Hout and About
News
from Residents’ Association of
rahb@houtbay.org.za
www.houtbay.org.za
October
2009
Dontse Yakhe:
On the 8th of
September the RAHB submitted a Land Use Contravention complaint to the City of
Len Swimmer, Chairman of RAHB
in a letter to City officials said “This drastic action is being taken by our
Association, after long deliberation and forethought, and is intended to compel
you to take the required action under the relevant NEMA and LUPO regulations, to act effectively against the
environmental hazard that has beset our community, both inside Imizamo Yethu
and its surrounds. The ENVIRONMENTAL
DEGRADATION as a consequence of illegal settlement in e2848 and e1509 is
in contravention of NEMA and also constitutes ILLEGAL LAND USE in terms of LUPO and the zoning scheme – e2848 (owned by the City of Cape Town) is
zoned Local Authority and e1509 around Hout Bay Police Station (owned by the Province) is zoned Single
Residential, neither are for informal settlement.
The settlement of Imizamo
Yethu,
A limit to growth must be
established –
Erven,
remainder 2848, zoned local authority (known as Dontse Yakhe) and 1509 (zoned single
residential and owned by Province) have been inundated with illegal shack
housing that continues to grow despite the lack of formal infrastructure and
employment opportunities in Hout Bay.
The
RAHB contend that this land is not intended to be squatted upon, and the City
must urgently comply with the Land Use Planning Ordinance (LUPO) and remove the
squatters.
Mr
Swimmer reiterated in the submission “If
you are uncertain of your obligations in any way, we suggest that you to
refer to a recent judgment by Mr Acting Justice Rogers concerning the operation
by Home Affairs of the Refugee Centre at Airport Industria. The judgment may be
accessed at
http://www.saflii.org.za/za/cases/ZAWCHC/2009/100.pdf”.
The
Association pointed out that they were utilizing the internal structures
available for complaint before resorting to a High Court interdict should the
City not comply with the rule of law.
Toxic Bay: Further comment from Dr Justin O Riain
“The
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.”
Sewerage into Gas?
Dr.Rod
Gurzynski from Kommetjie, has suggested an innovative and ecologically friendly
solution to our sewage issues: “What
about Hout Bay getting a large methane digester to turn sewage into
gas(cleansed) and returning the water via reed beds into the Disa River as
(nearly) pure water. The gas could be bottled and/or piped to Imizamo Yethu and
others for cooking/heating.”
Anyone
with more information can contact the RAHB.
Toxic Disa River kills pony ‘Ludke’
Jeanette
Haase wrote this e-mail about her daughter Karlena’s pony, Ludke:
“hope this finds you well
and ready for Spring.
I am so glad I am still
receiving your news...
On this one I only can say
that I wish that People would have been more aware of this Problem long ago as
Ludka, Karlena’s Pony, had a
tremendous amount of E Coli in his Infected Hoof...!!!!!!!!!
We were still at the RC and
passing through mentioned Disa River.
As you well know he had to
be put down eventually.
Not one of the Vets had seen
an Infection like that...(Put it down to a Spider Bite....Please.....)
Stay well
Lots of love
Jeannette
|
Please
contact the Association if you have ANY evidence of contamination or
infection in humans and animals that have been exposed to Hout Bay water. |
Bain’s Road Walk Open for All
Members
of the RAHB and the Heritage Trust took a walk along the historic Bain’s Road
route on the 26th of September to investigate the public access
violations. It has been “all hands on deck” with many concerned people actively
working to ensure this Public Open Space remains open to the Public.
Jeff
Pitcock, Regional Enforcement Coordinator for the City wrote “Part of the annexation of the Old Baines Rd
appears to be being perpetrated by the Ruyteplaats home owner association, they
have fenced their properties in with metal fencing and set up quite a
sophisticated system to conceal the opening to Old Bain’s Rd, there is a gate which can be opened by the
staff in the gatehouse to Ruyteplaat thereby allowing free access, however
there is no signage indicating the opening and to all intents and purposes from
first impression the gateway appears impregnable and could construed as
intimidating to the public.”
The
"Private Road" sign has been removed, however, when you get to the
historic route you automatically think you are on private land and go no further,
yet it is public road. In addition, fynbos has been removed and cabbages
and a strawberry patch has replaced this fynbos on the side of Bain’s Road -
this will be dealt with as a matter of urgency. The new NEMA amendment act
imposes fines of up to R1 million and if necessary the Association will proceed
with legal action.
Wetlands
Further monies have been
allocated for the wetland rehabilitation and approved by the Ward Council.
Alien vegetation removal in
the wetlands has been very successful and mechanical removal of the dead trees
will be necessary in due course. The
brushwood will be used to help recreate dunes on the beach. The viewing platform in the wetlands is being
reconstructed with funds donated by Rotary.
The “berms” in the wetlands,
(the result of dredging the river), could be used to create a raised walkway
with good over-view and safer passage for walkers.
Proposed rezoning for
Hotels and Houses on Karbonkelberg, Erf 4870 Hout Bay
The RAHB submitted a comment on the draft
report submitted in terms of the National Environmental Management Act (No 107
of 1998) (NEMA).
Sovereign Seekers Investments 77 (Pty) Ltd
has submitted a proposal which requires the rezoning and subdivision of a (21.4 hectare) mountain-side erf situated outside the demarcated Urban Edge and
zoned Rural (and designated for Nature Purposes) on the slopes of the Karbonkelberg mountain above Hout
Bay.
The lower 8.2 hectare portion is proposed for
subdivision into an hotel and a residential ‘estate’. The latter with 12 single residential erven
(803 - 1334 sq.m in size); and the former (the hotel) to comprise of a 1179
sq.m reception centre and associated facilities (including restaurant, spa,
pool, function room, lounge, reception area and administration), plus 34
double-storey hotel suites (actually self-catering cottages), plus roads,
parking and open space areas.
General comment
If approved, this would be a large
development for which the statutory Cape Peninsula Urban Structure Plan
would have to be officially amended, as would the Peninsula Urban Edge.
Our Association is vigorously opposed to
this proposal to allow what can legitimately be described as a major
deviation from the planning status
quo.
Main issues
The environmental consultant correctly points
out, firstly, that ‘the main issues relate to the location of the erf outside
the urban edge and within the CPPNE [Cape Peninsula Protected Natural
Environment]’ and, secondly, that it ‘is contrary to various structure plans
and policy documents’.
The entire proposed ‘development area’ is
rated by the botanical specialist as being of high local and regional
conservation value and it is covered with the endangered Cape Flats Dune
Strandveld vegetation only about 5% of which is formally protected (Appendix
G-1: Botanical Assessment).
As
important (if not more so) is the fact that the erf forms part of a large swath
of conservation-worthy rural land (designated for ‘nature purposes’) stretching
from the peak of the mountain to virtually the sea shore where the famous
Harbour cliffs (an identified Heritage landmark) overlook the Bay.
What is quite clear from the draft Basic
Assessment Report and the Specialist Reports, is that there is no compelling
reason to impose a housing development and an hotel complex on such a sensitive
conservation-worthy area. And also there
is no obligation to do so, particularly as we believe that the benefits
accruing to the developer are far outweighed by the real costs of compromising
a natural heritage site.
Erf 4870 is one of six erven
(Erven 4868-4872 and Erf 3477) which together with adjoining state land (owned
by the City and SANParks) collectively equate to the local equivalent of the
‘coast to crest’ conservation resource referred to in the Oudekraal judgement. This landscape is all the more important
ecologically, scenically and from a bio-diversity perspective when one
considers that nearby Northshore & Beach Estate and Hout Bay Heights and
the Hangberg Village have been
relatively densely developed for residential and commercial purposes within the
Urban Edge.
Piece-meal
erosion of this swath of conservation land on Karbonkelberg (whether privately or publicly owned) should
not be supported by condoning changes in the various planning statutes and
regulations and deviations from long
standing policies aimed at protecting the integrity of conservation-worthy
land.
Also of relevance in the
Oudekraal judgement is the Judge’s reference to the Moslem kramats and their historical,
cultural and religious significance.
While of a much earlier era, the four ‘Later Stone Age’ sites
(found on Erf 4870 during the initial survey of the proposed development area)
also add significance to the conservation value of the Erf 4870 (even if the
archaeologist considers that the contents of the currently exposed sites can be
successfully mitigated), especially because (as pointed out by the
archaeologist) during the last few decades, development of the Cape Peninsula
has resulted in the loss of many archaeological sites, including several in the
Hout Bay area. A further detailed survey
of the lower portion of the erf (the proposed development area) was recommended
by the archaeologist, but this has not been done to date, and it is likely that
more sites will be found when this is done.
While these ‘Later Stone Age’
findings are certainly relevant Heritage assets, the primary Heritage asset
that needs protection here is that of landscape, biodiversity and ‘sense of
place’ and yet, remarkably, this hardly features in the Heritage assessment
(or the main report) as being significant enough to constitute a reason to ‘not
support’ this application.
Our planning and environmental legislation
and policies have essentially been designed to prevent such
opportunistic applications and yet it appears that this intention may well
be circumvented by weak interpretations of specialist reports and misjudged
weighting of the various impacts. Just
because an application is made and goes through a NEMA assessment, should not
necessarily be reason enough that it should almost automatically/inevitably be
given a positive Record of Decision once a certain amount of mitigation is
negotiated.
