Thursday, 22 November 2012
by Sellecca Lang
Dogs have been banned from the popular Clifton Fourth and Camps Bay beaches this festive season. Dog owners have to go to Glen Beach and Clifton First, the designated areas for dogs off-lead. Ward councillor Beverley Schafer shared the "contentious" news with the community at the Camps Bay Ratepayers and Residents Association (CBRRA) public meeting on Monday 12 November. Ms Schafer said investigations into creating safer spaces for dog walkers and those without dogs was initiated after Meeka Riley, 2, was attacked by a Rottweiler on Clifton First beach in january ("No dogs allowed", Atlantic Sun, January 19)....continue reading ‹‹here››
The CBRRA's response
Tuesday, 20 November 2012
CBRRA PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
HELD AT The Rotunda, The Bay Hotel, Camps Bay, 12 Nov 2012 @ 19:30
The Chair welcomed everyone. He thanked Maree Brink and the Bay Hotel for their hospitality – and extended a special thanks to Hester and Ingrid for all of the arrangements.
He welcomed the guest speakers, Marnus van Wyk of EMSS and Michele Thomopoulos of Electromagnetic Radiation Research Foundation of SA.
He also welcomed Cllr Beverley Schafer. Cllr Marga Haywood was unfortunately ill. The chair mentioned that Beverley will give a short address on matters pertaining to CB, especially regarding dogs on the beaches. As always, this is also an opportunity for the community to address her on issues that are of concern to them, the ratepayers of Camps Bay.
The Chair thanked Arthur Shepard of Camps Bay Watch for his presence and thanked the CBW individuals who put a lot of work into ensuring CB’s ongoing security and sustainability.
2. APOLOGIES AND APPROVAL OF PREVIOUS MINUTES
2.1. Apologies: Johan van Papendorp, Marga Haywood, Mary Lloyd and Dominic Lavin.
2.2. Approval of minutes for Public Meeting held 21 February 2012 was proposed by Ann Caras and seconded from the floor and unanimously accepted by the meeting.
3. CHAIR’S REPORT
The chair mentioned that there are a multitude of masts belonging to all 3 network operators positioned around CB. Sites include Marine Heights in Upper Tree Rd, the Shell garage in Rontree Ave and behind the High School in the Glen.
The City Planning Dept is totally failing to enforce any of the applicable by-laws and many of these masts have no current permits to exist. He said that the committee is dealing with this on an on-going basis but the real problem lies in that if they are removed, so is the connectivity of the community – so a bit of a catch-22 situation.
The CBRRA is in discussions with the planners for the cellular service providers to find a suitable relocation site. However, the CBRRA invited the two guest speakers to deal with the subject in more detail in order that the community can decide for themselves as to how dangerous they find these installations.
As was agreed at the AGM in July, that the voting in of new members and the ratification of the current members of Manco be held over to this meeting. In the interim, Richard Bendel has offered his services to assist with the financial affairs of the CBRRA and Byron Herbert has offered to help out in any way that he can. The Chair thanked them both.
With reference to the financials, there has been no further movement on the costs order granted by the WC High Court to the City against the CBRRA. It was noted that a contingent liability has been inserted in the FS and there is nothing further to discuss at this point.
On a disappointing note, the CBRRA’s efforts to broker a deal between the Prep School and the Bowling Club has lead nowhere. Unfortunately, the pressure exerted by various groupings within the community caused a situation of stalemate and potential red tape. However, if there is any possibility to assist in this matter, CBRRA will pursue it.
However, on a brighter note, CBRRA had today received official notification from Pick ‘n Pay that they will not attempt to revive its liquor license application for the local store.
There was consternation last week when the CB Saps circulated this application but we have received PnP’s assurances that this was a misunderstanding based on the original application.
And finally the Chair expressed his deepest gratitude to all the members of the Manco, who have selflessly devoted so much of their time to improving our beautiful village of CB.
Marnus van Wyk presented a technical overview of the relative values of electromagnetic radiation as extracted from over 90000 tests that his firm, EMSS, has conducted, including for the Shell Service Station in Rontree Ave and Marine Heights in Upper Tree Rd. His conclusion is that cellular masts, as erected, are not dangerous and the health regulations governing these installations are adequate.
Michele Thomopoulos, representing the Electromagnetic Radiation Research Foundation of South Africa (EMRRFSA) presented a very different approach to the subject. She questioned many of the contentions of the industry and stated that SA’s laws governing cellular installations do not comply with international best practice.
