Camps Bay's Finest Hour

Published in the Atlantic Sun 30th Anniversary edition 1 Sept 2011

Long before F. W. De Klerk heralded the transformation of South Africa in 1990 by freeing Nelson Mandela and unbanning the ANC, the Camps Bay Ratepayers and Residents Association (CBRRA), after a very hectic public meeting, decided in the early 1980s that the continuing banning of people of colour from beaches and Camps Bay’s beaches in particular was totally unacceptable.

It approached the then Provincial Administrator Gene Louw and Nationalist Party Minster Piet Koornhof in the early 1980s to permit Camps Bay to open its beaches to all. This permission was cautiously given on condition that CBRRA did not make it officially known.

When the public at large learned that this beach was opened to all, the first December holiday season was absolutely chaotic, with huge crowds, mass misbehaviour (braais were permitted on the beach in those days) overcrowding and general intolerance.

At the end of the season the then government insisted that a 2 metre high fence be erected to enclose half of the main beachfront with a R2 entry fee! The result of this absurd situation resulted in the whole of the previous year’s crowd squeezing into the free half of the beach and hardly any bathers at all using the pay section (see photograph)

At the end of the second holiday season, CBRRA persuaded the government to remove the fence, open the beach and ban braais to reduce misbehaviour.

Camps Bay main beach was the first beach in South Africa to be opened to all races in the modern era, when apartheid was at its height. Within two years, long before the government disappeared, and in spite of the relevant restrictive apartheid laws still being in place, every beach in South Africa was opened to all races, thus helping to starting the reform impetus which led to F.W De Klerk being able to do what he did.

The fence? To this day it exists in the vicinity of the Edgar Lipsett Oval and Maidens Cove, a monument to the splendid example of racial tolerance initiated by Camps Bay.

John Powell

Vice Chairperson

CBRRA

Tony Press encourages membership

16 August 2011

Hi All,

I went to the Camps bay Ratepayers Association meeting yesterday and thought I should send you all a reminder to please contribute to this very worthwhile and important association. My view is that it is our duty as Camps Bay residents to all be members of this association.

The meeting gave a good insight into the very important functions that are being performed by the committee for the good of our community. We are lucky to have such dedicated and responsible group of people that are prepared to contribute most of their spare time in the service of our community. I was very perturbed to hear how few of our community are paid up members of the association, given that the fee for membership is just R300 per year. This is surely a pittance given the work that is being done on our behalf.

It is vital, if we want the environment in which to live, to be pristine, safe and desirable, that all the community supports CBRRA.

You can see from the agenda below that actions are needed on all fronts to protect our beautiful village.

Please, if you aren’t already members, sign up, or if you have simply forgotten to renew your membership (as we had done) please pay now.

Regards,

Tony Press

Census 2011

For applicants to work on the Census 2011:

The people will be trained from 19 August onwards, until 22 August 2011.

They will then go out and do listing from 24 until 10 September 2011.

They will be employed on a daily basis and be paid accordingly for the 18 days.

The majority of them will become supervisors from September onwards and will be employed for a month and half.

Attached is copy of the application form that must be completed.

We are looking at employing about 70 people from the Camps Bay, Sea Point areas.

The following must be included: (Certified copies)

- ID

- Drivers license

- qualifications

Click on the image below to enlarge:

Have Your Say: Cell Mast

18 AUGUST:

Herewith our first set of objections to the draft policy.

Read the Draft Telecommunication Infrastructure Policy ‹‹here››.

LETTERS FROM RESIDENTS:

1. From: Richard Bendel

Further to the CBRRA AGM held on Monday night, I was told to submit a report on the blog relating to the cell mast at the Shell garage. I went onto the blog, but couldn’t see where I needed to submit this report. I am therefore sending it to you.

I bought my house in March 2003 and moved in in October 2003. At no time was I made aware that there was a cell mast at the Shell garage (which as you know is next door to me). I was actually only made aware of this when an estate agent brought someone to view my house a couple of months ago and this person saw this cell mast. I was a bit taken aback since it was the first time I was made aware of this fact.

I subsequently did some investigations and spoke to Andre van Heerden from MTN who sent me some information regarding the Health and Safety aspects of cell masts. This obviously says that there is no evidence that there is a direct link between ill health and cell masts. I did also speak to Joan Ross from Shell who weren’t keen on telling me anything regarding their lease agreement with MTN. I do understand that the initial lease was for a period of 9 years and 11 months (a commercial lease can’t be for 10 years or more) and that MTN had an option to renew. I am not sure on the dates of these agreements.

Since I have 2 very young kids, I obviously would not like them to be exposed to any potentially harmful radiation and would therefore like further investigation done into the terms of this cell mast, whether this was done legally, etc.

Your assistance in this matter would be greatly appreciated.

Regards

Richard Bendel CA (SA)

2. From: Anonymous

Dear Michele,

Thanks for supporting us, below is the report on Marine Heights (Upper Tree Road 36) and also 50 signatures from concerned residence who want to have the antennas removed. I also enclose some pictures of the equipment containers in the basement of Marine Heights and a photo, where you can see the antennas and 2 letters of tenants who moved out.

Regards

REPORT

“Marine Heights“

Regarding: “Marine Heights”

36 Upper Tree Rd

Camps Bay 8005

ERF 355

- Owner of Marine Heights (according title deeds) Mr Egbert Raymond Hering

- Rentals and maintenance of Marine Heights managed by Trafalgar

- Cell Antennas (all applications) managed by Warren Petterson (021-5525255)

on behalf of Mr Hering

About the current situation:

Marine Heights is a 3 storey Building, where about 12 families reside.

In the basement are 3 equipment-containers:

- 1 x Cell C

- 1 x Vodacom

- and 1x another container which is currently not in use

Each of the used containers is fenced by massive metal poles.

Everywhere are signs up that it is strictly prohibited to enter as it is dangerous due to radiation

On the roof on Marine Heights there are currently 7 Cell Antennas.

The building which is in poor maintenance state bristles of antennas, wires and satellite bowls.

Wherever you look at the building there is electronic equipment attached, it s like mushrooming and the owner comes up - almost every year - with applications for new and more antennas.

The access to the equipment containers used to be via a little drive off Upper Tree Rd. The owner himself sold the drive (as far as we know in 1996) to Quick Investment.

Mr Paul Ammann is meanwhile the sole owner of the property, which forms a new ERF 3248, including the drive. The drive via his property is the only access to the equipment containers in the basement of Marine Heights.

He clearly stated in several letters, that he is the owner of the drive and he won t allow access. This is constantly ignored by installation companies and it seems like, that the City Council is still not aware of the fact (or ignoring it) that there is in the mean time no access any more to the containers, in case of emergencies (e.g. in case of fire or just for maintenance work).

When the Vodacom and Cell C containers became installed, no one of the neighbours received any letters of the city council to get a change to object. We would like to raise the question whether this was legal to erect equipment without letting know the neighbourhood.

The contract of the one container( Vodacom as we can remember) was signed in Feb 2004. We could have a look at the file at the City Council with Ernest Kajabo who was that time in charge for the project. The contract was for temporary use (5 years)( Mr Solomon from City Council could verify all the facts) so it should be renewed in Feb 2009, which as far as we can say, was never done. Nobody from all our neighbours got ever notice. We went numberless to the city council, but it was useless, they were not able (or did not want) to assist us. The file number of this project was LM 152739.

Ernest Kajabo ( kajabo.ngendahimana@capetown.gov.za) could give us in 2008 the above file number, but he is unfortunately not any more in charge for this file, so we could not get to further information to do inquires what happened to the renewal of the temporary contract.

Later on when we went to the City Council to do further inquiries about the File and the Vodacom Container, the file was disappeared, the above mentioned file number was not showing up on the City Councils computer program and nobody could remember about anything. Other consultants claimed a couple of months later, that the above mentioned file number was never referring to the Voda Com Container but to the application to the Cell C Container.

So the question arises: Was there ever done any application for the Vodacom Container, including all the antennas?

On the 17th of October 2007 and in 2008 ( on the 28th of May) the owner came up with new projects: He wanted to have 8 huge poles ( I-Burst) on the roof of M.H installed, each of them 5 meters high.

Again all the neighbours objected, our letters were accompanied by a letter from the Camps Bay Ratepayers Association. We were lucky, the City Council decided in favour for us not to allow such installation. The application was closed in 2009-08-25.

In 2009 -08-06 the owner applied for a 4th equipment container and for 2 new cell antennas (MWeb). LM 2377(179395).

Again all residents, living in our neighbourhood objected and our letters were accompanied by a letter from the CBRRA –

Mrs Beverley Soares from the City Council was in charge of this application

(Tel:021-400-6456).

In May 20011 we received an invitation to the Sub Council, were all concerned neighbours joined up, we also had a lawyer joining us.

The judge decided in favour for us, it refused the application for further antennas.

The latest application (LM 179395) came in on 06-08-2009, again for Cell C.

The owner applied for an extension for his Cell c antennas.

The letter did not say for how many years he is applying for. When we went to the City Council (they never pick up the phone, so we always have to take time to drive there), the lady at the desk told us, it is usually for 5 years, but it was nowhere written.

The plans, attached to the application letter of the owner of Marine Heights, where absolutely irritating !

The City Council provided us with plans, which where not accurate: For example:

The containers on the draft are placed on the wrong sides and it is not clear which of the installations are already existing and which they plan to add. In addition to this, half of the copy with important facts about height and size was just cut off. Further on it was written that the access to the containers is via Upper Tree Rd., which is just to say: wrong! The only access Road is via the property of Paul Ammann.

All the neighbours again objected, we handed in again a new letter of the Tax and Rate Payer Association, a copy of the letter from Paul Ammann, various maps and sketches, which show that this is a dense populated residential area and all the antennas are too close to our homes.

Barabara Rogiers (Director of Pam Golding, she lives on the backside of Marine Heights) organized a lawyer, who handed in a letter (29 of March 2010) including a CD, showing clearly the negative health affects if you live too close to Cell Antennas.

The Letters were addressed to the applicant Mr Warren Petterson and to Mr Hering, Egbert Raymond (Title Deeds show that he is obviously the owner of M.H).

John van der Vyver( who also lives opposite the antennas of Marine Heights) wrote a letter to the ombudsman on12th of May 2010 and Paul Ammann sent again a letter (13th of May2010) stating clearly the the only access drive is via is own property, which he categorically will not allow.

We got no response.

Our Main Concerns are:

Health risks – it s not proven that radiation of cell antennas are harmful, but it is also not proven, that they are not harmful, therefore we would like to have them removed.

Research projects have shown there are definitely long term risks to the health, especially for children, we receive the radiation since 10 years, which is definitely not acceptable!

The Antennas are too close to the homes in our neighbourhood:

Usually you find such antenna installations on top of multi-storey buildings, so that the houses and residents around are not in direct touch with the radiation. As we live on a slope, we are at the same level (height) with the antennas and receive the radiation straight into our homes.

The only access road to the antennas and equipment containers is via P.Ammanns property, which he does not allow. So how can the City Council allow such installation without any access in case of emergency.

On Sat. 9th of May a truck came to offload 3 new Cell Antennas, which we think was illegal.

They installed all the 3 new antennas, when we asked them they told us it’s the same stuff, just “new technology”.

Later on some neighbours and me went again to the constructor workers. When we asked them they told us, its “good stuff” because with these newly installed antennas you can also have internet access on your Cell Phones.

The size of the 3 new antennas was about double size from the old ones.

It happened already twice that Cell companies arrange the workers for new installation over the weekend, well aware of the fact that we are hands bound, because the City Council is not reachable over this time.

They started always in very early morning on a Saturday, working till late and it was already dark, when they finished that day, then completing final works the whole Sunday…by Monday everything was always done and there was no change to call an inspector from the City Council on site as they (e.g. Mr Stephen Wilkinson 021-4006483 from the planning department/City Council) recommended us.

So to come back to the antennas, we came to the conclusion, it was not at all just about to ”replace things” it was clearly an up gradual!

We thought that any changes have to be registered at the City Council and you have to get permission for it.

Unfortunately the City Council was not able to answer us these questions.

Meanwhile the City Council finalized the decision about the already existing Cell Antennas to get him permission.

It is really irritating how the City Council can decide in May 2011 for “no antennas” because they would have been mounted right on the outside wall of the flats of Marine Heights, and 1 month later in June 2011 the same council allows continuance for the existing antennas although they are also mounted right at the outside wall of the flats. If you open the flats windows, the antenna is so close, you can touch it!!

Luckily the letter was accompanied by a letter to oppose the decision!

Unfortunately just view residents were provided by this letter and the time to respond was nearly less then 10 days, as the letter was delivered so late (the date it was written was already 2 weeks before we received it!!)

So we rushed to make lots of copies and distributed them to the neighbours.

Unfortunately in this time of the year lots of people are overseas and we could not get hold of them, but we tried to do our best.

So, this is “our story” and we are meanwhile sick and tired of it! –

By the way: The tenants of the whole ground floor from Marine Heights have meanwhile moved out. Also the other tenant from the corner flat, where some of the antennas are mounted at, moved out. The flat has not been occupied up till now.

These tenants were complaining about sleeping disorders and were worried about health concerns. The baby of another couple had continuously a rush. They told the other neighbours, once they had moved to another place, the rush completely disappeared.

They provided us with letters to confirm these facts.

We really don t know, what else we can undertake to have the antennas removed.

The only hope we have now, is to have the new draft policy implemented which is not allowing such a installation in too close proximity to homes.

We are all within 50 m radius, the antennas can be touched from the flats windows and the whole building bristles with cables.

Regards,

Anonymous

3, 4 Letters from Werner Kover and Louis Stoltz

Have Your Say: Converted Zoning Map

CBRRA comment on Appeal Erf 1565, 5 Theresa Ave

18 JULY 2011

The Director: Integrated Environmental Management

Dept of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning

PGWC

1 Dorp Street

Cape Town 8001

FAX: 021 483 3098

Dear Sir/Madam

APPEAL ito of LUPO 15/85 : APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION & CONSENT USE

FILEREF : LM 4737

APPLICANT : TOMMY BRUMMER TOWN PLANNERS

OWNER : AJ MILES

ERF : 1565

LOCATION : 5 THERESA AVE

SUBURB : CAMPS BAY

The CBRRA strongly supports the City of Cape Town’s decision to refuse this application.

As a preamble, it must be noted, with great concern, that both the Section Head and District Manager of the City’s Land Use Management Branch signed off on the recommendation for approval of a double dwelling on the one sub-divided erf, to the Good Hope Sub Council (GHSC), despite the fact that the Provincial Minister had expressly forbidden it. The letter from the Directorate Integrated Environmental Management dated 07 October 2010 clearly states that the condition E.(5).(b) – the single dwelling restriction – be removed, to be re-imposed again on the newly created erven (the Department’s emphasis). Not only does this letter occupy a prominent position in the application document and shouldn’t have been missed, but the Minister’s decision is recorded on page 1 of a 2-page letter that is in double spaced type and abundantly clear.

The CBRRA requests that the circumstances surrounding such dereliction on the part of the LUM of the City and an experienced architect in private practice be investigated as this could be a case of a condoned irregular application.

