Save ItSpeaking of South Africa, many Anarchists will have sailed off the coast of Durban, a city that boasts warm water and good sailing breeze. Classes that have held events here include 505's, Lasers, Hobie Cats, Finns, Fireballs, J22's and Mirrors. We even have a Flying Tiger here!
Since South Africa entered the Americas Cup with the Shosholoza Team, sailing is enjoying much greater publicity in the country. However, this great venue is under threat from a greedy bunch of property developers who are exploiting loopholes in the law, in order to grab land and evict the Watersports clubs that currently exist at the launch site known as Vetch's Beach. There is indeed a public outcry. If this is allowed to happen the development of sailing will take a huge knock; so much so that it is predicted that Hobie Cats will disappear from Durban forever. Sound good? We don't think so either. Send comments to savevetchies@gmail.com.
The Water Rat10/30/07
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Monday, October 29, 2007
The Mercury today ( 29 October 2007 )
Vetch's Pier area will be lost to our children
October 29, 2007 Edition 1
The controversial proposed development of Vetch's Pier should be given continued prominence.
As a life member of the Point Yacht Club, I was involved in developing the club's beachsite at Vetch's Pier and enjoyed my sailing days off that beach, but the way things are going, no future generations will have the same pleasure.
Big money and the apparent complicity of the municipality are determined to make this so.
It is the intention to develop a small-craft marina at Vetch's Pier. Having been associated with the present well-protected yacht marina in the Bay from inception and observed the wear and tear, and occasional storm damage, I consider a marina in the more turbulent Vetch's Pier area is condemned to failure.
Heavy swells would rapidly create maintenance problems, not to mention storm damage.
Who is to bear the cost of maintaining this marina for the wealthy few?
No doubt the ratepayers would be expected to pick up the tab and by so doing, subsidise the property developers and owners who wish to deny the public the free use of Vetch's.
Ken Leigh
Kloof
October 29, 2007 Edition 1
The controversial proposed development of Vetch's Pier should be given continued prominence.
As a life member of the Point Yacht Club, I was involved in developing the club's beachsite at Vetch's Pier and enjoyed my sailing days off that beach, but the way things are going, no future generations will have the same pleasure.
Big money and the apparent complicity of the municipality are determined to make this so.
It is the intention to develop a small-craft marina at Vetch's Pier. Having been associated with the present well-protected yacht marina in the Bay from inception and observed the wear and tear, and occasional storm damage, I consider a marina in the more turbulent Vetch's Pier area is condemned to failure.
Heavy swells would rapidly create maintenance problems, not to mention storm damage.
Who is to bear the cost of maintaining this marina for the wealthy few?
No doubt the ratepayers would be expected to pick up the tab and by so doing, subsidise the property developers and owners who wish to deny the public the free use of Vetch's.
Ken Leigh
Kloof
Friday, October 26, 2007
Front Page of The Mercury Today ( 26 Oct 07 )
New Durban harbour plan prompts public outcry
26 October 2007, 05:37
Durban water sport and community groups have voiced strong opposition to the latest version of the Point small craft harbour plans, with some groups calling for the scrapping of what they claim is an unworkable and profit-driven "concrete dream".A second group, made up of the Durban Ski Boat Club, Point Yacht Club and Durban Undersea Club, has adopted a more conciliatory approach to find a solution. However, members of this group appear to be having serious doubts about whether a compromise can be reached.The latest objections to the Point small craft harbour follow a recent public meeting at which the developers submitted revised proposals after it was advised to go back to the drawing board by the provincial Department of Agriculture and Environment Affairs.However, far from appeasing the concerns of objectors, the revised development plan - which now includes a 25-storey hotel in the middle of Vetch's Bay - appears to have sparked further opposition.In a written submission to the environmental impact assessment (EIA) consultants, veteran Durban surfer and boardsailor Mike Larmont complained that the Durban Point Development Company was so obsessed with making money that it had consistently ignored constructive counterproposals from local watersport clubs.Sailing KZN, an affiliate of the International Sailing Association, said its members recognised the need to upgrade the dilapidated sailing facilities at Vetch's Pier. The association said the upmarket yacht marina proposal would provide little more than a "pretty backdrop" for wealthy condominium owners, but do little to cater for the needs of the sailing community.Sean Fennessy, of the KZN Hobie Cat Association, said the cramped layout of the marina would turn sailing and launching into a management "nightmare", and increase the risk of boating collisions and injuries.Desmond D'Sa, chairperson of the South Durban Environmental Alliance, described the latest yacht marina plan as "an undisguised attempt to steal the heritage of Durban residents from under their noses".He said Vetch's Pier was a free and much-loved communal asset for Durban residents, but would become the exclusive preserve of the rich and famous.The Durban Ski Boat Club, Point Yacht Club and the Durban Undersea Club (under the umbrella of the Durban Point Watersports Club) also presented a joint submission containing 16 points of concern.Durban Ski Boat Club spokesman Eddie Lahee said the developers had responded on Wednesday with proposals that did not address several of the club's most serious concerns."Our approach was to find a workable solution so that we would not be pushed out of the water. We would still like to work in good faith towards finding a solution, but it's becoming a bit difficult." Lahee said the Durban watersports fraternity presently had access to nearly 28 000m2 of land at the Point, whereas at least 3 000 active members from several different clubs had now been offered less than 4 000m2 to build a joint "superclub", which they would have to finance themselves.Lahee estimated it would cost between R15 million to R20-million to build a new clubhouse, and members had asked the Durban Point Development Company (DPDC) whether they could facilitate a low-interest loan and a special concession on municipal rates to make the plan affordable.While the construction costs might be affordable for 3 000 members, there was concern that this would not be possible if 1 000 members opted out of paying for the superclub.The DPDC had proposed a multilevel boat-stacking system to save space, but ski boat club members did not believe it was a workable solution.The boating fraternity had also asked that the proposed slipway be enlarged from 20m to 75m, but the DPDC was offering a 40m-wide slipway.Larmont, representing the Boardsailing Club of Durban, accused the DPDC of ignoring constructive input and failing to investigate calls for an alternative site.Sailing KZN said the answer was to leave Vetch's pier and beach untouched - but to give watersport clubs a guarantee about their future, which would give them the financial incentive to upgrade and revitalise their "rundown and dilapidated" clubhouses.Invited to comment on the objections, project director Neels Brink responded: "How did you get hold of these submissions? I am not sure why you are calling me. You know how the EIA process works."
This article was originally published on page 1 of The Mercury on October 26, 2007
26 October 2007, 05:37
Durban water sport and community groups have voiced strong opposition to the latest version of the Point small craft harbour plans, with some groups calling for the scrapping of what they claim is an unworkable and profit-driven "concrete dream".A second group, made up of the Durban Ski Boat Club, Point Yacht Club and Durban Undersea Club, has adopted a more conciliatory approach to find a solution. However, members of this group appear to be having serious doubts about whether a compromise can be reached.The latest objections to the Point small craft harbour follow a recent public meeting at which the developers submitted revised proposals after it was advised to go back to the drawing board by the provincial Department of Agriculture and Environment Affairs.However, far from appeasing the concerns of objectors, the revised development plan - which now includes a 25-storey hotel in the middle of Vetch's Bay - appears to have sparked further opposition.In a written submission to the environmental impact assessment (EIA) consultants, veteran Durban surfer and boardsailor Mike Larmont complained that the Durban Point Development Company was so obsessed with making money that it had consistently ignored constructive counterproposals from local watersport clubs.Sailing KZN, an affiliate of the International Sailing Association, said its members recognised the need to upgrade the dilapidated sailing facilities at Vetch's Pier. The association said the upmarket yacht marina proposal would provide little more than a "pretty backdrop" for wealthy condominium owners, but do little to cater for the needs of the sailing community.Sean Fennessy, of the KZN Hobie Cat Association, said the cramped layout of the marina would turn sailing and launching into a management "nightmare", and increase the risk of boating collisions and injuries.Desmond D'Sa, chairperson of the South Durban Environmental Alliance, described the latest yacht marina plan as "an undisguised attempt to steal the heritage of Durban residents from under their noses".He said Vetch's Pier was a free and much-loved communal asset for Durban residents, but would become the exclusive preserve of the rich and famous.The Durban Ski Boat Club, Point Yacht Club and the Durban Undersea Club (under the umbrella of the Durban Point Watersports Club) also presented a joint submission containing 16 points of concern.Durban Ski Boat Club spokesman Eddie Lahee said the developers had responded on Wednesday with proposals that did not address several of the club's most serious concerns."Our approach was to find a workable solution so that we would not be pushed out of the water. We would still like to work in good faith towards finding a solution, but it's becoming a bit difficult." Lahee said the Durban watersports fraternity presently had access to nearly 28 000m2 of land at the Point, whereas at least 3 000 active members from several different clubs had now been offered less than 4 000m2 to build a joint "superclub", which they would have to finance themselves.Lahee estimated it would cost between R15 million to R20-million to build a new clubhouse, and members had asked the Durban Point Development Company (DPDC) whether they could facilitate a low-interest loan and a special concession on municipal rates to make the plan affordable.While the construction costs might be affordable for 3 000 members, there was concern that this would not be possible if 1 000 members opted out of paying for the superclub.The DPDC had proposed a multilevel boat-stacking system to save space, but ski boat club members did not believe it was a workable solution.The boating fraternity had also asked that the proposed slipway be enlarged from 20m to 75m, but the DPDC was offering a 40m-wide slipway.Larmont, representing the Boardsailing Club of Durban, accused the DPDC of ignoring constructive input and failing to investigate calls for an alternative site.Sailing KZN said the answer was to leave Vetch's pier and beach untouched - but to give watersport clubs a guarantee about their future, which would give them the financial incentive to upgrade and revitalise their "rundown and dilapidated" clubhouses.Invited to comment on the objections, project director Neels Brink responded: "How did you get hold of these submissions? I am not sure why you are calling me. You know how the EIA process works."
This article was originally published on page 1 of The Mercury on October 26, 2007
Monday, October 15, 2007
The Mercury 15 October 2007
Point concerns still not addressed
October 15, 2007 Edition 1
The public meeting, convened by the Durban Point Development Company (DPDC) on September 29 to inform the public of changes to the plans for the proposed small-craft harbour at Vetch's , was well attended by those who oppose the destruction of Vetch's Beach. Unfortunately, neither City Manager Michael Sutcliffe nor the DPDC's Neels Brink showed up.
The presentation failed to clarify any previously contentious issues. These include the fact that the developers maintain they have found loopholes that entitle them to ignore the draft Integrated Coastal Management Bill laws that prohibit the purchase of land below the high-water mark, and questions about the viability of the proposed combined watersports club.
One of the presenters provided hugely inaccurate statements about the developer's perception of the use of the beach. In their study they stated that no bathers swam off the beach to the south of Vetch's Pier!
New questions that remain unanswered are the wisdom of building a 25-storey hotel on an island at the foot of Vetch's reef, and the practicality of sailing craft operating in an area that will be covered with massive wind shadows formed by buildings and breakwaters.
Despite the fact that there is almost zero support among the boating community, and very real concerns that the rate-paying public are going to have to absorb massive costs, the city and the DPDC seem hellbent on trying to persuade both the public and authorities, that their plans have merit.
It is becoming increasingly obvious that environmental and social issues, and the public's interests, are being marginalised.
If the public allows this trend to continue, future access to Durban's natural treasures is in jeopardy.
The Water Rat
Durban
October 15, 2007 Edition 1
The public meeting, convened by the Durban Point Development Company (DPDC) on September 29 to inform the public of changes to the plans for the proposed small-craft harbour at Vetch's , was well attended by those who oppose the destruction of Vetch's Beach. Unfortunately, neither City Manager Michael Sutcliffe nor the DPDC's Neels Brink showed up.
The presentation failed to clarify any previously contentious issues. These include the fact that the developers maintain they have found loopholes that entitle them to ignore the draft Integrated Coastal Management Bill laws that prohibit the purchase of land below the high-water mark, and questions about the viability of the proposed combined watersports club.
One of the presenters provided hugely inaccurate statements about the developer's perception of the use of the beach. In their study they stated that no bathers swam off the beach to the south of Vetch's Pier!
