residents allow their dogs to wander freely in the road outside
their properties causing a nuisance to vehicle and pedestrian traffic.
Some dogs are quite vicious and attack dogs being walked. Others
residents walk their dogs unleashed allowing them to run up to fences and
agitate other dogs within properties and or do not clean up after their dogs.
Questions: How do we make all residents aware of the relevant bylaws and
how do we enforce them in our neighborhood?
Noise pollution
Some residents play loud music late at night and ignore pleas from
neighbors to turn it down as well as ignore SAPS requests to do so.
Questions: What are the relevant bylaws and how do we enforce them in our
neighborhood?
Noordhoek,
Ou Kaapse Weg Ext. (M64),
06h45 - 15h30
Noordhoek Road (M6), Ou
Kaapse Weg Ext. (M64) to base of Chapman’s
06h45 - 16h00
Chapman’s Peak Drive (M6),
Noordhoek Rd (M6) to
06h45 - 16h30
Princess Street (M90),
Chapman’s
07h00 - 17h15
05h00 - 17h30
05h00 - 17h45
05h30 - 18h00
04h00 - 17h45
04h00 - 17h45
Recyling is BACK!
Wasteplan has been appointed to handle
recycling in the Valley. Starting on the
2nd of March, clear plastic bags will be available for recycling
material.
Please wash any dirty items (eg cardboard
juice containers) before putting them in the bag.
Place the bag on top of your black dustbin on
your designated waste collection day. A
replacement plastic bag will be put in your post box.
Security Update
Following an incident on the 19th
of February at 16h10 where three women were mugged for a handbag close to the
bird hide on the Disa river path, residents
and visitors are warned to take care in the area especially during the late
afternoon,. The last 3 beach attacks
have occured at 16h07, 16h10 and 16h59 (mon/thu/sun).
Criminal Incident Reporting
When you report a
criminal incident to Watchcon (021 790 9333) please also note that you must
report the incident to SAPS on 10111 and ask for a reference number.
WE MUST report these Incidents to have
them recorded on the SAPS automatic computerised Database to ensure that ALL of
our Incidents are include in the
Watchcon cannot carry-out this Reporting
to 10111 on your behalf – YOU must do it….!
These “10111 Reports” MUST be of a ‘serious
and criminal nature’ – not the noisy neighbours, or lost dogs!
WATER
SERVICES SMS NUMBER
The City
of
SMS
the following information:
Your name/surname
Your erf
or account number
Your
street address
Short
fault description
EXAMPLES:
Water
meter leaking
Sewer
blockage
Burst
water pipe
Water
meter faulty
to 31373 (not more than 160 characters)
Other
contact numbers:
(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: