Hout and About
News from Residents’
Association of
rahb@houtbay.org.za
www.houtbay.org.za
September
2009
WARNING:
Scientific
Services of the City of
Please note that this water is not suitable
for both the intermediate (not swimming) and full contact (swimming) recreation. The E.coli counts in the
latest routine sampling are too high.
Also
important to note are the two point sources of pollution that discharge
directly onto this coastline. These are the river mouth and the storm water
near the yacht club. Swimming in these areas always carry a degree of health
risk. Swimming is not recommended after rainfall and near discharges, as these
carry high bacterial load and compromise the sea water quality.
|
Sampling Point |
E.coli per 100mL |
|
In front of Marinas Wharf |
2250 |
|
Opp Disa River mouth |
2650 |
|
In front of ablutions Chapman’s Peak side |
600 |
|
50 m east of Disa River mouth |
>5000 |
Dr Justin O’Riain (RAHB ExCo member for Environment)
says:
I
think there are a couple of important issues here.
The Hout Bay river remains
the single greatest source of E.coli input on the public Hout Bay beach.
Every
day hundreds of people and their dogs walk across the river mouth and are thus
coming into direct contact with these dangerously high levels of E. coli. The current signs warning people are as
obscure as ever and while they are present on the West side they are in no way
informing the vast majority of people who choose to walk along the waters’ edge
and not above the high water mark which is where the signs are
situated.
Recreational
use of the Hout Bay beach and sea water should be restricted to the East side
where levels are lower than 1000 per 100ml.
There should be no swimming signs on the Mariners beach side while the
river is flowing (winter, Spring and early summer) and thus polluting the
waters. The main current flows from east
to west along the beach and it is thus difficult to know whether the high E.coli along the
western portion of the beach is from the storm water drain as suggested or from
the Hout Bay river waters being transported from the mouth to Mariners Wharf
through currents. The harbour itself is
a source of pollution with the sewer system regularly blocking and disgorging
into the harbour.
If
Hout Bay experiences a slow rate of water turn over as a result of being a bay
within a bay then this is all the more reason to prevent E.coli contamination
into the bay via the Hout Bay river.
“Open Chappies” - The People March
again
Residents once again gathered to march on the
29th of August, against the continued closure of Chapman’s Peak
Drive and the empty promises since the first march.
CPD Updates
Re: Closure of Chapman’s Peak Drive
M
E M O
R A N
D U M
On behalf of the Residents of Hout Bay, Cape
Town & South Africa, we hereby call on you and the Province, to do the
following:
1. De-proclaim
Chapman’s Peak Drive as a Toll Road.
2. Challenge
the “extraordinarily defective” Contract, which PGWC entered into with Entilini
the Concessionaire, in order to legally terminate that Contract.
3. Review
and amend the current Public Private Partnership Contract to become a “Road
Maintenance ONLY” Contract, and present such Contract for public tender.
4. Review
alternative engineering solutions to keep CPD open, based upon the experience
of the past five years of operation
on Chapman’s Peak Drive.
MEC, Robin Carlisle attended to receive the
RAHB memorandum and responded. He said the road would be open for summer and
2010. He gets weekly progress reports
from Entileni which are posted on www.capegate.gov.za
The investigation requested by ANC Premier
Lynne Browne is on his desk but cannot be made public at this stage. The MEC
confirmed there would be one permanent toll plaza, but the site was not specified. The contract with Entilini must remain as
contract severance would cost Province in the region of R150M, but provincial
lawyers are looking at the contract in detail.
Finally, MEC Carlisle thought in future the
Drive would be closed for less than 20 days a year from rain or rock fall and
he added that he foresaw other toll-roads being proclaimed in the Western
Cape.
The Residents Association received an
interesting comment from a resident about the Chapman’s Peak saga:
“Ever
since the onslaught of traffic began 20 years ago it was bound to have an
effect on the geological structure. The road which was originally built in the
1920's was never intended to support such heavy use. It was fine in those days
when horse drawn traffic and the odd motor car ventured around the fragile
structure. It will always be prohibitively expensive to maintain such a
structure and in the end will probably destroy the sandstone foundation
forever.
Why not
open the Drive just for foot travelers or even bicycles? The road is not that
long and most people only want to venture up to the summit for the view. One
could even have a system which used to operate at Cape Point where a small bus
took visitors to the viewing point. The result would be a huge reduction in
wear and tear of the infrastructure and a very large saving in maintenance
costs. Chapman’s Peak Drive should not be major highway, use the site for the
enjoyment for which it is there, namely the stunning views and vistas which it
provides. Spend the money on improving the other two access roads to the valley
and leave Chapman’s Peak to the walkers and bikers”.
A Slice of History: Thomas Bain
Friends of the Hout Bay Library present a
fascinating talk by Dave Cowley on Thomas Bain, our country’s greatest engineer
who opened up
Thursday,
17 September 2009 at 7 pm
Hout Bay Library Hall
R25 per person (includes a glass of wine)
All welcome
RSVP on 021 790 2150 to book your seat
Full proceeds go to the Friends to be used for
the purchase of additional books, cds, dvds for the library and for the
ongoing support of various community library projects.
In 1830
Britain was re-considering its policy of colonisation in SA. The apparent
absence of precious metals or gems had cooled Britain's enthusiasm
to further finance the Colony, which was almost bankrupt.
The greatest problem against expansion and the possible rewards was the
difficulty of travel in a large territory limited by 'the Mountains of
Africa' or what we know today as the Langeberg and Swartberg mountain ranges.
Dave Cowley will talk about Thomas Bain and how, with the help of his father
and mentor, Andrew Geddes Bain, he became our country's greatest engineer
opening the way for a future rich and prosperous South Africa.
Dave was born in the
UK and came to South Africa in 1968. He has had a lifelong career in
information technology commencing with various assignments throughout the
UK, Bermuda and SA, latterly spending 12 years at UCT before retirement.
He has lived in Hout Bay for almost 40 yrs and was the founder chairman,
and remains an active trustee, of the Hout Bay and Llandudno Heritage
Trust. He is currently spearheading an initiative in the Cape
to help create a National Trust for South Africa.
Road Digging
For those of you who were unpleasantly surprised to drive down Princess St recently and suddenly find yourself having to straddle the middle line due to the earth excavations, here is an interesting snippet:
On the 2nd of August Len Swimmer wrote to Robert Hector, City Roads and Storm water representative to enquire about the unfinished work in Empire Ave and Oxford Street:
Dear Robert
If you are not the
right person to act in this regard, please inform us who is the person
responsible. These roads have been dug up along the pavement causing untold
disruption in traffic flow and pedestrians having to use the streets to walk.
How accidents did not occur is a miracle. Now the digging seems to have ceased,
but the curb stones along the pavements have not been put back in place and in
many cases, where peoples' driveways were chopped up the tar has not been
replaced. I have NEVER EVER seen such uncoordinated work anywhere in the world
as this project. It has taken 4-5 months to do a simple job and it now stands
incomplete. Are the people living in this area expected to finish the job
themselves? Please let us know how much longer the people living in this area
must suffer these consequences as the workmen seem to have abandoned this job,
and I enquire if they are on strike? Please investigate.
Mr Hector replied:
Dear Mr Swimmer
Thank you for your
email
This project is an
Electricity Branch (Mr Lawrence on 763 5683) project.
The Roads Branch only
does the trench reinstatement on behalf of EL, once we received the relevant
documentation (requests, account numbers and orders). The order to reinstate
only the carriageway crossings (driveways) and road crossings were only
received on 4 June 2009.
Mr Dookoo, the roads
official for reinstatement, is currently putting a tender together for the rest
of the reinstatement. It will take approximately two weeks before a contractor
will be back on site to complete the trench reinstatement
Len Swimmer replied:
Dear Robert
Thank you for your
full explanation. Now I understand why the delays are taking place. It's that
the City has no staff and is out sourcing these projects. It really is such a
pity that the residents, (who pay such high rates) have to put up with such
disruption and delays in the reinstatement due to tendering and out sourcing of
contractors. It seems that gone are the days when the City had staff to dig and
reinstate - we're in another era now, and not an efficient one at that - very
sad. I see you have copied Brian Dookoo on this e-mail. Thank you.