At the conclusion of both presentations, various questions were raised from the floor. A summary of each presentation is attached, with links to the respective websites.
Beverley Schafer reported on the following:
Dogs on the beach: The City has decided to install new dogwalking by-law over the season to test how these will work with the public. After the season these will be reviewed and a final by-law will be installed. Due to the Blue Flag status of Camps Bay beach, no dogs would be allowed on the beach at any time over the season. However, dogs would be allowed on Glen beach and Clifton 1st beach.
Beach upgrade: A total amount of R600,000 has been allocated to the upgrade of the beachfront improvement to ensure a lasting solution to the current poor condition thereof.
The work will be as per the plan motivated and approved by CBRRA.
Various questions from the floor were raised on the dogwalking issue and Anthony Pamm expressed his indignation at the manner in which the financial issues raised by him had been dealt with by the councillors. Cllr Schafer replied that his matter had been escalated to the highest level at the City but that his application had been rejected.
The Chair announced that long-term Manco member Trudi Groenewald has resigned after 24 years of service. He thanked her for her commitment to the community’s civic issues and wished her well for the future. He asked the floor for anyone to step forward and serve on the committee and repeated that Byron Herbert, who was not present at the meeting, had agreed to serve on the Manco. Brent Dyssell and Mark Goldberg volunteered. The rest of the committee continue to stand including Richard Bendel who had been seconded to Manco a few weeks previously. The current committee of Alma Horn, Helet Merkling, Brenda Herbert, John Powell, Johan van Papendorp, Gus Millner and Chris Willemse volunteered to continue on Manco.
The meeting voted unanimously to confirm all of the abovementioned residents as members of the Manco
Richard Bendel reported on the following:
The current state of CBRRA’s finances, which reflect a positive balance of R160205.72 with a current liability for legal costs of R75000.00
A contingent liability has been noted on the audited financial statement to cover the potential costs order awarded against the CBRRA in favour of the City. There is no indication currently as to the quantum of this liability.
Questions from the floor.
Jane Bodin: Is there any further news regarding the legal bill to CBRRA on the Harrison case?
Chris Willemse: No
The Chair thanked everyone for coming and declared the meeting closed.
MEETING CLOSED AT 21:10
Friday, 2 November 2012
Everyone is welcome.
• Chairperson’s report
• Approval of minutes of previous public meeting
• Councillors Feedback
• Cell Mast Health Risks - Guest Speaker
• Manco Elections
• Dogs on beach by-laws
• Planning matters
• Any other business
• Questions from the floor
Monday, 20 August 2012
The CBRRA brought a principled and considered application to the Courts to set aside the original planning approval for the Harrison house, which was successful.
The Council then prompted the Harrisons how to alter the plans and immediately passed the rider plans, which CBRRA’s legal and planning team advised were still illegal.
On their advice CBRRA resubmitted an application to review the rider plans which was unsuccessful.
CBRRA's legal team advised that CBRRA should appeal this ruling, which our legal team did at no cost to CBRRA for two appeals at which they were unsuccessful.
The Supreme Court of Appeal in Bloemfontein found, as a matter of law, that the City of Cape Town's planning department should not have approved the Harrison's revised plans. That the SCA refused to set the planning approval aside on a very marginal legal technicality merely highlights the vagaries of the law and the incredible problems facing civic organisations which attempt to hold the City's officials to account.
Unfortunately, every community organisation has its detractors, who would rather destroy positive action in favour of narrow, private agendas.
The CBRRA is well aware of its responsibilities and will always attempt to fearlessly serve the best interests of the community.
CBRRA doubts that the community would want it to sit back and do nothing to address the real problems of poor governance in this city (and country), as Ms Bodin suggests, for fear of some unwanted outcome.
Sunday, 29 July 2012
CBRRA AGM AGENDA
Held at The Bay Hotel
30 July 2012
1. Welcome from the Chair
2. Thanks and apologies
3. Approval of Previous Minutes
4. Councillors’ report back and questions – Cllrs Marga Haywood & Beverley Schafer
5. Chair’s Report: The Uncertain Future – Chris Willemse (CBRRA Manco)
6. Membership – Gus Millner (CBRRA Manco)
7. The City Budget – An overview – Kiki Bond-Smith (Chair – Llandudno Civic Assoc)
8. Dogs on beaches – Trudi Groenewald (CBRRA Manco)
9. Planning Issues – Chris Willemse (CBRRA Manco)
10. CBBC/CB Prep School – Chris Willemse (CBRRA Manco )
11. Finance – John Powell (CBRRA Manco)
Monday, 16 July 2012
Sunday, 15 July 2012
Friday, 29 June 2012
HAVE YOUR SAY!
The City of Cape Town would like to thank you for your participation and valid input at the Public Participation meeting for Camps Bay proposal on the MyCiTi routes and services held on the 23 November 2011.
To ensure that we have conducted an effective public participation process and to identify areas for improvement, we would like extend an invitation to you for comments on that process.
We will appreciate it, if you could complete the attached survey ‹‹here›› and indicate how you think the City of Cape Town can improve on its public participation processes, tools and mechanisms. This will include your opinion on where the City of Cape Town has exceeded your expectations and failed to achieve your desired expectations.
Your input is of great importance to the development and establishment of an effective public participation communication plan as well as the management thereof. It will be appreciated if you could submit your comments by or before the Monday, 2 July 2012.
For any enquiries please do not hesitate to contact us:
Public Participation Unit
CITY OF CAPE TOWN
Tel: (021) 400 1450
Fax: (021) 400 1465
Wednesday, 20 June 2012
SCENIC DRIVE SPECIAL AREAS
92. The provision of this Chapter shall apply to all sites within the areas specified therein in addition to the general provisions of the Scheme set out elsewhere in these Scheme Regulations, and in the event of any provision of this Chapter and a general provision prescribing different requirements in respect of the same matter the more restrictive provision shall apply unless specifically otherwise provided in the section concerned.
Please find the full document Scenic Drive Special Areas ‹‹here››
REPORT TO ALL SCENIC DRIVE SKY BRIDGES POLICY
The purpose of this report is to present the draft Sky Bridges Policy to all Subcouncils for councillors to note the contents thereof and to comment thereon.
Please find the full Report to All Scenic Drive Sky Bridges Policy ‹‹here››
DRAFT SKY BRIDGE POLICY
Please find the full Draft Sky Bridge Policy ‹‹here››
Tuesday, 5 June 2012
To : The Executive Committee of the Greater Cape Town Civic alliancw
From : The Camps Bay Ratepayers and Residents Assocation (CBRRA)
Date : 3 June 2012
COMMENTS ON "OPENING UP THE DEMOCRATIC SPACE" BY PHILIP BAM
The Camps Bay Ratepayers and Residents Association has perused Philip Bam’s paper entitled “Opening Up The Democratic Space” and has the following responses :
1. The essence of this discussion paper is whether the GCTCA should enter the political field notwithstanding its constitution which clearly states as follows:
“Para 2. The Alliance shall be a voluntary association which represents residents, ratepayers, civics and other interest groups within Cape Town, that are concerned with matters of government and are not aligned to any political party or other party political structure with a separate existence from their constituent members.
Para.6 The members of The Alliance shall be non party politically aligned associations comprising ratepayers, tenants or residents, civics associations or other bodies constituted for similar purposes, with aims or objects in line with those of the Alliance (and which are not members of any other regional or national body with aims or objects conflicting with those of The Alliance ...........)
Para. 10.10 Any public officer bearer shall not be eligible for GCTCA office”
2. In stark terms, for example, should at present a member association wish to enter politics in any manner or should any member of the GCTCA Executive Committee wish to stand for office as a City Councillor, it or they must resign from the GCTCA before participating in a municipal election for any particular political party or standing as individual independent candidates.
3. The imperfections of the current situations existing in local government are well and eloquently stated in the discussion paper. However, the recommendations on the final page cause concern because they are not complete, have not been thought through to their logical conclusions and leave various issues unaddressed.
4. In simple terms, the document proposes to maintain the GCTCA an an entity which will remain unaltered from what it is at present. This is correct and does not give any cause for concern.
5. But then it is suggested that the GCTCA encourages “the formation of a civil society group that can easily develop the stature and public branding to be an alternative voice – to be named the “Independent Civil Alliance” (ICA). So far so good. But what is it going to be doing and how is it going to easily develop and acquire this stature and public branding ? In what manner is it proposed that the GCTCA “encourages” the formation of such a body without itself being seen to be actively entering into the political arena ?
6. Without actually saying so, it is suggested that members of this proposed ICA , separately and / or together, put themselves forward as “independent” candidates at the next municipal elections for election as City Councillors.
7. It is not clear how the ICA will be able to select which of its candidates will be elected as specific constituency Councillors or Councillors on a proportional list. How will the existing municipal parliamentary structures respond to or recognise this entity of so-called non-party-political loosely associated candidates who will simultaneously somehow deny being a political party?! Will they recognise the ICA as being eligible for proportional Councillors ? It seems that the ICA will want all the advantages of being a political party in order to be able to act within the present political system, but, at the same time , will want to have all its perceived advantages which it claims it will have by actually not being a political party in terms of its own attitudes. Simply, will the system buy into this concept ? More importantly, will the public buy this concept and support it ? CBRRA doubts this.
8. A distinct difference between this proposed entity and the present party system is that all the autonomous candidates will be given free reign over what they say they are going to do or stand for in the specific absence of a party caucus, which is being looked upon as an advantage. Each and every elected ICA Councillor can say exactly say what he or she wishes during the election process and after election in Council. They may even be contradicting each other at times !
9. Whereas each candidate will undoubtedly have a real sense of freedom and independence, all the trappings of a political party will have to be incorporated if this group wishes to work together for any particular reasons. Ie. Meetings and mission statements will have to be organised, publicity and campaigning costs will be considerable, money raising campaigns will have to be organised, public statements will have to be arranged and co-ordinated and ongoing public relations will need to be organised to keep the ICA in the public’s mind. Unless the ICA Councillors consult with each other from time to time to exchange views and agree matters of common interest and policy (how different is this from a caucus ?), the proposed ICA will surely lose momentum and purpose.
10. Other than the proposed “free-conscience vote in Council” and the proposed “recall contract with the community”(which it is doubted any candidate will sign and will be difficult to implement) all the other points included in paragraphs A and B on the last page of the discussion document are being done by the existing political parties anyhow to an admittedly greater or lesser efficient degree. How will the public know whether the ICA will execute these actions any better ?
11. Many years ago, there was no political system upholding local municipal government, and certainly all Councillors (mostly part - timers with their own separate careers) had total autonomy as to how they acted and what they said. In those days, the Council was a much smaller business to run, and CBRRA is of the opinion that the proposed injection of free-conscience Councillors will not necessarily have the assured effect of or capacity to transforming the present huge municipal government system into a more efficient entity.
12. CBRRA is rather of the opinion that better candidates should be found to stand as Councillors, (there are still too many relics of the old National Party system in office) and much more importantly, the regrettable schism between Councillors and Council Officials must be eliminated completely, because it considers that this is the main cause for inefficiencies and malfunctions in the local government system at present. Inefficient and inconsistent Officials who cannot properly interpret their own regulations, dominate and mislead the Politicians, the very people who employ them and to whom they report are the real problems of the City Council and nothing will improve until this problem is completely sorted out.
13, If individual members of GCTCA wish to stand as Councillors in the next municipal elections, they must feel free to do so and finance and run their own election campaign and understand that they will have to give up their own business / profession because being a Councillor is a very busy full-time career which cannot carry part – timers who cannot give their position their full attention. Councillors who are so-called part timers will tell you that they are very pressurised in their normal jobs by the time taken up by them to be Councillors in any capacity.
14. Notwithstanding the above comments, CBRRA is of the opinion that, of course, any persons who wish to stand for public office must do so and resign from the GCTCA. There is nothing to stop them spontaneously and independently organising and promoting a political entity such as the abovementioned ICA on their own, should they feel that it will be in their interests. However, CBRRA is strongly opposed to the present GCTCA encouraging, organising, assisting, financing or publicising their efforts to do so in any manner. By doing this, the GCTCA will be acting directly against the above clauses contained in its constitution, in terms of which it is specifically prevented from doing so. By doing so it will be , in effect, surreptitiously participating in a political system without admitting that it is doing so, which act will be deceptive in the public’s and the authorities’ eyes.
15. Accordingly, CBRRA does not consider that the proposals contained in the discussion document will solve the well-stated problems which it highlights in its first part leading up to its suggested solution and strongly encourages the GCTCA to stay as it is presently structured and abandon any participation in the formation of the suggested ICA.
Vice Chairperson CBRRA
Exco Member GCTCA
3 June 2012
Thursday, 31 May 2012
An Australian accountant who petrol-bombed the luxury home of Clifton businessman Philip Rhind was jailed for nine years on Thursday.