New questions that remain unanswered are the wisdom of building a 25-storey hotel on an island at the foot of Vetch's reef, and the practicality of sailing craft operating in an area that will be covered with massive wind shadows formed by buildings and breakwaters.
Despite the fact that there is almost zero support among the boating community, and very real concerns that the rate-paying public are going to have to absorb massive costs, the city and the DPDC seem hellbent on trying to persuade both the public and authorities, that their plans have merit.
It is becoming increasingly obvious that environmental and social issues, and the public's interests, are being marginalised.
If the public allows this trend to continue, future access to Durban's natural treasures is in jeopardy.
The Water Rat
Durban
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
The Mercury & Vetch's
Point Developers Gamble With Ratepayers' Money
18 September, 2007 Mercury
The Durban Point Development Company's new plans for the small-craft harbour at Vetch's, as revealed in The Mercury on September 14, reveal a number of concerning issues. [ Full Story... ]
City's workings remain a mystery
14 September, 2007 Mercury
The workings of Durban's city management remain a mystery to the ratepaying public. Consider the following as an example: [ Full Story... ]
Deciding on the future of the Point
Greg Ardé 14 September, 2007 Mercury
There are conflicting views on building a signature waterfront, but only time will tell what is in the best interests of Durban ratepayers, writes Greg Arde [ Full Story... ]
Transnet Is Ignoring The Human Aspect
28 August, 2007 Mercury
I have read with interest recent articles in The Mercury about the development of Vetch's Pier. I wish to remind readers that this is not the only development with pure economic gain in mind. [ Full Story... ]
Don't let greed pillage Vetch's
17 August, 2007 Mercury
Having recently listened through a lengthy debate at the Point Yacht Club (PYC), I came to the conclusion that there is a need to refocus on the Y in PYC. [ Full Story... ]
Weighing up the Vetch's odds
13 August, 2007 Mercury
The Durban Point Development's Neels Brink was quoted as saying that he believed three issues needed to considered equally in any development: the social, the environmental and the economic "Pledge to break EIA logjam" (The Mercury, August 8). [ Full Story... ]
Sandcastles on the slopes of a volcano
08 August, 2007 Mercury
Poor Pastor Ray McCauley seems to be caught somewhere between the devil and the deep blue sea. [ Full Story... ]
Vetch's Pier plan faces rethink
Tony Carnie 19 July, 2007 Mercury
THE controversial plan that will elbow out Durban's water-sports community from Vetch's Pier for a new yacht marina and commercial waterfront development has run into an obstacle. [ Full Story... ]
Durban needs bigger vision for a marina
29 May, 2007 Mercury
The Shosholoza campaign has highlighted two facts: [ Full Story... ]
Developers' Vetch's Proposal At Odds With Ocean Common Sense
24 April, 2007 Mercury
I refer to the article "Freak Waves Will Damage Yachts At Vetch's Pier" (The Mercury, April 12). [ Full Story... ]
We'll lose out both ways over Vetch's
17 April, 2007 Mercury
I have been following the debate surrounding the development plans for a small-craft harbour at Durban's Vetch's Beach for some time. [ Full Story... ]
Freak Waves Will Damage Yachts At Vetch's
16 April, 2007 Mercury
With reference to the article, "Freak waves won't damage yachts at Vetch's Pier" (The Mercury, April 12), where were the engineers on the afternoon of Monday March 19? [ Full Story... ]
'Freak waves won't damage yachts at Vetch's Pier'
12 April, 2007 Mercury
THE freak waves that battered the KwaZulu-Natal coastline last month have re-ignited "the battle for Vetch's Pier", with fears that the ferocious March 19 sea conditions would have pulverised any yachts in the controversial small craft harbour. [ Full Story... ]
Would Point harbour be used?
28 March, 2007 Mercury
Judging from the response in the press over the past few months, there doesn't seem to be too much public support for the proposed small-craft harbour at the Point. [ Full Story... ]
Beware the tides of March . . .
Tony Carnie 28 March, 2007 Mercury
BOY, what a week it has been! [ Full Story... ]
Storms underlined foolishness of Vetch's plan
27 March, 2007 Mercury
One thing is certain about the recent storm surge off the coast of KwaZulu-Natal - it will happen again. The only question is when. [ Full Story... ]
Developers, please take note
22 March, 2007 Mercury
I hope the developers of the proposed small craft harbour at Vetch's Pier are having some long walks along the Durban beachfront at this time. [ Full Story... ]
Developers continue to dice with nature
12 March, 2007 Mercury
The recent cyclonic swells illustrate only too well the obvious hazard of attempting to create a sea-facing small craft mooring in the Vetch's basin. [ Full Story... ]
Harbour at Vetch's will be impractical
09 March, 2007 Mercury
I have been involved in sailing for most of my life, having owned a variety of boats - including an ocean-going yacht - and I also love the Vetch's beach area and use it as well. [ Full Story... ]
Cyclonic conditions are proof enough
07 March, 2007 Mercury
With reference to the article "Durban is not Monaco or Dubai" (The Mercury, February 23): hopefully, all interested parties and developers of the small craft harbour have been enlightened by the sea conditions, as the effects of Cyclone Gamede were felt along our coastline. [ Full Story... ]
Legality of new marina questioned
Tony Carnie 06 March, 2007 Mercury
THE legality of the controversial yachting marina at Vetch's Pier in Durban has been cast into doubt, with reports that the developers have no authority to buy up a part of the sea to create luxury flats and a hotel resort. [ Full Story... ]
Sale Of Vetch's Beach Raises Legal Concerns
06 March, 2007 Mercury
The complexity of the situation surrounding Vetch's beach [ Full Story... ]
City ignores objections to Point project
01 March, 2007 Mercury
In the letter by J P Purshotum (The Mercury, February 14 ) he accused the municipality of not involving the public in the decision to build the new stadium. [ Full Story... ]
Durban is not Monaco or Dubai
23 February, 2007 Mercury
In The Mercury of January 25, Tony Carnie conducted an interview with Neels Brink, Project Director for the Durban Point Development Company. [ Full Story... ]
Anglers battling unkind conditions
23 February, 2007 Mercury
Weather patterns for anglers at this time of the year have been adverse, to say the least. [ Full Story... ]
Destroying Vetch's would be unfair to residents
16 February, 2007 Mercury
I wonder if the powers-that-be have ever swum at Vetch's Beach? Have they taken their elderly parents or young children there? [ Full Story... ]
Vetch's harbour site alternative
12 February, 2007 Mercury
The deadline for submissions for comments to the draft environmental impact assessment for the construction of a small craft harbour at Vetch's Beach passed on January 31. [ Full Story... ]
Vetch's Pier development will only benefit the affluent at the expense of the public
05 February, 2007 Mercury
I have lived in Durban for 50 years, regularly enjoying the recreational facilities of the port and beach. [ Full Story... ]
Boat owners don't want harbour at Vetch's
30 January, 2007 Mercury
Neels Brink's statements about the Point development (The Mercury, January 25) reveal the DPDC's real intentions for wanting to develop a small craft harbour on Vetch's Beach. Not only do they want the beach; they want to build out into the sea as well! [ Full Story... ]
Point needs a 'real waterfront'
25 January, 2007 Mercury
DURBAN'S much-vaunted Point Waterfront project would never become "a real waterfront" unless a new yachting marina and small craft harbour was built at Vetch's Pier. [ Full Story... ]
Many who are not club members use Vetch's Beach
24 January, 2007 Mercury
With the controversy regarding the Durban Point Development Company's desire to build a small craft harbour at Vetch's pier, I would like to make the following observations: [ Full Story... ]
Point developers' ignorance on display
23 January, 2007 Mercury
The letter by Rick Wilson, one of the developers of the Point area (The Mercury, January 19), demonstrates his ignorance of the Vetch's area. [ Full Story... ]
City Not Protecting The Interests Of Ratepayers
22 January, 2007 Mercury
I have been dealing with the relevant authorities regarding the preservation of the Vetch's Pier area for the use of the public in general and the watersports fraternity in particular for the past 17 years, in various capacities. [ Full Story... ]
New Harbour Will Open Beach To Many
19 January, 2007 Mercury
As a developer at the Point, I found the article which focused on the Point Waterfront Development and the proposed Yacht Mole Development (The Mercury January 12) somewhat one-sided. [ Full Story... ]
Point plans arouse passions
19 January, 2007 Mercury
The passions of many Durban residents are still running high over the latest Point Waterfront plans - although recent compromise deals may ensure reluctant support from surfers and other water sports groups. [ Full Story... ]
Have your say
18 January, 2007 Mercury
Retain Vetch's Pier for access to water sports for all and develop the Victoria Embankment. [ Full Story... ]
Waterfront Durban
Tony Carnie 12 January, 2007 Mercury
THE shape and character of maritime Durban is set to change dramatically - for better and for worse - as the city ponders the viability of two major waterfront development plans. [ Full Story... ]
Durban's double seafront projects
12 January, 2007 Mercury
The clock is ticking for the much-vaunted Point Waterfront development, where the latest "crown jewel" is being designed to lure a new wave of tourists and investors. [ Full Story... ]
Oppose Vetch's destruction
27 December, 2006 Mercury
It is common knowledge that the Durban Point Development Company intends destroying Vetch's Beach in order to build a small craft harbour... from The The Water Rat, Durban
Please clear rubble
08 May, 2006 Mercury
During July last year, eThekwini Municipal Manager Michael Sutcliffe allowed Portnet, or one of its contractors, to dump a massive amount of rubble on to the beach in front of the Paddle Ski Club at Vetch's Pier... writes 'Rat on the Rocks' from Durban [ Full Story... ]
No Teddy Bears' Picnic Down At South Beach
04 May, 2006 Mercury
The appalling state of South Beach, since the City Manager allowed Portnet to dump tons of rock and rubble on to it, has prompted me to pen this rhyme: [ Full Story... ]
Disconcerting silence on Vetch's Pier state
11 April, 2006 Mercury
When citizens of Durban criticise the municipality through the press, it usually does not take long for the authorities to respond and "set the record straight"... writes Johnny Vassilaros from Durban [ Full Story... ]
Sabotage behind beach rubble?
17 March, 2006 Mercury
There is something decidedly sinister about the condition of Vetch's Beach. What used to be an area with pristinely clean sand is now covered in rubble... from Disgusted of Durban. [ Full Story... ]
Point Is Not Really Suited To New Homes
12 September, 2005
Mercury
There is much hype surrounding the development at Durban's Point area. Flats are being built and canals dug. However, I am not at all convinced that the developer is on the right track... from Unconvinced of Durban. [ Full Story... ]
18 September, 2007 Mercury
The Durban Point Development Company's new plans for the small-craft harbour at Vetch's, as revealed in The Mercury on September 14, reveal a number of concerning issues. [ Full Story... ]
City's workings remain a mystery
14 September, 2007 Mercury
The workings of Durban's city management remain a mystery to the ratepaying public. Consider the following as an example: [ Full Story... ]
Deciding on the future of the Point
Greg Ardé 14 September, 2007 Mercury
There are conflicting views on building a signature waterfront, but only time will tell what is in the best interests of Durban ratepayers, writes Greg Arde [ Full Story... ]
Transnet Is Ignoring The Human Aspect
28 August, 2007 Mercury
I have read with interest recent articles in The Mercury about the development of Vetch's Pier. I wish to remind readers that this is not the only development with pure economic gain in mind. [ Full Story... ]
Don't let greed pillage Vetch's
17 August, 2007 Mercury
Having recently listened through a lengthy debate at the Point Yacht Club (PYC), I came to the conclusion that there is a need to refocus on the Y in PYC. [ Full Story... ]
Weighing up the Vetch's odds
13 August, 2007 Mercury
The Durban Point Development's Neels Brink was quoted as saying that he believed three issues needed to considered equally in any development: the social, the environmental and the economic "Pledge to break EIA logjam" (The Mercury, August 8). [ Full Story... ]
Sandcastles on the slopes of a volcano
08 August, 2007 Mercury
Poor Pastor Ray McCauley seems to be caught somewhere between the devil and the deep blue sea. [ Full Story... ]
Vetch's Pier plan faces rethink
Tony Carnie 19 July, 2007 Mercury
THE controversial plan that will elbow out Durban's water-sports community from Vetch's Pier for a new yacht marina and commercial waterfront development has run into an obstacle. [ Full Story... ]
Durban needs bigger vision for a marina
29 May, 2007 Mercury
The Shosholoza campaign has highlighted two facts: [ Full Story... ]
Developers' Vetch's Proposal At Odds With Ocean Common Sense
24 April, 2007 Mercury
I refer to the article "Freak Waves Will Damage Yachts At Vetch's Pier" (The Mercury, April 12). [ Full Story... ]
We'll lose out both ways over Vetch's
17 April, 2007 Mercury
I have been following the debate surrounding the development plans for a small-craft harbour at Durban's Vetch's Beach for some time. [ Full Story... ]
Freak Waves Will Damage Yachts At Vetch's
16 April, 2007 Mercury
With reference to the article, "Freak waves won't damage yachts at Vetch's Pier" (The Mercury, April 12), where were the engineers on the afternoon of Monday March 19? [ Full Story... ]
'Freak waves won't damage yachts at Vetch's Pier'
12 April, 2007 Mercury
THE freak waves that battered the KwaZulu-Natal coastline last month have re-ignited "the battle for Vetch's Pier", with fears that the ferocious March 19 sea conditions would have pulverised any yachts in the controversial small craft harbour. [ Full Story... ]
Would Point harbour be used?