We believe that the Erf 4870 proposal is one
of the cases when the officials and the relevant Minister need to say
emphatically ‘no’, and that the loss
of a unique landscape with high conservation value is not worth a hotel and
residential estate for which there is no demonstrable need or desirability.
Process
It is still not
clear why the Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning
(DEADP) has required only a Basic Assessment (BA) in spite of the extremely
environmentally sensitive nature of this pristine mountainside erf, which is completely outside of the
Moreover, the area was never intended for
hard development and especially not development of the nature that is being
suggested in this proposal. This
application requires drastic deviations
from current statutory and non-statutory planning and environmental policies
and plans and has profound implications
for the surrounding area (and the
No good reason has been put
forward to deviate from the status quo i.e. the ‘no go’
option, other than the enrichment of the applicant. There is no need for another hotel nor more
upmarket housing in Hout Bay – both are plentiful – and, more importantly, is
it NOT desirable to replace a valuable bit of our natural heritage with
hard development. While jobs are always
welcomed, they cannot be equated with a consideration which will cause a much
larger impact which will eventually cause permanent and increasing erosion of
the asset on which such jobs are ultimately dependent.
The conservation value of the site has also
been acknowledged by its inclusion in the Biodiversity Network adopted
by the City. Our Association supports
this and is opposed to any further hard development on this erf and similar
ones, unless it is appropriate.
Conclusion
The applicant’s consultants appear to be at
great pains to present this as a reasonable proposal and they emphasize their
attempts to make the development environmentally and visually sensitive. However, the fundamental issue here is that
the erf is on the rural side of the
Peninsula Urban Edge and 100% of it
is within the statutory
The allowance provided to review the urban
edge from time to time was not intended to enable piece-meal encroachment up
the mountain.
Of relevance here is that the Urban Edge will need to be adjusted to
accommodate this development. There
is no compelling reason that the Urban Edge should be moved and consolidated
further up the mountain side, or that this area should be further
developed. In fact, the opposite is more
appropriate.
The only party to benefit would be the owner
(who would accrue huge financial benefits), and this to the disadvantage of the
Public at large and, particularly, to the disadvantage of the environment and
the public in general in that the nature and character of the a highly
conservation-worthy area will be profoundly compromised as it will change
significantly and permanently – from natural mountain veld to a fenced-off
inappropriately high-density development comprising of a hotel and housing
complex.
Erf 3051,
The
Association has objected to the application for a temporary land use departure
to permit motor vehicle repair and restoration on a residential property.
- Zoning of this area is clearly defined as
Single Residential.
- Despite this being zoned
Single Residential, our Association has been informed that the applicant
has conducted this type of business
(without approval) for a number of years, in spite of complaints from neighbours.
- Applicant is now
applying to regularize this unlawful business that he has carried out for
the number of years past.
- Approving such an
application will serve merely to reward such an unlawful business
practice. This is most
inappropriate; it sets a bad precedent as it encourages others to flout
the zoning scheme regulations and then apply retrospectively for approval
and expect to get permission to conduct an activity that is not in line
with the land use for the precinct; and this to the distinct disadvantage
of neighbouring residents who have bought their properties with the
expectation that they will enjoy a normal quiet residential neighbourhood.
- The direct neighbours
and surrounding neighbours have complained for many years about this
operation and submitted formal complaints to our Association and to The
City. As a result of such
complaints, the City’s Law Enforcement Department took the applicant to
Court.
- The Applicant appeared
in Court and it is alleged that he informed the Court that he was
repairing only his own vehicles on the property.
- If the above were true,
we wonder why this application has now been made.
The applicant has not motivated why this Land
Use should change or how it would benefit the public in general (a requirement
for changing the status quo). This issue needs to be settled before the
remainder of the application (LUPO aspect) can be legitimately processed (cf.
S36 of LUPO).
Our Association believes that the Single
Residential status of this area should not be altered in any way simply to suit
one person to the disadvantage of the others.
Approval would also substantially lower the
values of neighbouring properties, as a motor vehicle repair shop is not a
desirable activity in a pleasant residential area, particularly as it has been
a problem in the area already.
We point out that the proposed application
should be more appropriately relocated to an industrial area or
semi-industrial area such as the
Appeals Dismissed:
- Erf 31 Corner Norman Street
This application was vehemently objected to by our
Association and the Heritage Trust, approved by the City Planner, Richard
Walton, turned down at Subcouncil Good Hope, but approved by the City’s
Planning and General Appeals Committee who overturned the Subcouncil decision.