Let us know what you think of this, the broader ramifications of an understaffed Council and the awarding of tenders by the City. Write to webmaster@houtbay.org.za
Politicians must
only promise what is possible - and keep these promises
An excerpt from an online publication in
SA Today by DA Provincial leader, Helen Zille
Masiphumelele informal settlement
in Noordhoek, started as a series of dispersed sporadic land invasions during
the late 1980s and early 1990s. About ten years ago, the approximately 1,500
families were consolidated onto the present location, and given serviced sites
of between 100 and 150 square meters each. These are large sites in comparison
with the sites that are allocated today given the escalating demand and
scarcity of land. Some families opted for the free "RDP" houses on
their sites, others chose to take the subsidy and build their own homes. Before
the subsidies were approved, each site owner allowed up to six additional
families to squat on their site, and charged them rent. Today, there are an
additional 4,000 families living as "backyarders" on the sites
provided for 1,500 families. Many of the new residents are relatively recent
migrants to
Now that the site owners have received their subsidies and can start building,
they are evicting the "backyarders". These hapless people are demanding
additional land in the area, or accommodation in other local housing schemes,
such as the new flats under construction in the innovative public/private
partnership called Amakhaya Ngoku. They have refused relocation to land
elsewhere. And of course, the dissatisfaction has created a vacuum for
demagogues with political agendas. Now the backyard "evictees" are
invading the surrounding wetlands and nature reserve. While a small
portion of this land is being developed for some families, it is impossible to
provide sufficient land to house everyone in the immediate area. No politician,
as far as I am aware, has ever promised to do so. The tragic irony is that, if the
site owners had not received subsidies, and the building of the flats had not
begun, the current violence would probably not have occurred. These
kinds of problems are often inevitable when development starts, because not
everyone can benefit. In Masiphumelele it is simply impossible to accommodate
everyone who wishes to be part of a formal housing development in the immediate
area. Nor can we enable people to leapfrog the 400,000-long waiting list by
invading land.
We
can anticipate the same situation when we begin to build flats in Imizamo Yethu
in Hout Bay. Despite years of negotiation and planning, it will be
impossible to accommodate everyone on the site following repeated invasions.
The densities are currently so high that it is impossible even to put in
rudimentary services, let alone build houses. This has repeatedly been
explained to the residents. There is an approved list of beneficiaries that
took many months to compile. Tragically, many people will have to be moved so
that services and housing can be delivered. And this is unlikely to be a smooth
process, no matter how much negotiation precedes it. We must be absolutely
honest about the choices: The current situation of "equal
misery" cannot be replaced by "equal advantage" as development
occurs.
These are the facts. Many people do not want to hear them. Inevitably local
politicians will exploit the situation and promise poor people the equivalent
of "eternal life". This will create more problems than it solves.
Service delivery protests are justified where politicians make unrealistic promises,
or where indolent local Councillors and municipal officials are corrupt or fail
to spend their budgets. (In this context it is worth noting that
Currently our major challenge is
to find enough land to house those who have to be displaced from shack
settlements as we upgrade them. Shortage of suitable land is the single
greatest impediment to development in many urban areas. Environmental and
planning laws make it extremely difficult to release land for housing in a
period shorter than 3 years. We must urgently begin the conversation on how we
reconcile the need for land to house the millions moving to the cities with the
need to protect our environment.
This applies with particular urgency in the City of
The above begs the
question: Will Hout Bay face the same invasions and violence as Masiphmelele, when
the long awaited upgrade of IY starts? What will be the long term impact on our
beautiful Valley? Further erosion of the TMNP border and an ever burgeoning
informal resident population?
Cow Memorial
Residents may remember the report about the sewage spill onto
properties between
An affected resident sent a lawyer’s letter to the City a year ago
and was informed that no permanent work could be undertaken in winter and in
summer the situation would be rectified.
Other than a minor
clean up, in Summer, nothing was done and the system has again, this Winter,
flooded the properties concerned.
The drain
overflows/breaks weekly, sometimes for up to 48 hours before being rectified
(irrespective of rain). The sewage
stream is redirected/allowed to run directly into the storms water system
(meters away). The storms water system
flows directly into the Disa river below the property, polluting the river, a
vital source of water for the agricultural properties along its banks and
dispersing out onto
This is totally unacceptable and while we
realise the City is attempting to address the problems in IY, a 12 month hiatus
in addressing flowing open sewage that has killed livestock in a suburban area
is a travesty of justice.
RAHB Final BAR comments on IY Development
1. Failure of the Basic Assessment: Probably the most fundamentally important comment that has been repeatedly pushed aside is the failure of the Basic Assessment (the only tool that has been made available) to look at the proposed development in the context of broader planning and carrying capacity issues in Hout Bay.