Shumsheer Singh Ghumman, 33, was sentenced in the Cape Town Regional Court for fraud, incitement to commit murder, attempted murder and malicious damage.
Francois van Zyl, for Ghumman, notified the court that he would launch an application for leave to appeal against the conviction and sentence.
The application would be brought on Friday next week, he told the court.
Magistrate Herman Pieters said Ghumman harboured a deep-rooted grudge against Rhind, for interfering in his relationship with Rhind's daughter Hannah.
"This case results from that grudge; Ghumman still has that grudge and there is no guarantee that he will not still have this grudge on his eventual release from prison," Pieters said.
"There is no guarantee that he will not repeat his actions to satisfy his grudge, when he is released from prison."
Hannah, who met Ghumman in the United Kingdom, believed their relationship was merely a platonic friendship, but she ended it when she realised that Ghumman had "romantic ideas".
When Ghumman persisted, however, Hannah turned to her father for protection, and the father warned Ghumman to leave her alone.
Ghumman followed secretly when Hannah went home to her parents, located the house and engaged a "hitman" with gangster connections to petrol-bomb the house.
However, when the "hitman" got cold feet, Ghumman did it himself, hurling three petrol bombs at the house.
The Rhind family survived the attempt to raze their home, and the incident gave rise to the incitement and attempted murder charges.
The malicious damage charge related to damage that Ghumman deliberately caused to the Rhind family's car.
On the fraud charge, Ghumman falsely informed senior Cape Town journalists, including Raymond Joseph, that he was a freelance journalist wanting to do a photo-story about gang violence in the Western Cape.
This resulted in Ghumman being introduced to the hitman.
Pieters said Ghumman's mother, medical practitioner Dr Nirmal Ghumman, had adopted a sensible approach in her testimony on her son's behalf.
"She said her son had to learn to respect the law, and not to take the law into his own hands."
Pieters said he did not believe that Hannah had "led Ghumman on", as claimed by Dr Ghumman.
He said no one except prosecuting counsel Billy Downer had acknowledged that Ghumman had acted in a wrongful manner, and Ghumman, to the very end, had blamed Rhind for his actions.
Of Rhind himself, Pieters said: "He wants a jail sentence, seemingly forever - he wants the court to put the accused away, and throw away the keys.
"He clearly is still an angry man."
He said the courts fulfilled an important function in the community, and given the levels of violence in the country, the case called for retribution and determent.
Sentence was not a scientific calculation, and it had to serve the public interest, but if it were too lenient it would bring the administration of justice into disrepute, he said.
Pieters said Ghumman was an educated and intelligent man, and "ought to have known better". - Sapa
Tuesday, 22 May 2012
Invites YOU to a Public Meeting for:
Traffic Safety & Parking Management
- Kerbside Management Policies
- Pay-for-Parking Proposal
- Pavement Usage / Issues
- Car Guards - Current / Future
- Related Safety & Security Issues
- Road Signage & Safety Project Update
- Questions & Answers
Please Attend & Ensure YOUR Voice is Heard
Monday, 7 May 2012
A1 SYNOPSIS: NOTES AND MANAGEMENT OF LIQUOR LICENCE APPLICATIONS
1. All liquor licence applications now must be submitted to Designated Liquor Officer (DLO) at each SAPS office.
2. The DLO then submits it to City Manager: Office of Manager Subcouncil’s who in turn will, via Sharepoint notify each respective Subcouncil Manager.
3. Each application needs to be dealt with in total of 35 working days.
4. DLO has 7 working days to submit to City Manager.
5. City Manager to Subcouncil’s and returns to be done within the 28 working days thereafter.
6. In order to allow sufficient time to compile a report for a Subcouncil and time for Manager of Subcouncil’s to provide input to the liquor authority it in proposed that not more than 10 working days are utilized to obtain input from the relevant stakeholders.
7. Stakeholders are :
7.1 Ward Councillors
7.2 Community Based Organization (create list per ward - email address)
7.3 Ward Committee Members (create list per ward – email address)
7.4 SAPS Community Police Forum: Communicate via Station Commissioner
7.5 Any other possible stakeholders (To be identified in conjunction with Ward Councillors)
A2 8. Internal Departments:
8.1 Town Planner
8.3 Fire and Rescue Service (Get applicable official email address per Ward)
9. Councillors need to be made aware that if no comments are received by due date it will be recorded as such in the report.