28 March, 2007 Mercury
Judging from the response in the press over the past few months, there doesn't seem to be too much public support for the proposed small-craft harbour at the Point. [ Full Story... ]
Beware the tides of March . . .
Tony Carnie 28 March, 2007 Mercury
BOY, what a week it has been! [ Full Story... ]
Storms underlined foolishness of Vetch's plan
27 March, 2007 Mercury
One thing is certain about the recent storm surge off the coast of KwaZulu-Natal - it will happen again. The only question is when. [ Full Story... ]
Developers, please take note
22 March, 2007 Mercury
I hope the developers of the proposed small craft harbour at Vetch's Pier are having some long walks along the Durban beachfront at this time. [ Full Story... ]
Developers continue to dice with nature
12 March, 2007 Mercury
The recent cyclonic swells illustrate only too well the obvious hazard of attempting to create a sea-facing small craft mooring in the Vetch's basin. [ Full Story... ]
Harbour at Vetch's will be impractical
09 March, 2007 Mercury
I have been involved in sailing for most of my life, having owned a variety of boats - including an ocean-going yacht - and I also love the Vetch's beach area and use it as well. [ Full Story... ]
Cyclonic conditions are proof enough
07 March, 2007 Mercury
With reference to the article "Durban is not Monaco or Dubai" (The Mercury, February 23): hopefully, all interested parties and developers of the small craft harbour have been enlightened by the sea conditions, as the effects of Cyclone Gamede were felt along our coastline. [ Full Story... ]
Legality of new marina questioned
Tony Carnie 06 March, 2007 Mercury
THE legality of the controversial yachting marina at Vetch's Pier in Durban has been cast into doubt, with reports that the developers have no authority to buy up a part of the sea to create luxury flats and a hotel resort. [ Full Story... ]
Sale Of Vetch's Beach Raises Legal Concerns
06 March, 2007 Mercury
The complexity of the situation surrounding Vetch's beach [ Full Story... ]
City ignores objections to Point project
01 March, 2007 Mercury
In the letter by J P Purshotum (The Mercury, February 14 ) he accused the municipality of not involving the public in the decision to build the new stadium. [ Full Story... ]
Durban is not Monaco or Dubai
23 February, 2007 Mercury
In The Mercury of January 25, Tony Carnie conducted an interview with Neels Brink, Project Director for the Durban Point Development Company. [ Full Story... ]
Anglers battling unkind conditions
23 February, 2007 Mercury
Weather patterns for anglers at this time of the year have been adverse, to say the least. [ Full Story... ]
Destroying Vetch's would be unfair to residents
16 February, 2007 Mercury
I wonder if the powers-that-be have ever swum at Vetch's Beach? Have they taken their elderly parents or young children there? [ Full Story... ]
Vetch's harbour site alternative
12 February, 2007 Mercury
The deadline for submissions for comments to the draft environmental impact assessment for the construction of a small craft harbour at Vetch's Beach passed on January 31. [ Full Story... ]
Vetch's Pier development will only benefit the affluent at the expense of the public
05 February, 2007 Mercury
I have lived in Durban for 50 years, regularly enjoying the recreational facilities of the port and beach. [ Full Story... ]
Boat owners don't want harbour at Vetch's
30 January, 2007 Mercury
Neels Brink's statements about the Point development (The Mercury, January 25) reveal the DPDC's real intentions for wanting to develop a small craft harbour on Vetch's Beach. Not only do they want the beach; they want to build out into the sea as well! [ Full Story... ]
Point needs a 'real waterfront'
25 January, 2007 Mercury
DURBAN'S much-vaunted Point Waterfront project would never become "a real waterfront" unless a new yachting marina and small craft harbour was built at Vetch's Pier. [ Full Story... ]
Many who are not club members use Vetch's Beach
24 January, 2007 Mercury
With the controversy regarding the Durban Point Development Company's desire to build a small craft harbour at Vetch's pier, I would like to make the following observations: [ Full Story... ]
Point developers' ignorance on display
23 January, 2007 Mercury
The letter by Rick Wilson, one of the developers of the Point area (The Mercury, January 19), demonstrates his ignorance of the Vetch's area. [ Full Story... ]
City Not Protecting The Interests Of Ratepayers
22 January, 2007 Mercury
I have been dealing with the relevant authorities regarding the preservation of the Vetch's Pier area for the use of the public in general and the watersports fraternity in particular for the past 17 years, in various capacities. [ Full Story... ]
New Harbour Will Open Beach To Many
19 January, 2007 Mercury
As a developer at the Point, I found the article which focused on the Point Waterfront Development and the proposed Yacht Mole Development (The Mercury January 12) somewhat one-sided. [ Full Story... ]
Point plans arouse passions
19 January, 2007 Mercury
The passions of many Durban residents are still running high over the latest Point Waterfront plans - although recent compromise deals may ensure reluctant support from surfers and other water sports groups. [ Full Story... ]
Have your say
18 January, 2007 Mercury
Retain Vetch's Pier for access to water sports for all and develop the Victoria Embankment. [ Full Story... ]
Waterfront Durban
Tony Carnie 12 January, 2007 Mercury
THE shape and character of maritime Durban is set to change dramatically - for better and for worse - as the city ponders the viability of two major waterfront development plans. [ Full Story... ]
Durban's double seafront projects
12 January, 2007 Mercury
The clock is ticking for the much-vaunted Point Waterfront development, where the latest "crown jewel" is being designed to lure a new wave of tourists and investors. [ Full Story... ]
Oppose Vetch's destruction
27 December, 2006 Mercury
It is common knowledge that the Durban Point Development Company intends destroying Vetch's Beach in order to build a small craft harbour... from The The Water Rat, Durban
Please clear rubble
08 May, 2006 Mercury
During July last year, eThekwini Municipal Manager Michael Sutcliffe allowed Portnet, or one of its contractors, to dump a massive amount of rubble on to the beach in front of the Paddle Ski Club at Vetch's Pier... writes 'Rat on the Rocks' from Durban [ Full Story... ]
No Teddy Bears' Picnic Down At South Beach
04 May, 2006 Mercury
The appalling state of South Beach, since the City Manager allowed Portnet to dump tons of rock and rubble on to it, has prompted me to pen this rhyme: [ Full Story... ]
Disconcerting silence on Vetch's Pier state
11 April, 2006 Mercury
When citizens of Durban criticise the municipality through the press, it usually does not take long for the authorities to respond and "set the record straight"... writes Johnny Vassilaros from Durban [ Full Story... ]
Sabotage behind beach rubble?
17 March, 2006 Mercury
There is something decidedly sinister about the condition of Vetch's Beach. What used to be an area with pristinely clean sand is now covered in rubble... from Disgusted of Durban. [ Full Story... ]
Point Is Not Really Suited To New Homes
12 September, 2005
Mercury
There is much hype surrounding the development at Durban's Point area. Flats are being built and canals dug. However, I am not at all convinced that the developer is on the right track... from Unconvinced of Durban. [ Full Story... ]
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
The Mercury 18 September 2007
Point Developers Gamble With Ratepayers' Money
The Mercury
September 18, 2007 Edition 1
The Durban Point Development Company's new plans for the small-craft harbour at Vetch's, as revealed in The Mercury on September 14, reveal a number of concerning issues.
I get the impression that the company (which is 50% owned by the city) is gambling with ratepayers' money. Project Director Neels Brink stated that "if we don't go ahead with the small-craft harbour, it will be a financial disaster for the Point".
It appears that they are so confident that the authorities will approve the plans, they have simply gone ahead with construction before receiving approval. Evidence of this are the canals which have already been built.
For the development to go ahead, the company is desperately trying to displace the water sports clubs. This is a grim reminder of apartheid-style land grabs.
Brink also speaks of icons. In defence of the boating clubs, the Hobie Cat, Crocker Paddleski and Ski Boat clubs are Durban icons. If the small-craft harbour is allowed to go ahead, these icons will disappear from Durban for ever.
I find it ridiculous that, the day after our coast was under a tsunami alert, the company revealed plans to build a hotel below the high-water mark.
If readers would like to learn more about these controversial plans, they should attend a public meeting that has been arranged by the consultant who has prepared the draft environmental impact assessment. This will be held at at The Durban Manor at 8.30am on September 29 .
The Water Rat
Durban
The Mercury
September 18, 2007 Edition 1
The Durban Point Development Company's new plans for the small-craft harbour at Vetch's, as revealed in The Mercury on September 14, reveal a number of concerning issues.
I get the impression that the company (which is 50% owned by the city) is gambling with ratepayers' money. Project Director Neels Brink stated that "if we don't go ahead with the small-craft harbour, it will be a financial disaster for the Point".
It appears that they are so confident that the authorities will approve the plans, they have simply gone ahead with construction before receiving approval. Evidence of this are the canals which have already been built.
For the development to go ahead, the company is desperately trying to displace the water sports clubs. This is a grim reminder of apartheid-style land grabs.
Brink also speaks of icons. In defence of the boating clubs, the Hobie Cat, Crocker Paddleski and Ski Boat clubs are Durban icons. If the small-craft harbour is allowed to go ahead, these icons will disappear from Durban for ever.
I find it ridiculous that, the day after our coast was under a tsunami alert, the company revealed plans to build a hotel below the high-water mark.
If readers would like to learn more about these controversial plans, they should attend a public meeting that has been arranged by the consultant who has prepared the draft environmental impact assessment. This will be held at at The Durban Manor at 8.30am on September 29 .
The Water Rat
Durban
Saturday, September 15, 2007
Letters
City's workings remain a mystery
Photo: INLSA
The Mercury - September 14, 2007
The workings of Durban's city management remain a mystery to the ratepaying public. Consider the following as an example: The safety of Norman Reeves's home in lower La Lucia is threated by the fact that the beach in the vicinity has been eroded since the severe storms KZN experienced in March. Instead of providing Reeves and his neighbours with some form of assistance to safeguard their properties, the city does nothing. When Reeves takes the initiative to deal with the issue on his own, the city management threatens him with legal action for interfering with the beach.
Isn't it ironic that this is the same city management that is in partnership with the Durban Point Development Company, which is planning to destroy the entire stretch of Vetch's Beach?
The Water Rat
City's workings remain a mystery
Photo: INLSA
The Mercury - September 14, 2007
The workings of Durban's city management remain a mystery to the ratepaying public. Consider the following as an example: The safety of Norman Reeves's home in lower La Lucia is threated by the fact that the beach in the vicinity has been eroded since the severe storms KZN experienced in March. Instead of providing Reeves and his neighbours with some form of assistance to safeguard their properties, the city does nothing. When Reeves takes the initiative to deal with the issue on his own, the city management threatens him with legal action for interfering with the beach.
Isn't it ironic that this is the same city management that is in partnership with the Durban Point Development Company, which is planning to destroy the entire stretch of Vetch's Beach?