Approval of this proposed
development in isolation of a
broader planning solution for the IY settlement as a whole, taking account
of the environmental and infrastructure constraints facing
We have read the City/consultants’ responses and they admit that this is the right way to go but do not recommend it for various ‘practical’ reasons (mainly cost and urgency). Surely if this is the right way to go, at least the consultants (who are supposed to be independent) should recommend it. The cost of not doing it is not even considered.
We highly recommend that the Province review these aspects of the planning and make very sure that a realistic and reasonable process is required BEFORE approval to ensure that developing the new areas does not back-fire as it is very likely to do should no proper planning and management be put in place before hand. We would very much like to discuss such aspects with the Provincial planners and request an opportunity to do so.
2. Lack of provision for a High School in this project: This needs careful review. While it would be nice to locate a high school elsewhere in Hout Bay, the danger remains that if provision is not made for one here (Site 2 is probably the sensible location, it is zoned for such uses and it easily accessible), this might set the prospect of getting such an urgently needed facility even further back. Land will have to be bought (probably at great cost) and then re-zoned. We were promised a high school many years ago by the then Minister of Education (C. Dugmore) and this has still not materialized.
3. Location of Recycling and Garden Waste depots: This aspect also needs to be reviewed in the context of the recent process (independent of this BA) that has led to the retention of these facilities where they are (site 3) with work being done on improving them to suit users and the adjacent residents.
4. Visual Impacts of removing trees: These have been clearly specified in the
Visual Impact Assessment (VIA) and mitigating measure recommended should be
followed. Putting the access road even
closer to the
Sites 1 and 3 also need attention in terms of retaining trees and planning building lines (preferably 15 m) so as to make sure that a reasonable tree-ed buffer exists between the new houses and the existing residential fabric. Many comments have been made on this issue. What must be avoided is the potential for new home-owners to erect shacks in this tree-ed buffer area.
5. Commercial area: ‘Trading under the trees’ is an invitation to degradation and squatting – proper formal structure must be planned, provided and properly managed. This area has huge potential – it must not be squandered.
6. Residential areas: These must not be extended to beyond the
carrying capacity or the area and
7. Provision for Parking is not adequate and needs to be reviewed as more and more residents will acquire cars. Tourists busses need to stop over for longish periods – they need to be properly accommodated.
8. Alternative layout plans provided by Heritage Trust: We have noted that this suggestion has been summarily dismissed by the City and its consultants. We request that Province carefully consider the merits of the suggestions made here as considerable thought has gone into this plan.
Even though we are fully appreciative of the inevitable problem of ‘trying to please everyone, all of the time’ we do believe that when the same arguments come up independently time and again (which they do) and make practical sense, serious cognisance should be taken of such issues.
We request that this Association be given the opportunity of a verbal interview at any Provincial meeting or similar deliberation and that we be given timeous notice of the meeting in order that our Association may prepare valid argument.
Oudekraal Outcome
The Supreme Court of Appeal has dismissed the
appeal brought by Kassie Wiehahn in his quest to have a
The
Oudekraal judgement also includes among the reasons for dismissing the appeal “the
floral vegetation which includes the most critically endangered ecosystem in
Planning
matters
Erf
9652
The Association submitted comment on the application for the rezoning of this erf and the numerous departures.
“Erf 9652 is an industrial site in the Harbour precinct and was formed by consolidating Erven 2617, 4226 and 4227. The application proposes to:
1. To rezone the property from General Industrial to Service Industrial and Commercial in order to permit a mixed land use development accommodating service industrial units, retail activities including offices and residential units above ground floor.
2. For Conditional use to permit shops in the proposed Service Industrial area and residential units above ground floor in the proposed Commercial area.
3. For the following Departures from the Divisional Council Zoning Scheme Regulations in order to permit the proposed development:
-
The relaxation of the 8m street
(
-
The relaxation of the 8m street
(
- The relaxation of the side boundary line along Erf 2616 to 0.0m for the basement and 3.5m in lieu off 1.
- A bulk of 3.5 in lieu of 1.
- Height of 18.4m for the commercial portion in lieu off 11m and 12.7m for the Service Industrial portion in lieu of 8m.
- Waiver from the requirement to provide 4159 sq.m of open space about the building on the commercial portion for the use off residents living in the residential units.
- The relaxation off the parking requirement from 233 bays (Residential 26; service Industrial 38; Offices 47 and Retail/shops 122) to 150 bays.