Both Cllr JP Smith and the RAHB were infuriated at the decision of the
Subcouncil being overturned by the Municipal Planning and General Appeals
Committee (PAGAC). RAHB and the Heritage Trust Appealed to Province and (what a
turn around). On the 8th of September, Len Swimmer received a letter
from Province which stated: “your appeal lodged against the City of
Here is a summary of our objection to this
application:
This Association has had
numerous interactions with the Planning Official concerned, who on many
occasions insisted that the minimum erf size permitted in terms of the zoning
scheme for certain residential properties is 450 sq.m, when it is not, and has
been proven so in a court of law.
In this case the maximum erf
size is definitely 650 sq.m as erf 31 is within the special area defined in the
Zoning Scheme as ‘Hout Bay and Harbour’ with reference to Plan TP-HB.
The Applicant and the City Planner are relying
on bad precedents in the area. We contend that a bad precedent is no
precedent – it should not be emulated.
To allow this proposed development of a semi-detached
house with a building line of zero metres from the boundary will result in
progressive destruction of the fabric of the area as feared and articulated by
the neighbouring residents who have objected to this building
application. It is also out of keeping with the ‘sense of place’ of the
area.
- Appeal dismissed
The Association’s objection to the subdivision of Erf 3353, GLOMAS, Valley Rd, adjacent to the Dominican Grimley School was upheld by the Municipal Planning and General Appeals Committee (PAGAC) and confirmed the Good Hope Subcouncil’s refusal of the application to subdivide into 16 properties, on 23 September.
Erf 3477 Houtbay
& erf 3583 Houtbay
Meeting
between WESSA, MEC Anton Bredell and Civic Organisations
On
the 4th of August Len Swimmer and Penny Brown of RAHB attended a
meeting convened by WESSA to introduce a cross section of people involved in
conservation, environmental justice, service monitoring, public participation
and sustainability issues.
Points
of interest included:
- Difficulties
in implementing all the relevant acts with limited staff. (EIAs under both NEMA and the ECA amount
to about 1000 applications per annum. On the LUPO side there were about
2000 applications per annum as well as many appeals to the minister.)
- The
directorate focuses on: law enforcement and non compliance, biodiversity
management, Nema implementation and sustainable development best practice,
climate, environmental reporting, GIS, school awareness, waste site
permitting, disposal auditing, pollution management and air quality
monitoring and capacity development.
- At the
beginning of the financial year in April there would be a meeting with
stakeholders and inputs from civil society which could influence the
department and the highlighting of priority areas.
- There was a
new white paper on governance, about streamlining the approval process so
that one could say no to developers in three months, without keeping back
the economy with lots of red tape.
Summer is coming!
We
have recently had confirmation of R63 000 allocation to the Hout Bay Beach
Cleansing programme and the imminent appointment of a contractor to conduct the
work. Let us know if you encounter any
cleansing issues on the beach as we move into summer. AND please remember to clean up after your
dogs if you are a dog walker.
Service Delivery
Complaints: Please try it and let us know how it works
The electronic reporting system for all service
delivery complaints in the City and queries is now in place.
Call 0860 103 089 or e-mail contactus@capetown.gov.za to log
a service delivery query or complaint. You can also SMS it to 31373 (no
more than 160 characters). Your contact will then be logged and a reference
number issued to you so that you can track our progress. The procedure is
working extremely well - try it! For issues relating to cable theft, call
the toll free 24/7 hotline: 0800 222 771.
Disaster Risk Management Centre cut over
As part of the City’s business improvement project to provide an efficient
customer interface and improve its service delivery, the Disaster Risk
Management Centre will implementing the new Mitel Voice over IP (VoIP) PABX
Contact Centre Management system on 29 September 2009 at 10:00.
It is anticipated that the
switch-over to the new PABX system will be seamless. Users have been trained
and are conversant with the new system and telephone instruments. The telephone
number for the Administration/Management office’s switchboard will remain as is
i.e. 021 597 5111.
The telephone extensions in the offices of the
Director: City Emergency Services will switch-over to the new PABX. The new numbers
have been updated on the City Web.
Harassment at
A
complaint has been lodged by Councillor JP Smith and Marga Hayward regarding
the increasingly militant behaviour of people standing at the intersection of Victoria
Avenue and Victoria Road. A local resident stopped at a red light had someone
open his car door and the matter was reported to SAPS. While there is legislation prohibiting
loitering, begging and selling at intersection, there has been no enforcement
of the law. We encourage you to report ANY threatening behaviour to SAPS so we
can lobby for greater protection.
.
Traffic
offences operative: 28 September
7 Arrests
7 Impoundments
3 Unlicensed drivers
2 No Prdp
3 Smooth tyres
1 Defective windscreen
Total: 23 cases
Dear Hout Bay Resident,
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, Hout Bay (code 204009) A/c: Residents Association of Hout Bay, A/c Number –
5345 1027 173.
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