That this application was incorrect has been conceded repeatedly by the Applicant in his submission. However, the Applicant appears to now blame the GHSC for making a fatally flawed decision rather than look at the actual situation: The Provincial Minister’s decision not to remove the single dwelling restriction meant that this application needed to be re-advertised to reflect the new reality of the amended title deed restrictions applicable to the erf. To argue that this becomes a de facto lesser application (2 units in lieu of 3), and therefore legitimate, is trite and not supported by any legislation. Applications must be advertised for what is applied, not for what might be an eventual outcome. Clearly, it is impossible to apply one’s mind to an inaccurate application and this process must now be considered fatally flawed. If circumstances change during the application period, especially if this is due to administrative action, then the revised application must be advertised ab initio.

It was established at the GHSC meeting convened to hear this matter that the sub-division would result in too much densification and that the concerns of the Environmental Management Branch regarding green corridors, space for planting and the urban edge were not adequately addressed. The City has every right and is, indeed, mandated to consider and protect the built environment from over densification that results in the loss of a proper urban edge. The Applicant’s argument, that the Minister gave this point detailed examination, in terms of the broad ambit of the Removal of Restrictions Act, is fanciful. In fact, the Applicant concedes that he is only “of the opinion” that the Minister gave “adequate consideration” to this aspect.

The Applicant further argues against the “too much densification” by referring to the various policy guidelines currently in place viz. the MSDF and the MuniSDF which are claimed to support densification. It is common cause that these documents are in favour of densification but it must be borne in mind that these are merely broad brush-stroke policies that encourage densification along established transport corridors to maximize existing infrastructure. This very argument was placed before the WC High Court in the CBRRA vs RBC Subeleven matter. Mr Justice Bennie Griesel ruled that to equate the goals of such policy documents with the financial rewards of an owner increasing the rights on his property in an upmarket area such as Camps Bay was untenable. The argument was rejected in its entirety. The Province and the City are bound by this judgement.

The Applicant also refers to the Provincial Urban Edge Guidelines requiring that such developments must highlight any compatibilities between the proposed use and the existing urban edge. It is then suggested that the result of the sub-division will be a low density single dwelling development. However, the plans submitted with the application are no longer valid (the double dwelling is not permitted by right) and are reference plans only in the first instance. When pressed to supply a proposed a new development plan/envelope by the CBRRA, the Owner refused. It may well be that plans for two massive, inappropriate buildings, on the urban edge, be submitted if the sub-division is approved prior to formal plan submission and there will be no recourse for the City or the community.

This clearly puts the GHSC decision in its correct perspective: The Owner must submit a new application for the sub-division that includes accurate and binding plans. The Removal of Restrictions phase has been completed and the situation that now exists is not that contemplated by the original application – especially in terms of the Zoning Scheme.

The Western Cape High Court judgement (Case 6866/04 Bloubergstrand) handed down by Mr Justice Yekiso has established that applications must conform with all applicable law before the relevant Authority may consider them. Clearly this application does not comply and as such cannot be considered until all affected parties have waived their rights to the concessions sought. This ruling was not simply about a height restriction, as incorrectly stated by both the original Applicant and the City planners.

The Supreme Court of Appeal (in the True Motives vs Madhi case # 543/07) has also added that such a proposal must be considered ito s7 of the National Building Regulations and Standards Act, when the application does not conform with all applicable law. In this specific instance, the building will derogate from the value of affected neighbours’ properties and of the urban edge if the sub-division is granted and therefore planning permission must be denied.

The above two reported cases represent established case law in this country. However much a local authority might feel that such rulings undermine their competence or independence in terms of LUPO, the fact remains that planning officials have to respect such case law. It is clear that in this case the officials have ignored case law and that the GHSC has been presented with an application for approval that is ultra vires.

Given the prominence of this erf on the urban edge and bordering the National Park, it is suggested that the City also advertise this application in terms of s7 of the NBR.