The Water Rat
Deciding on the future of the Point
The Mercury
September 14, 2007 Edition 1
Greg Ardé
The Durban Point Development Company, an entity half-owned by ratepayers, is hoping that its controversial plans to build a signature waterfront will be approved in January.
If they are, the DPDC believes this will unlock upwards of R3.8 billion in property investments over three years.
If the plans are not approved, the company believes the Point will be ruined and that the more than R2 billion sunk into the area since 2000 will be at risk.
The jury is out on that decision. The passion of DPDC protagonists is matched only by the vociferousness of objectors anxious not to have a small craft harbour at Vetch's, the shallow reef designed for safe entrance into the harbour in the 1800s by Captain James Vetch.
The Point's future hinges on how the Department of Agriculture and Environmental Affairs weighs up the pros and cons of reconfiguring the beach and reducing the water surface from 16ha to 9ha.
'Gain'
"There is a sacrifice to be had," said DPDC Project Director Neels Brink, "but you have to weigh that up against the wider gain for Durban. This is an iconic waterfront.
If we don't go ahead (with the small craft harbour), it will be a financial disaster for the Point and we'll end up with a few two-star hotels, some drab restaurants and a canal that looks like (Johannesburg's) Randburg Waterfront."
Brink has borne the brunt of criticism from watersport clubs, whose 5 000 members enjoy pride of place at Vetch's.
They believe the DPDC wants to privatise public land and alienate people from Vetch's. The skiboat club has legal opinion that the DPDC has no right to take ownership of the sea to build a hotel near the reef or residential flats alongside the new north pier, being constructed by the National Ports Authority (NPA).
Brink said the NPA had a legal opinion that it owned the sea.
The public will not be able to access about 10% of the total DPDC land around the residential sites built on land reclaimed alongside the new pier.
"Presently, the land doesn't exist, so nothing is taken away from anyone," said Brink.
By compromise with objectors and the city council, the DPDC had revised plans to increase Vetch's beach and to set buildings back from the sea, except the hotel that had moved inside the small craft harbour, Brink said. He argued that the history of the Point redevelopment was important.
It became a reality in about 2000, when the then head of the city's Economic Development Unit, Viv McMenamin, outlined Durban's vision of investing in economic generators such as the R750 million uShaka Marine World.
The Point was repackaged after a failed attempt to attract big Malaysian investment. Tongaat-Hulett Development agreed to manage the initiative in return for joint development of Riverhorse Business Park alongside the N2, which has attracted billions of rands in investment and opened up transport routes between the city centre and KwaMashu and Phoenix.
Back to the Point: sitting beside the city-funded marine theme park is the DPDC land, 55ha of prime real estate, the first phase of which was bought up by private developers in 2002-03.
The DPDC has since invested R160 million in canals, roads and infrastructure in the precinct, while just outside, the city has spent R300 million upgrading a substation, sewage works and roads, most notably Point and Shepstone streets.
In total, there is 575 000m2 of space in the precinct (that is a bulk figure and represents multistorey buildings). To date about 200 000m2 has been sold, and about 60% of that has been developed, which has lured investment of more than R1 billion, which has tripled property prices outside the precinct.
There are about 400 flats in various buildings in the DPDC, and if the developers have their way, many more are to come.
The average selling price of apartments is R12 000/m2, compared with between R16 000 and R18 000 in Umhlanga.
Brink believes the remaining 375 000m2 of bulk could be sold and developed by 2011, if the government gives the Point's small craft harbour the green light.
At a building cost of R10 000/m2 that means an investment of R3 billion, excluding the R800 million required for the marina and surrounding infrastructure.
top.DisplayAds('SquareL', 13, 2815);
And, more importantly, argues Brink, the Point will do for Durban what Cape Town's waterfront did to transform that city's status internationally.
Harbour
But, much hinges on the small craft harbour.
DPDC design consultant Nathan Iyer says Durban's so-called Golden Mile is a 10km stretch of beach that is "pretty much the same". The DPDC proposes accommodating all watersports in a single 2 500m2 club area, although some members describe this as "cramped".
Iyer says the length of the beach below uShaka will be expanded from 153m to 234m and, by pulling inland, increased from 3 794m2 to 10 909m2. Public space, he says, will be increased from 1.5ha to 3.6ha.
"But it will be different and the sacrifice is that the water surface area of Vetch's will be reduced by more than a quarter," said Brink.
The DPDC says it has taken heed of environmental concerns and will not interfere with the reef at Vetch's. Instead, it will build a new reef running alongside the historic one.
The plans for the hotel at the southern point of Vetch's Reef envisage building up to the height of the Bluff headland (25 storeys/about 60m), with an underwater link to acres of basement parking beneath the mainland.
Pravin Amar, the consultant commissioned by the DPDC, said the National Environmental Management Act demanded that developments be people-centred, and take into account the "broader interests" of society. "There is a trade-off to be made with this development. The question is: Who accepts the trade-off?"
Brink says the development will be world-class and would open up a public space that was being commandeered, and in some instances fenced off, by a minority - the members of water sports clubs.
Chris Sutton, who started the Save Vetch's Campaign using the pen name the "Water Rat", said the Point could become an asset to Durban if the small craft harbour was placed inside the port.
Plans for the small craft harbour over Vetch's were: "Rubbish. If they build it they will kill paddleskiing, windsurfing and catamaran sailing.
'Bigger picture'
"The DPDC wants to reduce that beach. They are not looking at the bigger picture. The beach could be developed like Suncoast was, with grass and some huts," said Sutton.
According to an economic impact assessment study, the Point will contribute more than R1.2 billion a year to South Africa's gross domestic product (GDP) if the small craft harbour is built and the area is adequately marketed to tourists.
The study says 5 600 construction jobs will be created and 6 300 permanent jobs, if sufficient tourists are attracted there.
"On economic grounds, the project should proceed promptly."
The study says the loss to existing watersports is "almost inconceivable".
The assessment says watersports contribute R490 million a year to GDP and are responsible for 3 800 jobs a year.
The study said the city might have to bail the Point out financially if the project did not go ahead in its entirety. It also recommended "extreme care" in the treatment of Vetch's Pier.
Ultimately, the provincial department will weigh up the arguments. Whatever the decision, there will be some unhappy people. Only time will tell what is in the best interests of the people of Durban. Another public meeting is scheduled for 9am on September 29.
Most of the information relating to the studies and the public process on the Point is available for download at www.pravinamar.com. A hard copy is available at the Durban Central Library.
The Mercury
September 14, 2007 Edition 1
Greg Ardé
The Durban Point Development Company, an entity half-owned by ratepayers, is hoping that its controversial plans to build a signature waterfront will be approved in January.
If they are, the DPDC believes this will unlock upwards of R3.8 billion in property investments over three years.
If the plans are not approved, the company believes the Point will be ruined and that the more than R2 billion sunk into the area since 2000 will be at risk.
The jury is out on that decision. The passion of DPDC protagonists is matched only by the vociferousness of objectors anxious not to have a small craft harbour at Vetch's, the shallow reef designed for safe entrance into the harbour in the 1800s by Captain James Vetch.
The Point's future hinges on how the Department of Agriculture and Environmental Affairs weighs up the pros and cons of reconfiguring the beach and reducing the water surface from 16ha to 9ha.
'Gain'
"There is a sacrifice to be had," said DPDC Project Director Neels Brink, "but you have to weigh that up against the wider gain for Durban. This is an iconic waterfront.
If we don't go ahead (with the small craft harbour), it will be a financial disaster for the Point and we'll end up with a few two-star hotels, some drab restaurants and a canal that looks like (Johannesburg's) Randburg Waterfront."
Brink has borne the brunt of criticism from watersport clubs, whose 5 000 members enjoy pride of place at Vetch's.
They believe the DPDC wants to privatise public land and alienate people from Vetch's. The skiboat club has legal opinion that the DPDC has no right to take ownership of the sea to build a hotel near the reef or residential flats alongside the new north pier, being constructed by the National Ports Authority (NPA).
Brink said the NPA had a legal opinion that it owned the sea.
The public will not be able to access about 10% of the total DPDC land around the residential sites built on land reclaimed alongside the new pier.
"Presently, the land doesn't exist, so nothing is taken away from anyone," said Brink.
By compromise with objectors and the city council, the DPDC had revised plans to increase Vetch's beach and to set buildings back from the sea, except the hotel that had moved inside the small craft harbour, Brink said. He argued that the history of the Point redevelopment was important.
It became a reality in about 2000, when the then head of the city's Economic Development Unit, Viv McMenamin, outlined Durban's vision of investing in economic generators such as the R750 million uShaka Marine World.
The Point was repackaged after a failed attempt to attract big Malaysian investment. Tongaat-Hulett Development agreed to manage the initiative in return for joint development of Riverhorse Business Park alongside the N2, which has attracted billions of rands in investment and opened up transport routes between the city centre and KwaMashu and Phoenix.
Back to the Point: sitting beside the city-funded marine theme park is the DPDC land, 55ha of prime real estate, the first phase of which was bought up by private developers in 2002-03.
The DPDC has since invested R160 million in canals, roads and infrastructure in the precinct, while just outside, the city has spent R300 million upgrading a substation, sewage works and roads, most notably Point and Shepstone streets.
In total, there is 575 000m2 of space in the precinct (that is a bulk figure and represents multistorey buildings). To date about 200 000m2 has been sold, and about 60% of that has been developed, which has lured investment of more than R1 billion, which has tripled property prices outside the precinct.
There are about 400 flats in various buildings in the DPDC, and if the developers have their way, many more are to come.
The average selling price of apartments is R12 000/m2, compared with between R16 000 and R18 000 in Umhlanga.
Brink believes the remaining 375 000m2 of bulk could be sold and developed by 2011, if the government gives the Point's small craft harbour the green light.
At a building cost of R10 000/m2 that means an investment of R3 billion, excluding the R800 million required for the marina and surrounding infrastructure.
top.DisplayAds('SquareL', 13, 2815);
And, more importantly, argues Brink, the Point will do for Durban what Cape Town's waterfront did to transform that city's status internationally.
Harbour
But, much hinges on the small craft harbour.
DPDC design consultant Nathan Iyer says Durban's so-called Golden Mile is a 10km stretch of beach that is "pretty much the same". The DPDC proposes accommodating all watersports in a single 2 500m2 club area, although some members describe this as "cramped".
Iyer says the length of the beach below uShaka will be expanded from 153m to 234m and, by pulling inland, increased from 3 794m2 to 10 909m2. Public space, he says, will be increased from 1.5ha to 3.6ha.
"But it will be different and the sacrifice is that the water surface area of Vetch's will be reduced by more than a quarter," said Brink.
The DPDC says it has taken heed of environmental concerns and will not interfere with the reef at Vetch's. Instead, it will build a new reef running alongside the historic one.
The plans for the hotel at the southern point of Vetch's Reef envisage building up to the height of the Bluff headland (25 storeys/about 60m), with an underwater link to acres of basement parking beneath the mainland.
Pravin Amar, the consultant commissioned by the DPDC, said the National Environmental Management Act demanded that developments be people-centred, and take into account the "broader interests" of society. "There is a trade-off to be made with this development. The question is: Who accepts the trade-off?"
Brink says the development will be world-class and would open up a public space that was being commandeered, and in some instances fenced off, by a minority - the members of water sports clubs.
Chris Sutton, who started the Save Vetch's Campaign using the pen name the "Water Rat", said the Point could become an asset to Durban if the small craft harbour was placed inside the port.
Plans for the small craft harbour over Vetch's were: "Rubbish. If they build it they will kill paddleskiing, windsurfing and catamaran sailing.
'Bigger picture'
"The DPDC wants to reduce that beach. They are not looking at the bigger picture. The beach could be developed like Suncoast was, with grass and some huts," said Sutton.
According to an economic impact assessment study, the Point will contribute more than R1.2 billion a year to South Africa's gross domestic product (GDP) if the small craft harbour is built and the area is adequately marketed to tourists.
The study says 5 600 construction jobs will be created and 6 300 permanent jobs, if sufficient tourists are attracted there.
"On economic grounds, the project should proceed promptly."
The study says the loss to existing watersports is "almost inconceivable".
The assessment says watersports contribute R490 million a year to GDP and are responsible for 3 800 jobs a year.