10. DLO to certify that neighboring residents were informed.
11. Councillors to note that By-Law on Trading Hours has been promulgated.
A. Receive application via Sharepoint/email.
B. Forward to Stakeholders with very specific due date for comments (Note that not only 10 working days allowed for comments)
C. On the 12th day prepare the report: Liquor Licences received
(Copy of template attached)
D. Notify Chairperson and Ward Councillors of meeting to be discuss report. (To be done within 24 hours after report is prepared).
E. Submit recommendation to the office of the Manager Subcouncil’s for forwarding to Western Cape Liquor Authority.
(i) Attached are pages 55 and 56 (extracts from the Council agenda) referring to the process and procedure in applying for ‘’EXTENDED LIQUOR TRADING HOURS ‘’: Please discuss this with Councillors as an almost similar process are to be followed (as in the case with a liquor licence application) in dealing with these applications.
(ii) Subcouncil Managers will be responsible for points 9 – 12 (a draft report template is in process of being prepared and will be circulated under separate cover)
Monday, 30 April 2012
A FOUR-METRE great white shark surged towards Camps Bay bodyboarder David Lilienfeld riding waves just outside Gordons Bay.
Moments after it swam away, and right next to Lilienfeld’s brother Gustav, the shark returned and lunged at David Lilienfeld a second time.
Lilienfeld tried to fight the shark off with his board.
“It killed him (David) on the third attempt. It bit his leg clean off,” said Mat Marais, a keen surfer who witnessed the attack yesterday.
Lilienfeld, 20, died at the scene.
A policewoman said Lilienfeld’s father, Dirk, a medical practitioner from Camps Bay, asked that this message be given to the media gathered at the scene: “David was a Springbok bodyboarder. This was his life and he died doing what he loved.”
His right leg was severed below the hip. He had no other visible injuries.
Gustav, 18, who had tried to save his older brother, managed to get David’s body on to a board and towards the shore, and escaped without injury.
Marais said that after Gustav got his brother’s body near the shore, other friends, surfers, bodyboarders and bystanders, struggled to pull the body on to land as the shark was still swimming nearby in shallow water.
“They couldn’t go in to fetch him,” Marais said.
Lilienfeld’s body could be moved to land only once the shark had left.
Marais said that about 20 minutes before the attack at 12.41pm at a popular surf- ing spot between Kogel Bay and
Gordon’s Bay known as Dappat se Gat, there had been many dolphins in the water.
“About three minutes after I got out the water, one of the guys said: ‘Was that a shark attack?’
“The shark came back for the bodyboarder three times. It killed him the third time. It was between three and four metres. When its tail fin came out, it was quite large,” he said.
When people realised an attack had occurred, Marais said, they rushed to help David Lilienfeld and his brother.
People who had been standing at a parking lot at the top of a hill near the surfing spot, rushed down to see if Lilienfeld could be saved and called emergency services.
But Marais said Lilienfeld died after losing a vast amount of blood.
He said emergency services arrived 10 minutes after the attack but could not save him.
“Conditions were good. It was your dream day becoming your worst nightmare,” he said.
Marais said he had surfed at the spot for 19 years and it was the first fatal shark attack there that he could recall.
He said the last attack had occurred years ago and surfer Sergio Capri confirmed to the Cape Times he had been attacked more than two decades ago.
A number of people told the Cape Times they had spotted at least two sharks in the water yesterday.
Lilienfeld’s friends started gathering and a number could be seen, tears streaming down their faces, sitting on a ledge overlooking the spot where Lilienfeld’s body lay.
“I can’t talk to you right now,” was all one friend managed to say before breaking down.
A rescue worker could be seen standing on a rocky patch near the body and police said Gustav was still with his brother’s body.
Lilienfeld’s father, Dirk Lilienfeld, looking dazed, arrived and was led from the parking area to his son’s body so that he could identify it.
A while later Gustav, appearing shellshocked and clutching a surfboard, and his father walked back up to the parking area from Lilienfeld’s body.
Friends rushed to comfort them and the two left soon after briefly speaking to police.
Police confirmed Gustav had been at his brother’s side when the attack happened and had tried to help him.
Officers said another friend, Kirk Morgan, had also been present when the attack took place.
When rescue workers and police carried Lilienfeld’s body up to the parking area, his friends broke down again and hugged one another.
One of them, who declined to be named, said they had not been present when the attack happened.
“Please just mention the issue of chumming. I don’t know why the shark would come back for him,” he said.