1.
As a civic association
concerned with planning issues, we are concerned that sufficient land is
zoned for the purposes required by a community and, in this instance, we
point out that it is important that
2. More specifically, this application is asking for major deviations from the Zoning Scheme and yet there is no attempt to motivate for why such carte blanche leeway should be supported.
3. We are not in the habit of supporting height departures (and these are very significant: 11m à 18.4m = 67% increase in allowed height, and 8m à 12.7m = 59% increase in allowable height) coupled with building line departures, as these, almost invariably, combine to result in over-bulk structures as is suggested here by the massive departure requested for bulk (1 à 3.5 = 350%).
4. Such departures often also lead to a shortage of parking and this is exactly the case here – again a massive departure; this time from the normal parking requirement (233 required bays à 150 parking bays i.e. 83 parking bays short of what should be supplied).
5. Parking shortages is one of the aspects of development that is surprisingly quite often neglected in the decision-making process, and this comes at great cost because, once such departures have been approved, there is nothing (or very little) that the Council can do to require that they be rectified (bear in mind that land in this area is under pressure from many directions). Parking requirements must not be compromised.
Erf
3477 & Erf 4870 on the Karbonkelberg
(Both are above the Urban Edge, where there
should be no development)
Deadline: Friday 11th September
2009. RAHB will be submitting very vigorous objections to the proposed
development of these two erven.
See figure drawing below – the zoning for these
properties and surrounding erven are:
Erf 3477 is zoned
Rural (CMC zone scheme boundary)
Erf 4868 is zoned
Rural (CMC cone scheme boundary)
Erf 4869 is zoned
Rural (CMC cone scheme boundary)
Erf 4870 is zoned
Rural (CMC cone scheme boundary)
Erf 1210 is Single
Residential (CMC cone scheme boundary)
Erf 4871 is zoned
Rural (CMC cone scheme boundary)
As displayed in
“figure” below you can see an un-spoilt
mountainside of the rurally zoned erven. RAHB and very many Hout Bay
residents believe that these erven should remain rural and not be rezoned for
development.
.
Land
Use and Nuisance Complaints
A very useful form is available on the
website for residents to complain about illegal land use and nuisance
caused. Please ensure your complaint is
copied to: Anita.Fabe@capetown.gov.za.
Open Day and Stakholder workshop:
Draft District Plan
In 2008 the City of
The
process has now reached the stage where, the City will now be coming back to
all the stakeholders to present for input and comment the Draft Cape Town
Spatial Development Framework and the Draft District Plans.
Copies of
the draft Cape Town Spatial Development Framework, the Draft District Plan, as
well as the City’s draft Densification Strategy and draft Development Edges
Policy are available for viewing at your local library, sub-council office and
your district planning office. These
draft documents are available in Afrikaans and isiXhosa on request. You can
also find this information and more background information at: www.capetown.gov.za/en/sdf
Your
participation in this process is important. Your comments and feedback
regarding the draft proposals are essential to finalizing the Plan for your
district.
The Open Day for the Protea Sub council (20), Ward 57 of Pinelands
Sub-Council (15) & Ward 74 of Good Hope Sub-Council will be taking place
on: Wednesday, 23rd September 2009, Alphen
Hall, Constantia Main Road, 4pm – 6pm.
The Stakeholder Workshop for the Southern District will be taking place
on: Wednesday, 30th
September 2009, Alphen Hall, Constantia Main Road, 5:30pm for 6pm – 8pm.
You are welcome to attend
whichever event suits your schedule. To confirm your attendance at the
Stakeholder Workshop please phone: 021 448 1100 or email distinctivechoice1@mwebbiz.co.za
Safety and Security
We are once again experiencing
extremely high levels of theft, violence and housebreaking in
NBHW members are doing a sterling
job in being the eyes and ears in our community and we urge the Province to
look at the staffing and facilities at our Police Station. Whilst there have
been a number of arrests and well co-ordinated operations by security, police
and NW, criminals are upping the ante in
We invite you to join the
Resident’s Association by sending an email to rahb@houtbay.org.za and we can send you details re
membership and alert you to some of the important issues that might affect you
as a resident of Hout
Bay
You might also want to use your skill
to help the Association operate and participate in community affairs
MEMBERSHIP
(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
Len
Swimmer
Chairperson,
Residents’ Assoc of
Tel:
790-0268, Email: lens@telkomsa.net