The study said the city might have to bail the Point out financially if the project did not go ahead in its entirety. It also recommended "extreme care" in the treatment of Vetch's Pier.
Ultimately, the provincial department will weigh up the arguments. Whatever the decision, there will be some unhappy people. Only time will tell what is in the best interests of the people of Durban. Another public meeting is scheduled for 9am on September 29.
Most of the information relating to the studies and the public process on the Point is available for download at www.pravinamar.com. A hard copy is available at the Durban Central Library.
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Ode to Vetch's
When I reach
This wonderful beach
Life moves on
With joyous abandon
Warm seawater
Gentle bywater
Young and old
Vetch's treasures behold
So Dr Sutcliffe, please!
The public appease
By putting aside
All pomp and diatribe
And don't let paradise
Be destroyed in an orgy of avarice!
This wonderful beach
Life moves on
With joyous abandon
Warm seawater
Gentle bywater
Young and old
Vetch's treasures behold
So Dr Sutcliffe, please!
The public appease
By putting aside
All pomp and diatribe
And don't let paradise
Be destroyed in an orgy of avarice!
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
The Mercury 28 Aug 08 ( Letter - Logan Moodley )
Transnet Is Ignoring The Human Aspect
August 28, 2007 Edition 1
I have read with interest recent articles in The Mercury about the development of Vetch's Pier. I wish to remind readers that this is not the only development with pure economic gain in mind.
The same has occurred on the Bluff side of the Durban harbour. Transnet, in typical big bully-type fashion, have not only closed access to the South Pier but have also without any consultation whatsoever closed access to the adjoining beaches.
This now closes the last remaining fishing area within the precinct of our harbour.
Their reason for closure is said to be construction. Ridiculous - do we close the entire city centre when we build in Gardiner Street?
This has left thousands of subsistence fishermen without access to earn a living. This constitutional right is being ignored by the authorities in favour of economic benefit for the rich.
When Transnet are approached, they simply refer callers to their attorneys. Do they not understand that there is a human side to life? Do they not understand that people have to feed their families?
This is getting out of control and it is about time Transnet realised that they are the custodians of the Durban harbour and they should not deprive the owners of the harbour their bread and butter.
I am certain concerned citizens of our country will agree that this inhumane behaviour needs to end.
Logan Moodley
Durban
August 28, 2007 Edition 1
I have read with interest recent articles in The Mercury about the development of Vetch's Pier. I wish to remind readers that this is not the only development with pure economic gain in mind.
The same has occurred on the Bluff side of the Durban harbour. Transnet, in typical big bully-type fashion, have not only closed access to the South Pier but have also without any consultation whatsoever closed access to the adjoining beaches.
This now closes the last remaining fishing area within the precinct of our harbour.
Their reason for closure is said to be construction. Ridiculous - do we close the entire city centre when we build in Gardiner Street?
This has left thousands of subsistence fishermen without access to earn a living. This constitutional right is being ignored by the authorities in favour of economic benefit for the rich.
When Transnet are approached, they simply refer callers to their attorneys. Do they not understand that there is a human side to life? Do they not understand that people have to feed their families?
This is getting out of control and it is about time Transnet realised that they are the custodians of the Durban harbour and they should not deprive the owners of the harbour their bread and butter.
I am certain concerned citizens of our country will agree that this inhumane behaviour needs to end.
Logan Moodley
Durban
Friday, August 17, 2007
The Mercury 17 august 2007
Don't let greed pillage Vetch's
August 17, 2007 Edition 1
Having recently listened through a lengthy debate at the Point Yacht Club (PYC), I came to the conclusion that there is a need to refocus on the Y in PYC.
For the first hour, the debate remained focused on the aspect of property development and the offer of a "not to be missed" opportunity to acquire rights to build a clubhouse on the currently occupied launching site at Vetch's.
Surely this is just a major distracter to the real issue unfolding?
The short coastline area between uShaka Marine Park and the harbour mouth is a geographically unique national treasure, offering unparalleled and safe access for everyone to enjoy a wide variety of water activities.
These sometimes conflicting activities currently co-exist in relative order and harmony.
But, if overseas property developers, in financial collaboration with local developers and city management, have their way, this "national treasure" will be pillaged to construct a Small Craft Harbour (SCH) facility which will be directly exposed to the elements of coastal weather patterns.
This glamour concept of an SCH will only serve the interests of the developers who have invested heavily in the construction of apartment blocks catering for the super- rich. The SCH then becomes part of a marketing drive aimed at these global jet-setters.
What is not logical is that this destruction of our national treasure is being done to further the aims of the developers and not in the interests of the simple folk who wish to see the existing beach access as the prime concern for protecting the status quo.
The fact that there is discussion about the cost versus benefit of building a clubhouse at a preferential land sale price to the PYC is not the issue.
The real issue is: Do we want developers destroying the water access facilities at Vetch's?
It also begs the question: Who is clamouring for an SCH in the first place? Both the PYC and the Royal already have safe and effective berthing facilities inside the main harbour itself.
With the widening of the harbour entrance, ease of entry and exit through the harbour should also be enhanced. I urge like-minded Durbanites to oppose any attempt to "meddle" with the stretch of beach.
David Aikins
Durban
August 17, 2007 Edition 1
Having recently listened through a lengthy debate at the Point Yacht Club (PYC), I came to the conclusion that there is a need to refocus on the Y in PYC.
For the first hour, the debate remained focused on the aspect of property development and the offer of a "not to be missed" opportunity to acquire rights to build a clubhouse on the currently occupied launching site at Vetch's.
Surely this is just a major distracter to the real issue unfolding?
The short coastline area between uShaka Marine Park and the harbour mouth is a geographically unique national treasure, offering unparalleled and safe access for everyone to enjoy a wide variety of water activities.
These sometimes conflicting activities currently co-exist in relative order and harmony.
But, if overseas property developers, in financial collaboration with local developers and city management, have their way, this "national treasure" will be pillaged to construct a Small Craft Harbour (SCH) facility which will be directly exposed to the elements of coastal weather patterns.
This glamour concept of an SCH will only serve the interests of the developers who have invested heavily in the construction of apartment blocks catering for the super- rich. The SCH then becomes part of a marketing drive aimed at these global jet-setters.
What is not logical is that this destruction of our national treasure is being done to further the aims of the developers and not in the interests of the simple folk who wish to see the existing beach access as the prime concern for protecting the status quo.
The fact that there is discussion about the cost versus benefit of building a clubhouse at a preferential land sale price to the PYC is not the issue.
The real issue is: Do we want developers destroying the water access facilities at Vetch's?
It also begs the question: Who is clamouring for an SCH in the first place? Both the PYC and the Royal already have safe and effective berthing facilities inside the main harbour itself.
With the widening of the harbour entrance, ease of entry and exit through the harbour should also be enhanced. I urge like-minded Durbanites to oppose any attempt to "meddle" with the stretch of beach.
David Aikins
Durban
Monday, August 13, 2007
The Mercury Today ( 13 august 2007 )
Weighing up the Vetch's odds
Photo: INLSA
August 13, 2007 Edition 1
The Durban Point Development's Neels Brink was quoted as saying that he believed three issues needed to considered equally in any development: the social, the environmental and the economic "Pledge to break EIA logjam" (The Mercury, August 8).
His position is compounded by his statement that the past few years had seen unfair bias placed on ecological issues.
However, if we review this in the context of his quest to destroy Vetch's, Brink seems to be acknowledging that the project should be shelved.
According to Brink, the balance is two to one against the building of a small-craft harbour at Vetch's. The social and ecological assessments are against, but the economic study, is, apparently, in favour.
The Water Rat
Photo: INLSA
August 13, 2007 Edition 1
The Durban Point Development's Neels Brink was quoted as saying that he believed three issues needed to considered equally in any development: the social, the environmental and the economic "Pledge to break EIA logjam" (The Mercury, August 8).
His position is compounded by his statement that the past few years had seen unfair bias placed on ecological issues.
However, if we review this in the context of his quest to destroy Vetch's, Brink seems to be acknowledging that the project should be shelved.
According to Brink, the balance is two to one against the building of a small-craft harbour at Vetch's. The social and ecological assessments are against, but the economic study, is, apparently, in favour.
The Water Rat
Sunday, August 12, 2007
The Tribune 12 aug 07
Vetch's in a child's eye
August 12, 2007 Edition 1
Year 2014:
A 9-year-old girl carefully reads through the diver's logbook, hanging on every word with fascination.
"Where is this 'Vetch's Pier' where you and my Dad dived when he was small, Granddad?
"Please can I dive there with you too?"
The man sighs and looks wistfully to the sky.
"It has gone, Sinney, swallowed up by greedy men, whose only thought was for money, but I have a picture of it."
A look of disbelief crosses the child's face.
"Had you dived there enough - or didn't you care about me?"
Graham Lancaster
Pietermaritzburg
August 12, 2007 Edition 1
Year 2014:
A 9-year-old girl carefully reads through the diver's logbook, hanging on every word with fascination.
"Where is this 'Vetch's Pier' where you and my Dad dived when he was small, Granddad?
"Please can I dive there with you too?"
The man sighs and looks wistfully to the sky.
"It has gone, Sinney, swallowed up by greedy men, whose only thought was for money, but I have a picture of it."
A look of disbelief crosses the child's face.
"Had you dived there enough - or didn't you care about me?"
Graham Lancaster
Pietermaritzburg
Wednesday, August 8, 2007
The Mercury 08 aug 07 ( Tony Carnie )
Sandcastles on the slopes of a volcano
August 08, 2007 Edition 1
POOR Pastor Ray McCauley seems to be caught somewhere between the devil and the deep blue sea.
Barely two years after retiring to a luxury beachfront villa in Durban for a well-earned rest, the cruel sea is eating away relentlessly at the rather sandy foundations of his home in Eastmoor Crescent, La Lucia.
His front boundary wall has toppled over. If the sea carries on misbehaving, the front lawn, swimming pool and possibly his very home could end up in the drink.
Were it not for the charity of his neighbour, Norman Reeves, Pastor Ray might be batting from a much stickier wicket.
Documents before Acting High Court Judge Nigel Hollis suggest the Rhema Church founder benefited indirectly from Reeves's sand-redistribution adventures, because quite a bit of the sand scooped up from the beach in front of the Oppenheimer residence in Forest Drive also landed in front of Pastor Ray's pozzie.
Mrs O, whose mansion is set quite a distance back from the beach, is less than charmed. Her family seems to have done quite a good job in preserving the indigenous vegetation and sand dune cordon in front of Milkwood House. She would prefer to keep it that way.
It's quite remarkable, in fact, to see just how much beach sand there is in front of Milkwood, compared to Eastmoor Crescent, where homes and several neatly manicured gardens are so much closer to the beach.
Crumbling
And now, to heap insult upon injury, poor Norm and Pastor Ray face a new legal obstacle in defending their homes. The new Integrated Coastal Management Bill, recently approved by the cabinet, will make it an offence for landowners to fortify their crumbling coastal boundaries when the high-tide mark shifts capriciously.
In short, the new Bill recognises that the coastline is a dynamic, unpredictable environment.
Rather than encouraging people to build houses on the slopes of a volcano, the state has a duty to ensure that property developers have respect for the forces of nature - including the very real risk of climate change and rising sea levels.
The new Bill has another purpose: to ensure that the coastline remains public property rather than just one more piece of prime real estate to be privatised and defaced by the wealthy or unscrupulous.
This phenomenon has been most noticeable along the Cape coastline, but one needs only to look towards Zimbali or Vetch's Pier to spot similar trends closer to home.
But should the state and taxpayers be obliged now to pick up the tab for such ill-considered development?
Yet the sea has sent us a timely reminder that it is not to be trifled with. Buyers need to think more carefully when they splash out on a new sandcastle.
August 08, 2007 Edition 1
POOR Pastor Ray McCauley seems to be caught somewhere between the devil and the deep blue sea.
Barely two years after retiring to a luxury beachfront villa in Durban for a well-earned rest, the cruel sea is eating away relentlessly at the rather sandy foundations of his home in Eastmoor Crescent, La Lucia.