In the weeks leading up to yesterday’s attack, chumming had made headlines because of filming for the documentary Shark Men, which involved research being done in False Bay and on the southern Cape coast.
But following yesterday’s attack, the environmental affairs department cancelled the permits enabling the programme and research to go ahead.
Yesterday National Sea Rescue Institute spokesman Craig Lambinon said after Lilienfeld was attacked, witnesses had reported seeing up to six sharks in the area.
Police spokesman Andre Traut said an inquest docket had been registered to probe the attack.
Late yesterday, as news of Lilienfeld’s death spread, condolence messages started pouring in for him.
Lilienfeld was a member of the South African bodyboarding team at the International Surfing Association Bodyboarding Championships in the Canaries late last year.
In a shark attack in September near Fish Hoek beach Michael Cohen’s leg was partially amputated. He survived.
Sunday, 22 April 2012
“We saw this huge figure rise from the water. It was absolutely relentless in its attack,” 30-year-old Sam Jefferies, from London, told Weekend Argus yesterday.
He and his parents Judy and Gordon, as well as his brother Harry, 25, were driving back to Fish Hoek from Hermanus when they witnessed the attack on Lilienfeld, 20, from Camps Bay, who died after the shark ripped off his right leg.
Harry told of how they stopped at a viewpoint to take in the scenery. “It was such a perfect day and we saw two bodyboarders out in the water. “They looked like they were having so much fun.”
When the shark attacked, every agonising minute was clearly visible. “It rammed David three or four times in a matter of seconds. He managed to fight back a bit using his board, but there was no escape. “After being hit a third time, David sank into the water. The piece of ocean where he had gone down turned red with blood,” Harry said.
Sam said they rushed down the cliff to try to reach David.
“It couldn’t have taken us five minutes to get down there. His brother Gustav was still making his way to the shore. We knew he (David) would be severely injured because of the blood but thought that if we could reach him in time we could save his life.”
Meanwhile, their parents ran to warn other people on the beach about the shark.
Sam and Harry said they warned off another surfer about 100 metres from where the attack took place, and he joined them on the rocks to search for David.
They found his bodyboard first. It had been carried in by the waves and was being pushed on to the rocks.
By now, they were joined by David’s younger brother Gustav and the four finally spotted David’s body, floating face-down in the shallows.
“We went to retrieve him from the water, and saw his right leg had been torn off from the lower hip. He had been frothing from the mouth,” Sam said, adding that there was “so much blood”.
But they quickly moved David to higher ground as the shark remained nearby. Harry said Gustav was in complete shock, and kept saying: “Oh God. Please let him be okay.” “I remember checking his pulse - there was nothing.”
The surfer, whose name they did not get, also checked for a pulse, and then told Gustav there wasn’t one. “He cried and cried as we waited for emergency services. We all hugged before going our separate ways.”
Sam and Harry said they couldn’t be sure whether David died as a result of blood loss or if he had drowned.
They suggested the froth at his mouth may have indicated that that he had drowned.
“We only found out later that David and Gustav were brothers. That made the attack hit us so much harder because they were brothers, like us,” they said. It was an incredibly traumatic experience for them, they said. They hoped to get in touch with the Lilienfeld family to offer their condolences. “We want them to know exactly what happened to David and how brave he was.”
Len Bradford, of Reef wetsuits, told Weekend Argus that David had been one of the country’s top bodyboarders. “He was SA junior champ in 2009, and was selected for last year’s SA national bodyboarding team, representing SA at the World Games in the Canary Islands last November.
“He was an amazing sportsman, but a very humble guy. Very soft-spoken,” he said. “It’s a great loss to our sport, and to everyone,” he said.
- Saturday Argus
Thursday, 19 April 2012
31 Beta Road, Bakoven – ERVEN 2733 & 2744
Departures from the planning scheme.
17 Pitlochry Road, Camps Bay – ERF 2358
Right of appeal: Subdivision and departures from the planning scheme.
Tuesday, 17 April 2012
City of Cape Town
- The previous street lamp deflector was removed (without notice to me or reasons given for doing so) by the Electricity Department some time ago when they replaced the light bulb with the stronger (halogen?) bulb which now throws 20 –40 m plus and much wider and even more invasive pool of light in the area and as a result refracts onto and into surrounding properties and buildings, including our property. It is so strong that we can see the yellow parking lines in pitch darkness from quite a distance away (100, m estimate?) and the street light bounces off neighbors' buildings too, upwards and into our bedrooms.