In conclusion, the Provincial Minister dealt with the application in terms of the Removal of Restrictions Act and the City must now deal with the results of that administrative action. Following from that, it is clear that the GHSC has exercised its powers correctly in terms of the competency of the City and its decision is sound and should stand. It is a non sequitur that the City must simply reach the same decision as the Minister regarding a sub-division. Each Authority is assessing the application against different parameters, one being the Zoning Scheme and the other being the Removal of Restrictions Act.

Regards

CHRIS WILLEMSE

CHAIRPERSON

CBRRA contact: Chris Willemse Mobile 0836536363 Fax 021 4380703

cc The Director: Planning & Building Development Management Cape Town Region

Box 4529

Cape Town 8000

Attn Mr Kajabo Ngendahimana

Cllr Beverley Schafer address public at CBRRA AGM 2011

Members of the Camps Bay Ratepayers, Cllr Haywood, Ladies and Gentlemen,

It’s with great pleasure that I stand before you this evening as one of your newly elected councillors. For those that had a direct influence on my getting elected, I would like to thank you for the support. I am the Ward Councillor for Ward 54 which runs from Green Point/Mouille Point stretching all the way to the northern part of Camps Bay. In other words, I am responsible for the area that is commonly known as the Atlantic Seaboard.

I have spent the past three months getting to grips with all aspects the ward, and have inherited five ratepayers associations, all of which bring their own issues to the table and to which I am held to account. Some of these are specific to their area but most run as a common thread throughout the ward. I also regularly attend the various Community Police Forums and have good working relationships with both community watch and the various law enforcement departments throughout the Atlantic Seaboard.

The issue of the homeless living on the streets and in public open spaces along the Atlantic Seaboard is something that I have decided to really focus on. While this problem has been a long standing one, there is been a noticeable increase all along the urban fringes but particularly around the city and tourist areas.

The problem has largely been pushed onto law enforcement to sort out. However while there is a law enforcement component, the problem is most definitely a social one and one that very often is contributed by residents and tourists who are in the area.

I spent time with Law enforcement officers going into the field to see for myself what we were dealing with and exactly what the effect of the homeless has had on our many open spaces as you will see from the presentation. The effects of people living in our public open spaces have also been of great concern. I would say that we have an environmental crisis’s in places such as the lookout point in Clifton towards Bantry Bay; the area between Kloof Rd and Victoria Drive and parts of the Glen and National park area.

Without managing the social aspect of the problem, the street people will not go away. So how do we do this?

Or first step therefore, is to employ a social or outreach worker for the Camps Bay/Clifton area. Fieldworkers are information gatherers & first line resource to a “street person”. They work alongside them, building up cases on the individuals involved which requires the careful and dedicated information building, noting all arrests and offences; finding out about how the person came to be on the street and then assisting them according to their individual’s needs.

The field worker works closely with law enforcement, your CPF and community watch. He or she works a combination of day and night shifts and is on call to assist wherever possible.

Once that person is in place, we then can begin a managed plan which will see a steady decline in the homeless situation over a 36 month period.

Integrated with this plan, needs to be a very thorough clean-up of our spaces and then using law enforcement have a zero tolerance approach when all systems are in place.

So how can you the resident assist to make this happen.

• Well, firstly I am appealing for funding of R60 000 so that we can have a field worker employed by Oct before the season begins.
• Secondly, I would like to have signage put in place for tourists to see around the idea of “giving money creates more street people, instead making a donation to one of our night shelters”
• Thirdly, I have an allocation of 100 lockable wheelie bins that is available to be used as a pilot project. If you would like to be the area where the pilot is run, we will have to ensure that 10 residents all live within the same streets or area which I believe will assist a great deal. I can discuss this further with the ratepayers association to see if we can implement it here.

Finally I will be running a monthly open session called, “Meet your Councillor” at the Sea Point library for anyone who would like to see me. The first session will happen on 26th August from 10h30 till 12h30. I am always available by phone or email and will with Cllr Haywood assist wherever possible to ensure you continue to live in one of our jewels of the city.

I thank you.

Cllr Beverley Schafer