His front boundary wall has toppled over. If the sea carries on misbehaving, the front lawn, swimming pool and possibly his very home could end up in the drink.
Were it not for the charity of his neighbour, Norman Reeves, Pastor Ray might be batting from a much stickier wicket.
Documents before Acting High Court Judge Nigel Hollis suggest the Rhema Church founder benefited indirectly from Reeves's sand-redistribution adventures, because quite a bit of the sand scooped up from the beach in front of the Oppenheimer residence in Forest Drive also landed in front of Pastor Ray's pozzie.
Mrs O, whose mansion is set quite a distance back from the beach, is less than charmed. Her family seems to have done quite a good job in preserving the indigenous vegetation and sand dune cordon in front of Milkwood House. She would prefer to keep it that way.
It's quite remarkable, in fact, to see just how much beach sand there is in front of Milkwood, compared to Eastmoor Crescent, where homes and several neatly manicured gardens are so much closer to the beach.
Crumbling
And now, to heap insult upon injury, poor Norm and Pastor Ray face a new legal obstacle in defending their homes. The new Integrated Coastal Management Bill, recently approved by the cabinet, will make it an offence for landowners to fortify their crumbling coastal boundaries when the high-tide mark shifts capriciously.
In short, the new Bill recognises that the coastline is a dynamic, unpredictable environment.
Rather than encouraging people to build houses on the slopes of a volcano, the state has a duty to ensure that property developers have respect for the forces of nature - including the very real risk of climate change and rising sea levels.
The new Bill has another purpose: to ensure that the coastline remains public property rather than just one more piece of prime real estate to be privatised and defaced by the wealthy or unscrupulous.
This phenomenon has been most noticeable along the Cape coastline, but one needs only to look towards Zimbali or Vetch's Pier to spot similar trends closer to home.
But should the state and taxpayers be obliged now to pick up the tab for such ill-considered development?
Yet the sea has sent us a timely reminder that it is not to be trifled with. Buyers need to think more carefully when they splash out on a new sandcastle.
What is Neels Brink saying?
08.2007
Dear Neels.
Does your statement, which is quoted in The Mercury today, mean that you have now decided to abort your plans to destroy Vetch's Beach?
Brink said three issues needed to considered in any development: the social, ecological and economic. All needed to judged equally. In the past few years, he said, unfair bias had been placed on the ecological.
In this case the score is 2 / 1 against the development going ahead :
Social - 1 against.
Ecological - 1 against.
Economic - 1 for ( according to the study, only marginally ).
brgds
Ratty
Pledge to break EIA logjam
August 08, 2007 Edition 1
Greg Ardé
Premier S'bu Ndebele has pledged to cut lengthy environmental impact assessments in KwaZulu-Natal to a maximum of three months to speed up investment in the province.
He was addressing corporate leaders at a Growth Coalition meeting in Durban yesterday.
The coalition is an informal alliance of business and political interests aimed at stimulating economic development. It is headed by Ndebele and former Mondi Paper chief, John Barton.
Ndebele said that investors could not afford to wait 18 months and longer for the government to approve environmental impact assessments or complete rezoning.
"EIAs (environmental impact assessments) will have to be finalised with a turnaround time of three months, failing which an appeal will have to be lodged with the provincial director-general, who will liaise with the heads of treasury and agriculture who will form a bottleneck-breaking mechanism."
The premier added that though environmental impact assessments were necessary, they "shouldn't slow down development". "We have lost so much business we don't even know about" because developers with projects worth billions of rands were stalled by "a snail, or a frog". The same investors took their money elsewhere, he said.
T C Chetty, of Tongaat Hulett Developments and the SA Property Owners' Association, said: "If this is applied, it is probably the best news that the property sector in this province has had for some time. We've heard the words. We wait to see the action."
Metallon Property Managing Director Neels Brink, said: "It is wonderful that the government has recognised the problem, because it is really hampering the economy of the province. The process of objections is complex and people are abusing it. Any speedy resolution that is fair, just and equitable is to be applauded."
Brink said three issues needed to considered in any development: the social, ecological and economic. All needed to judged equally. In the past few years, he said, unfair bias had been placed on the ecological.
Brink said that in January the eThekwini council had approved a R400 million development and an objector had appealed to the province. The province still had to set a date for the appeal.
Ivor Daniel, President of the KZN Institute of Architecture, said: "Anything to reduce delays would be good. This continues to be a negative for investors and developers. How this pledge is implemented is critically important. The whole development approval process needs to be streamlined."
Responding to written questions in parliament on the environmental impact assessments backlog last year, Environmental Affairs and Tourism Minister Marthinus van Schalkwyk said that about 38 000 environmental impact assessment applications had been finalised across the country since 1997.
However, there were nearly 5 300 applications still in progress in March 2006. Of this pending total, 874 were from KZN.
greg.arde@inl.co.za
Dear Neels.
Does your statement, which is quoted in The Mercury today, mean that you have now decided to abort your plans to destroy Vetch's Beach?
Brink said three issues needed to considered in any development: the social, ecological and economic. All needed to judged equally. In the past few years, he said, unfair bias had been placed on the ecological.
In this case the score is 2 / 1 against the development going ahead :
Social - 1 against.
Ecological - 1 against.
Economic - 1 for ( according to the study, only marginally ).
brgds
Ratty
Pledge to break EIA logjam
August 08, 2007 Edition 1
Greg Ardé
Premier S'bu Ndebele has pledged to cut lengthy environmental impact assessments in KwaZulu-Natal to a maximum of three months to speed up investment in the province.
He was addressing corporate leaders at a Growth Coalition meeting in Durban yesterday.
The coalition is an informal alliance of business and political interests aimed at stimulating economic development. It is headed by Ndebele and former Mondi Paper chief, John Barton.
Ndebele said that investors could not afford to wait 18 months and longer for the government to approve environmental impact assessments or complete rezoning.
"EIAs (environmental impact assessments) will have to be finalised with a turnaround time of three months, failing which an appeal will have to be lodged with the provincial director-general, who will liaise with the heads of treasury and agriculture who will form a bottleneck-breaking mechanism."
The premier added that though environmental impact assessments were necessary, they "shouldn't slow down development". "We have lost so much business we don't even know about" because developers with projects worth billions of rands were stalled by "a snail, or a frog". The same investors took their money elsewhere, he said.
T C Chetty, of Tongaat Hulett Developments and the SA Property Owners' Association, said: "If this is applied, it is probably the best news that the property sector in this province has had for some time. We've heard the words. We wait to see the action."
Metallon Property Managing Director Neels Brink, said: "It is wonderful that the government has recognised the problem, because it is really hampering the economy of the province. The process of objections is complex and people are abusing it. Any speedy resolution that is fair, just and equitable is to be applauded."
Brink said three issues needed to considered in any development: the social, ecological and economic. All needed to judged equally. In the past few years, he said, unfair bias had been placed on the ecological.
Brink said that in January the eThekwini council had approved a R400 million development and an objector had appealed to the province. The province still had to set a date for the appeal.
Ivor Daniel, President of the KZN Institute of Architecture, said: "Anything to reduce delays would be good. This continues to be a negative for investors and developers. How this pledge is implemented is critically important. The whole development approval process needs to be streamlined."
Responding to written questions in parliament on the environmental impact assessments backlog last year, Environmental Affairs and Tourism Minister Marthinus van Schalkwyk said that about 38 000 environmental impact assessment applications had been finalised across the country since 1997.
However, there were nearly 5 300 applications still in progress in March 2006. Of this pending total, 874 were from KZN.
greg.arde@inl.co.za
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Final text of Integrated Coastal Management Bill Approved byCabinet
From: Sanet Krugel [mailto:SKrugel@deat.gov.za]
Sent: 31 July 2007 14:11
Subject: Final text of Integrated Coastal Management Bill Approved byCabinet - to be tabled in Parliament
Ministry of Environmental Affairs and Tourism
For immediate release
STATEMENT BY THE OFFICE OF THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS AND TOURISM, MARTHINUS VAN SCHALKWYK, ON TUESDAY, 31 JULY 2007
Final text of Integrated Coastal Management Bill Approved by Cabinet - to be tabled in Parliament
Cabinet has approved the Integrated Coastal Management Bill for tabling in Parliament. The Bill was Gazetted on 15 December 2006 and, as it is a complex Bill it was open for public comment for a period of 90 days.
"Comments received from the public participation process indicate overwhelming support for the Bill and its principles. These comments have now been incorporated into a new version of the Bill which is scheduled for tabling in Parliament. This important piece of legislation will lead to the adoption of a new approach in managing the nation's coastal resources. This will promote social equity and lead to the better use of coastal resources, whilst also protecting the natural environment," said Minister van Schalkwyk.
Fundamentally, the purpose of the National Coastal Management Bill is
to:
- Provide a legal and administrative framework that will promote
cooperative, coordinated and integrated coastal development;
- Preserve, protect and enhance the status of the coastal
environment as the heritage of all;
- Ensure coastal resources are managed in the interests of the whole
community;
- Ensure there is equitable access to the opportunities and benefits
derived from the coast; and
- To give effect to certain of South Africa's international law
obligations.
This Bill further seeks to ensure existing access points to the coastal area are reinstated and properly maintained and allows for the demarcation of access land.
The Bill also ensures that two zones are created:
- "Coastal public property" * state land along the coast, the beach,
estuaries and seas
- "Coastal protection zone" * 100 m wide in urban and 1000m wide in
rural areas
The "Coastal protection zone's" inland boundary can be adjusted to:
* Make it narrower in non-sensitive areas
* Make it wider in sensitive areas
The sections of the Bill pertaining to "coastal public property" and the "coastal protection zone" do not affect:
* Existing property rights
* Provincial, municipal, cadastral, or other legally recognised
boundaries
* Powers of any organ of state to dispose of land
It also gives government the power to prevent development too close to the sea by establishing 'set-back lines'.
The Minister added that "the most important changes to the gazetted version were the streamlining of government processes, reduction of duplication, clarification of certain clauses and better alignment with other legislation. For example, all activities requiring environmental impact assessments along the coast will now be done in terms of the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA).
Whether provincial, municipal or private, the Bill seeks to regulate activities with potential adverse environmental impacts. More specifically this Bill also provides new measures to protect coastal areas from being degraded by inappropriate developments and pollution,"
said the Minister.
MEDIA ENQUIRIES: RIAAN AUCAMP - 083 778 9923
Sent: 31 July 2007 14:11
Subject: Final text of Integrated Coastal Management Bill Approved byCabinet - to be tabled in Parliament
Ministry of Environmental Affairs and Tourism
For immediate release
STATEMENT BY THE OFFICE OF THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS AND TOURISM, MARTHINUS VAN SCHALKWYK, ON TUESDAY, 31 JULY 2007
Final text of Integrated Coastal Management Bill Approved by Cabinet - to be tabled in Parliament
Cabinet has approved the Integrated Coastal Management Bill for tabling in Parliament. The Bill was Gazetted on 15 December 2006 and, as it is a complex Bill it was open for public comment for a period of 90 days.
"Comments received from the public participation process indicate overwhelming support for the Bill and its principles. These comments have now been incorporated into a new version of the Bill which is scheduled for tabling in Parliament. This important piece of legislation will lead to the adoption of a new approach in managing the nation's coastal resources. This will promote social equity and lead to the better use of coastal resources, whilst also protecting the natural environment," said Minister van Schalkwyk.
Fundamentally, the purpose of the National Coastal Management Bill is
to:
- Provide a legal and administrative framework that will promote
cooperative, coordinated and integrated coastal development;
- Preserve, protect and enhance the status of the coastal
environment as the heritage of all;
- Ensure coastal resources are managed in the interests of the whole
community;
- Ensure there is equitable access to the opportunities and benefits
derived from the coast; and
- To give effect to certain of South Africa's international law
obligations.
This Bill further seeks to ensure existing access points to the coastal area are reinstated and properly maintained and allows for the demarcation of access land.