- I can send you some more photos if you wish to see what it looks like at night, or we can meet one evening after dark if you wish to monitor it then. 7 pm is fine.
- Your colleagues should still have the deflector they removed, so I can't see why it is necessary to pay extra for restitution, or why I should be held liable for a nuisances caused by the Electricity team/Council contractors/employees, also in view of the legal obligations for Council to stop the nuisance in terms of various environmental and public health laws?
- The comment below that you cannot remove the lamp as other road users will be be affected is not supported by the facts on the ground and in this area:
- There are 4 lamp posts in very close proximity to each other here in addition to roof lights from properties adjoining Victoria Rd..
- This particular spot is over lit through a combination of public and private artificial exterior lighting at night.
- As residents and rate payers we live here and can't sleep as result of the reflection into our bedrooms at two levels of our house now also by this street lamp, exacerbated by existing amplification of the light nuisance by the Beaches' Apts. (10 Victoria Rd.) illegal roof and sign lights.
- Road users will not be negatively affected by your department taking steps to ameliorating the light nuisance posed by this lamp opposite our house as:
- there are already too many street lamp posts here providing more than sufficient light over a short distance of 40 m minimum.
- surrounding roof lights add additional light sources illuminate the public and private spaces more sharply than daylight at this spot;
- road users and motorists are passing through this spot in an average of 1 second whereas we live here 24 hours a day, with the night time of about 11 hours being invaded by artificial light at night causing permanent residents and ratepayers to suffer more severely from the invasive light sources.
- motorists manage very well with their vehicle head lamps in this over this overly well lit part of Victoria rd. as they also do 100 m away towards Bantry Bay where there is light only over a greater distance only on the sea side of Victoria Road and also a few kilometers away where there are again no artificial pavement lights (on one side of the road).
- There is really no basis for stating that motorists will be negatively affected by the removal of this one lamp. They manage perfectly well 8 km away on Victoria Rd. towards Llandudno where there are no lights on either side of the road, and all along the hundreds of thousands of roads in our country which have no street lights at all. There are several light bulbs out at several nearby lamp posts (incl. on the duplicate lamp post at Whale Rock apt. opposite our house).
- There are few pedestrians using the pavement here at night and this area is so excessively well lit with so many permanent sources of artificial light (incl. surplus street lamps) that removing this one light is unlikely to affect pedestrian safety here. I have been monitoring the possible impact on pedestrians here at at night and cannot believe that the removal of this one light would endanger anyone's safety given the reality of excessive artificial light sources here.
- May I suggest another option as possible solution: could you temporarily remove the light bulb on this one lamp (as if it blew) and we can both monitor the positive or negative effect thereof? The deflector will then not have to be fitted, you will not have to come back to deal with continuing nuisance problems if the deflector does not work with this new, stronger light bulb, and we should be able to get some sleep?
Tuesday, 20 March 2012
Monday, 19 March 2012
Thursday, 15 March 2012
15 MARCH 2012
City warns of disruption in water supply to Camps Bay this weekend
The City of Cape Town's Water and Sanitation Department will be carrying out the required upgrade on the water supply network feeding the Camps Bay area from 22:00 on Saturday night, 17 March 2012 until 06:00 on Sunday morning, 18 March 2012.
This follows the tests, camera inspection and installation of a by-pass connection earlier in the month. The upgrade will ensure that the water supply infrastructure will not be negatively impacted by heavy-duty vehicular activities.
The work will result in a disruption to the water supply from Camps Bay Drive to Victoria Road – including the Twelve Apostles Hotel – between 22:00 on Saturday night and 06:00 on Sunday morning.
This work forms part of the City's water infrastructure maintenance and upgrade strategy, which also addresses the impact of changing environments on the water supply pipelines.
When the water flow and pressure is restored, there might be a brief period when the water is slightly discoloured. Residents are advised to store drinking water in clean, sealed containers for domestic purposes.
Residents must please ensure that their taps are properly closed during this period. Should the tap be inadvertently left open and the flow restored while they are away from home, damage could be caused and a considerable amount of water wasted.
The City wishes to apologise for any inconvenience caused, but it is essential that we improve our water supply infrastructure to the benefit of our consumers.
Issued by: Communication Department, City of Cape Town
Media enquiries: Farouk Robertson, Communication Officer: Water and Sanitation Department, City of Cape Town, Tel: 021 487 2318 or Cell: 084 307 2001