The Bill also ensures that two zones are created:
- "Coastal public property" * state land along the coast, the beach,
estuaries and seas
- "Coastal protection zone" * 100 m wide in urban and 1000m wide in
rural areas
The "Coastal protection zone's" inland boundary can be adjusted to:
* Make it narrower in non-sensitive areas
* Make it wider in sensitive areas
The sections of the Bill pertaining to "coastal public property" and the "coastal protection zone" do not affect:
* Existing property rights
* Provincial, municipal, cadastral, or other legally recognised
boundaries
* Powers of any organ of state to dispose of land
It also gives government the power to prevent development too close to the sea by establishing 'set-back lines'.
The Minister added that "the most important changes to the gazetted version were the streamlining of government processes, reduction of duplication, clarification of certain clauses and better alignment with other legislation. For example, all activities requiring environmental impact assessments along the coast will now be done in terms of the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA).
Whether provincial, municipal or private, the Bill seeks to regulate activities with potential adverse environmental impacts. More specifically this Bill also provides new measures to protect coastal areas from being degraded by inappropriate developments and pollution,"
said the Minister.
MEDIA ENQUIRIES: RIAAN AUCAMP - 083 778 9923
The law is on our side !
PRETORIA NEWS 17 Jan 2007 Page 11
Coastal resources need this bills protection
The proposed legislation will ensure that future generations of South Africans will still be able to have fun at the beach, Jan Glazewski
writes
At a time when millions of South Africans are returning to their work stations after their annual trip down to the coast, the national Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism has published the National Environmental Management: Integrated Coastal Management Bill.
The public can comment on the bill until March, after which it is expected to come before the national assemblies environmental portfolio committee.
If it is enacted into law, it will replace the outdated Sea-shore Act 21 of 1935 the oldest environmental legislation on the statute book.
A fundamental deficiency of the Seashore Act is that it was drafted at a time when the law took scant cognisance of ecological processes or principles of environmental management.
The outdated act applies bluntly to the sea and shore below high-water mark, disregarding the fact that the coastal area is a unified, dynamic and sensitive ecosystem and that the area landward of high-water mark is an inherent part of the coastal ecosystem that should be managed in an integrated and sensitive way.
The new bill tackles this fundamental deficiency in that it applies to the coastal zone, which is defined broadly provide coastal access land to provide access to that part of the coast defined as coastal public property.
The Sea-shore Act paid little attention to the management of estuaries.
Estuaries are unique, biodiverse ecosystems, partly because of the mixing of salt water and fresh water Our estuaries have become degraded as four components: coastal public property; the coastal buffer zone; coastal access land; and coastal protected areas.
Each of these is in turn extensively defined, creating a cascade of complex and technical definitional terms with the welcome result that the future law will facilitate a more integrated approach to the management of the entire coastal environment.
The cornerstone of the bill is that it preserves the Roman law and Roman-Dutch law notion that the sea and seashore are not subject to private ownership, but to the use and enjoyment of all. This is particularly relevant in the transformed South Africa.
Would South Africans like to see parts of the coastline being privately owned and enjoyed only by rich and wealthy foreigners, like in Cannes?
The bill prevents this to some extent, stating that ownership of coastal public property vests in the citizens of the Republic and must be held in trust by the state on behalf of the citizens of the Republic.
The bill also expands the notion of a public servitude or right of way to the sea and sea-shore, stating that every person has the right of reasonable access to, and the right to use and enjoy, coastal public property.
Coastal local authorities will have to because of inappropriate development and specifically because of the damming of river systems upstream, which interferes with the natural flushing effect estuaries have had during periods of flooding.
The bill has one chapter devoted to estuaries.
The main tool here is that the Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism must, with the concurrence of the Minister of Water Affairs and Forestry develop a national estuarine management protocol that must meet criteria set out in the bill.
These will be implemented by lower spheres of government under estuarine management plans.
The proposed legislation also promotes the notion of integrated coastal management, which is currently international best practice in coastal area management.
A myriad government agencies are involved in developing or managing the coastal area and tensions arise.
The cornerstone of the bill is that it preserves the Roman law and Roman-Dutch law notion that the sea and sea-shore are not subject to private ownership, but to the use and enjoyment of all A pertinent example is the tension between the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, responsible for clean seas, and the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry which tends to regard the sea as a waste disposal site.
The Department of Water Affairs and Forestry has approved more than 70 effluent and industrial outfall pipelines, some of which are causing severe pollution particularly on the KwaZulu-Natal north coast.
Another specific chapter of the bill, titled Marine and Coastal Pollution. supplements the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry’s powers by providing for a supplementary permitting regime regarding sea outfall pipelines to be administered by the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism.
In terms of coastal management, each of the three spheres of government would be required to develop coastal plans for their respective spheres.
Thus the bill requires the Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism to adopt a national coastal management programme within a stipulated period.
This must be a policy directive on integrated coastal management and (must) provide for an integrated, coordinated and uniform approach to coastal management ... including the use of coastal resources.
Similarly, at the provincial level, each MEC of each of the four coastal provinces must within four years of the act coming into force adopt a provincial coastal management programme. Its contents must include a vision for the management of the coastal zone in the province, including the use of coastal resources.
At local level, coastal municipalities must prepare and adopt, within four years, a municipal coastal management programme.
These programmes must include a vision for the management of the coastal zone within the jurisdiction of the municipality, including sustainable use of coastal resources, coastal management objectives, priorities and strategies.
Provision is made for by-laws to be made in this regard.
The concluding part of the chapter on coastal management, perhaps optimistically, provides for the co-ordination of plans required by other legislation arid the various coastal management programmes described above.
The chapter also makes provision for coastal zoning schemes, but it is difficult to ascertain how these will dovetail with the zoning schemes made under land use planning legislation in coastal provinces.
The chapter titled Protection of Coastal Resources is dedicated things to assessing, avoiding and minimising adverse effects on the coastal environment.
For instance, it stipulates that any organ of state authorized by any law to grant consent for any activity that may have an adverse effect on the coastal environment must be satisfied that it will not cause irreparable and longterm effects.
This would cover all planning authorisation, mining and so on.
It states that if the minister has reason to believe that a person is carrying out, or intends to carry out, an activity that is having or likely to have an adverse effect on the coastal environment, then he may issue a coastal protection notice to mitigate such adverse effects.
The minister and the relevant MEC of the coastal province may also issue a written report and removal notice to any person not only if the activity is in contravention of any law, but also if it is likely to have an adverse effect on the coastal environment.
This part of the chapter is applicable only to the coastal buffer zone.
No authorisation may be issued in the coastal buffer zone without an environmental impact assessment report.
In any event, any planning or development authorisation must take into consideration the purposes of the coastal buffer zone.
Certain activities are also prohibited in the coastal buffer zone except in exceptional circumstances, when a permit would be required.
A big problem, particularly along the Transkei coast, is the illegal construction of houses often without proper planning permission and usually for holiday purposes.
The bill tackles this problem by stating that a person who has unlawfully constructed a building or other structure on coastal public property must within a year of the commencement of this act either apply for a coastal land lease or demolish the structure and restore the site to its original condition.
The South African coastline has seen unprecedented development in the past few decades, in particular of golf estates on the southern Cape coast.
This results in loss of biodiversity and puts immense pressure on scarce water resources.
The bill is welcome and, provided that the necessary financial resources are made available and human capacity is developed, South Africans should continue to enjoy much of the recreational and other riches the coastline provides.
Glazewski is a professor at the Institute of Marine and Environmental Law at the University of Cape Town
Coastal resources need this bills protection
The proposed legislation will ensure that future generations of South Africans will still be able to have fun at the beach, Jan Glazewski
writes
At a time when millions of South Africans are returning to their work stations after their annual trip down to the coast, the national Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism has published the National Environmental Management: Integrated Coastal Management Bill.
The public can comment on the bill until March, after which it is expected to come before the national assemblies environmental portfolio committee.
If it is enacted into law, it will replace the outdated Sea-shore Act 21 of 1935 the oldest environmental legislation on the statute book.
A fundamental deficiency of the Seashore Act is that it was drafted at a time when the law took scant cognisance of ecological processes or principles of environmental management.
The outdated act applies bluntly to the sea and shore below high-water mark, disregarding the fact that the coastal area is a unified, dynamic and sensitive ecosystem and that the area landward of high-water mark is an inherent part of the coastal ecosystem that should be managed in an integrated and sensitive way.
The new bill tackles this fundamental deficiency in that it applies to the coastal zone, which is defined broadly provide coastal access land to provide access to that part of the coast defined as coastal public property.
The Sea-shore Act paid little attention to the management of estuaries.
Estuaries are unique, biodiverse ecosystems, partly because of the mixing of salt water and fresh water Our estuaries have become degraded as four components: coastal public property; the coastal buffer zone; coastal access land; and coastal protected areas.
Each of these is in turn extensively defined, creating a cascade of complex and technical definitional terms with the welcome result that the future law will facilitate a more integrated approach to the management of the entire coastal environment.
The cornerstone of the bill is that it preserves the Roman law and Roman-Dutch law notion that the sea and seashore are not subject to private ownership, but to the use and enjoyment of all. This is particularly relevant in the transformed South Africa.
Would South Africans like to see parts of the coastline being privately owned and enjoyed only by rich and wealthy foreigners, like in Cannes?
The bill prevents this to some extent, stating that ownership of coastal public property vests in the citizens of the Republic and must be held in trust by the state on behalf of the citizens of the Republic.
The bill also expands the notion of a public servitude or right of way to the sea and sea-shore, stating that every person has the right of reasonable access to, and the right to use and enjoy, coastal public property.
Coastal local authorities will have to because of inappropriate development and specifically because of the damming of river systems upstream, which interferes with the natural flushing effect estuaries have had during periods of flooding.
The bill has one chapter devoted to estuaries.
The main tool here is that the Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism must, with the concurrence of the Minister of Water Affairs and Forestry develop a national estuarine management protocol that must meet criteria set out in the bill.
These will be implemented by lower spheres of government under estuarine management plans.
The proposed legislation also promotes the notion of integrated coastal management, which is currently international best practice in coastal area management.
A myriad government agencies are involved in developing or managing the coastal area and tensions arise.
The cornerstone of the bill is that it preserves the Roman law and Roman-Dutch law notion that the sea and sea-shore are not subject to private ownership, but to the use and enjoyment of all A pertinent example is the tension between the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, responsible for clean seas, and the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry which tends to regard the sea as a waste disposal site.
The Department of Water Affairs and Forestry has approved more than 70 effluent and industrial outfall pipelines, some of which are causing severe pollution particularly on the KwaZulu-Natal north coast.
Another specific chapter of the bill, titled Marine and Coastal Pollution. supplements the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry’s powers by providing for a supplementary permitting regime regarding sea outfall pipelines to be administered by the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism.
In terms of coastal management, each of the three spheres of government would be required to develop coastal plans for their respective spheres.
Thus the bill requires the Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism to adopt a national coastal management programme within a stipulated period.
This must be a policy directive on integrated coastal management and (must) provide for an integrated, coordinated and uniform approach to coastal management ... including the use of coastal resources.
Similarly, at the provincial level, each MEC of each of the four coastal provinces must within four years of the act coming into force adopt a provincial coastal management programme. Its contents must include a vision for the management of the coastal zone in the province, including the use of coastal resources.
At local level, coastal municipalities must prepare and adopt, within four years, a municipal coastal management programme.
These programmes must include a vision for the management of the coastal zone within the jurisdiction of the municipality, including sustainable use of coastal resources, coastal management objectives, priorities and strategies.
Provision is made for by-laws to be made in this regard.
The concluding part of the chapter on coastal management, perhaps optimistically, provides for the co-ordination of plans required by other legislation arid the various coastal management programmes described above.
The chapter also makes provision for coastal zoning schemes, but it is difficult to ascertain how these will dovetail with the zoning schemes made under land use planning legislation in coastal provinces.
The chapter titled Protection of Coastal Resources is dedicated things to assessing, avoiding and minimising adverse effects on the coastal environment.
For instance, it stipulates that any organ of state authorized by any law to grant consent for any activity that may have an adverse effect on the coastal environment must be satisfied that it will not cause irreparable and longterm effects.
This would cover all planning authorisation, mining and so on.
It states that if the minister has reason to believe that a person is carrying out, or intends to carry out, an activity that is having or likely to have an adverse effect on the coastal environment, then he may issue a coastal protection notice to mitigate such adverse effects.
The minister and the relevant MEC of the coastal province may also issue a written report and removal notice to any person not only if the activity is in contravention of any law, but also if it is likely to have an adverse effect on the coastal environment.
This part of the chapter is applicable only to the coastal buffer zone.
No authorisation may be issued in the coastal buffer zone without an environmental impact assessment report.
In any event, any planning or development authorisation must take into consideration the purposes of the coastal buffer zone.
Certain activities are also prohibited in the coastal buffer zone except in exceptional circumstances, when a permit would be required.
A big problem, particularly along the Transkei coast, is the illegal construction of houses often without proper planning permission and usually for holiday purposes.
The bill tackles this problem by stating that a person who has unlawfully constructed a building or other structure on coastal public property must within a year of the commencement of this act either apply for a coastal land lease or demolish the structure and restore the site to its original condition.
The South African coastline has seen unprecedented development in the past few decades, in particular of golf estates on the southern Cape coast.
This results in loss of biodiversity and puts immense pressure on scarce water resources.
The bill is welcome and, provided that the necessary financial resources are made available and human capacity is developed, South Africans should continue to enjoy much of the recreational and other riches the coastline provides.
Glazewski is a professor at the Institute of Marine and Environmental Law at the University of Cape Town
Friday, July 27, 2007
The Mercury 27 July 2007
Proposed harbour plan hits rough water
July 27, 2007 Edition 1
Tony Carnie
DURBAN yachtsmen, ski-boaters and other watersport clubs are likely to pull out of negotiations with the Durban Point Development Company until there is more clarity on the new shape of the controversial small craft harbour at Vetch's Pier.
This after a decision earlier this month by the KZN Department of Environmental Affairs to request several changes to the original harbour plan, including the scrapping of a proposed underground parking lot for club members.
Members of the Durban Ski Boat Club were to vote on whether to sign a memorandum of agreement with the company this weekend. Members of the Point Yacht Club and Durban Undersea Club are to meet on August 6 to consider the same issue.
A draft memorandum of agreement prepared by the development company has proposed the formation of a joint "super club" to accommodate skiboaters, yachtsmen, windsurfers, Hobie cat and paddleski members under a single roof.
However, the Durban Ski Boat club has decided to postpone voting on the super club proposal until it can get clarity on several issues from development company project leader Neels Brink.
Club spokesman Eddie Lahee said the recent amendments and queries from the provincial environment department had created several areas of uncertainty and it was likely that any firm decisions about the super club proposal would have to be postponed for the time being.
Senior Point Yacht Club members Nigel Milne and Rob Goulden were not available for comment on whether the memorandum would be tabled at the club's August 6 meeting.
But Johnny Vasillaros, Chairman of the Durban Paddleski Club, has cautioned all water sport club members against signing "blank cheque" agreements.
Vasillaros said Brink seemed to be pressuring clubs to sign to demonstrate that the interests of club members had been accommodated.
"We also strongly believe this proposal has been carefully drawn up for the purpose of setting the clubs up to fail and go into liquidation . . . There will be no swimming, no surfing, no snorkelling, no boogie boards, no sunbathing, no kids building sandcastles. I believe the boating fraternity of this city deserves a far, far better deal and if all the clubs refuse to sign there can be no way that the city will even think about evicting us."
Brink did not respond to telephone messages.
July 27, 2007 Edition 1
Tony Carnie
DURBAN yachtsmen, ski-boaters and other watersport clubs are likely to pull out of negotiations with the Durban Point Development Company until there is more clarity on the new shape of the controversial small craft harbour at Vetch's Pier.
This after a decision earlier this month by the KZN Department of Environmental Affairs to request several changes to the original harbour plan, including the scrapping of a proposed underground parking lot for club members.
Members of the Durban Ski Boat Club were to vote on whether to sign a memorandum of agreement with the company this weekend. Members of the Point Yacht Club and Durban Undersea Club are to meet on August 6 to consider the same issue.
A draft memorandum of agreement prepared by the development company has proposed the formation of a joint "super club" to accommodate skiboaters, yachtsmen, windsurfers, Hobie cat and paddleski members under a single roof.
However, the Durban Ski Boat club has decided to postpone voting on the super club proposal until it can get clarity on several issues from development company project leader Neels Brink.
Club spokesman Eddie Lahee said the recent amendments and queries from the provincial environment department had created several areas of uncertainty and it was likely that any firm decisions about the super club proposal would have to be postponed for the time being.
Senior Point Yacht Club members Nigel Milne and Rob Goulden were not available for comment on whether the memorandum would be tabled at the club's August 6 meeting.
But Johnny Vasillaros, Chairman of the Durban Paddleski Club, has cautioned all water sport club members against signing "blank cheque" agreements.
Vasillaros said Brink seemed to be pressuring clubs to sign to demonstrate that the interests of club members had been accommodated.
"We also strongly believe this proposal has been carefully drawn up for the purpose of setting the clubs up to fail and go into liquidation . . . There will be no swimming, no surfing, no snorkelling, no boogie boards, no sunbathing, no kids building sandcastles. I believe the boating fraternity of this city deserves a far, far better deal and if all the clubs refuse to sign there can be no way that the city will even think about evicting us."
Brink did not respond to telephone messages.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Vetch's Pier plan faces rethink
July 19, 2007 Edition 1
Tony Carnie
THE controversial plan that will elbow out Durban's water-sports community from Vetch's Pier for a new yacht marina and commercial waterfront development has run into an obstacle.
The provincial Department of Environmental Affairs is unhappy with aspects of the marina plan and the mandatory environmental impact report lodged by the deve-lopers.
It has now insisted that a public meeting be held soon to discuss and clarify a new "compromise" plan negotiated between the eThekwini Metro and the Durban Point Deve-lopment Company.
The latest developments follow a series of objections from the city, watersport enthusiasts and members of the public over the perceived privatisation of a popular public beach.
Some of the central concerns raised by the provincial environment department include the likelihood of overcrowding at the beach, the legality of alienating a public amenity and the need to explain who will win and who will lose if the plan goes ahead.
According to a letter sent to the Durban Point Development Company spokesman Neels Brink, the provincial environment department's internal review task team had identified several "short- comings" and issues which required clarity.
Brink was not prepared to discuss what modifications were being considered when The Mercury spoke to him yesterday.
"When we go public everyone will see what is there . . . You are trying to pre-empt the legal public process," he responded when asked whether Durban Point Development Company had modified its original layout plans.
However, City Manager Michael Sutcliffe has confirmed that the city had asked the company to change certain aspects of the proposal and it is believed the deve-lopers were told to scale down the size of the yacht marina and to create a larger public beach area.
Sutcliffe said the eThekwini Metro Council supported the concept of a new small craft harbour, but the city's professional planning team did not agree with some of the developers' proposals.
From the perspective of urban design, the city wanted to see a "unique urban environment - not just a huge blob of concrete or a glorified shopping centre".
Sutcliffe believed the city had come up with a proposal, which was technically feasible.
Asked whether the proposed modifications would address the concerns of watersport clubs, which were worried about being "cooped up" in small premises, Sutcliffe said: "I think we are getting there . . . we were able to workshop a number of issues, but it's not going to satisfy everyone."
He suggested it was unrealistic to expect either a status quo situation or a maximisation of development. However, it appears that land ownership of the site may represent a significant legal stumbling block for the developers.
The Department of Environment Affairs and the Durban Paddleski Club have questioned who owns the land and the adjoining sea, and whether it is legal for the company to alienate it.
Sutcliffe said the ownership issue was still being discussed with Transnet Chief Executive Maria Ramos and Chief Operating Officer Louis van Niekerk. "It's not something we have resolved yet, but I'm hoping we will get a breakthrough."
In his letter to Brink and the environmental impact assessment project team, Malcolm Moses of the provincial Environment department said there was no proof or clarity on who owned the Vetch's site and whether the company was entitled to alienate this land if it was sold or leased.
Comment
Moses said his department had been informed that the final layout plans had undergone "several changes" and the public should be given an opportunity to comment on the changes.
He noted that the length of the beach at Vetch's would be reduced by nearly 100m when the harbour mouth was widened and uShaka beach had been created specifically to mitigate the loss of beach.
"Will the small craft harbour confine current users of Vetch's to a smaller area and will this result in the overcrowding of uShaka beach? Please provide a detailed response," wrote Moses.
The department also wanted clarity on whether adequate parking facilities would be provided and what would be done to address the fate of the water sports clubs and seine-netters.
Moses also raised concerns about a social impact assessment study conducted by the University of KwaZulu-Natal Centre for Environmental Management, noting that more information was needed to assess the distribution of benefits and costs of the affected people.
The department also expected clearer responses to the concerns raised by interested and affected groups, rather than just the deve-lopers' preferred options.
July 19, 2007 Edition 1
Tony Carnie
THE controversial plan that will elbow out Durban's water-sports community from Vetch's Pier for a new yacht marina and commercial waterfront development has run into an obstacle.
The provincial Department of Environmental Affairs is unhappy with aspects of the marina plan and the mandatory environmental impact report lodged by the deve-lopers.
It has now insisted that a public meeting be held soon to discuss and clarify a new "compromise" plan negotiated between the eThekwini Metro and the Durban Point Deve-lopment Company.
The latest developments follow a series of objections from the city, watersport enthusiasts and members of the public over the perceived privatisation of a popular public beach.
Some of the central concerns raised by the provincial environment department include the likelihood of overcrowding at the beach, the legality of alienating a public amenity and the need to explain who will win and who will lose if the plan goes ahead.
According to a letter sent to the Durban Point Development Company spokesman Neels Brink, the provincial environment department's internal review task team had identified several "short- comings" and issues which required clarity.
Brink was not prepared to discuss what modifications were being considered when The Mercury spoke to him yesterday.
"When we go public everyone will see what is there . . . You are trying to pre-empt the legal public process," he responded when asked whether Durban Point Development Company had modified its original layout plans.
However, City Manager Michael Sutcliffe has confirmed that the city had asked the company to change certain aspects of the proposal and it is believed the deve-lopers were told to scale down the size of the yacht marina and to create a larger public beach area.
Sutcliffe said the eThekwini Metro Council supported the concept of a new small craft harbour, but the city's professional planning team did not agree with some of the developers' proposals.
From the perspective of urban design, the city wanted to see a "unique urban environment - not just a huge blob of concrete or a glorified shopping centre".
Sutcliffe believed the city had come up with a proposal, which was technically feasible.
Asked whether the proposed modifications would address the concerns of watersport clubs, which were worried about being "cooped up" in small premises, Sutcliffe said: "I think we are getting there . . . we were able to workshop a number of issues, but it's not going to satisfy everyone."
He suggested it was unrealistic to expect either a status quo situation or a maximisation of development. However, it appears that land ownership of the site may represent a significant legal stumbling block for the developers.
The Department of Environment Affairs and the Durban Paddleski Club have questioned who owns the land and the adjoining sea, and whether it is legal for the company to alienate it.
Sutcliffe said the ownership issue was still being discussed with Transnet Chief Executive Maria Ramos and Chief Operating Officer Louis van Niekerk. "It's not something we have resolved yet, but I'm hoping we will get a breakthrough."
In his letter to Brink and the environmental impact assessment project team, Malcolm Moses of the provincial Environment department said there was no proof or clarity on who owned the Vetch's site and whether the company was entitled to alienate this land if it was sold or leased.
Comment
Moses said his department had been informed that the final layout plans had undergone "several changes" and the public should be given an opportunity to comment on the changes.
He noted that the length of the beach at Vetch's would be reduced by nearly 100m when the harbour mouth was widened and uShaka beach had been created specifically to mitigate the loss of beach.
"Will the small craft harbour confine current users of Vetch's to a smaller area and will this result in the overcrowding of uShaka beach? Please provide a detailed response," wrote Moses.
The department also wanted clarity on whether adequate parking facilities would be provided and what would be done to address the fate of the water sports clubs and seine-netters.
Moses also raised concerns about a social impact assessment study conducted by the University of KwaZulu-Natal Centre for Environmental Management, noting that more information was needed to assess the distribution of benefits and costs of the affected people.
The department also expected clearer responses to the concerns raised by interested and affected groups, rather than just the deve-lopers' preferred options.
Monday, July 23, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
