Opposition to development in Imizamo Yethu misrepresented

I REFER to the article ‘Hout Bay split over super-blocking’ published in Weekend Argus, 19 August 2017.

The article attributes the following statement to Brett Herron, the mayco member for transport and urban development: “Previous applications for high-rise residential blocks were opposed by residents’ associations – including High Court litigation – and so more land space is required to provide housing opportunities”.

Either Mr Herron is quite mistaken about the nature of the opposition to the provision of highrise residential blocks in Imizamo Yethu (IY) or your reporter has misquoted him.

The only High Court litigation concerning IY between the city and Hout Bay residents of which we are aware was in 2011 when, despite much effort over a considerable period of time, the Hout Bay & Llandudno Environmental Conservation Group (ECG) could not get the city to alter its plan to build a 19.5m wide service road adjacent to Main Road that would have resulted in the destruction of a band of trees on the IY border that a provincial environmental directive had required to be retained, instead of the circular drive leading to the centre of IY, favoured by the community led by SANCO Hout Bay.

Opposition to the provision of high-rise residential blocks in IY was entirely that of people living in the area and has resulted in a significant further delay in the provision of decent housing for persons living on that hillside.

This question was put to Councillor Herron: Is the city trying to purchase properties and a piece of land protected as a Unesco site in Imizamo Yethu? We are exploring the possibility of purchasing some privately owned properties to increase the provision of housing opportunities in Imizamo Yethu. The residential densities within the Imizamo Yethu suburb are greater than many other areas across the city, affecting residents’ quality of life and the provision of basic services. However, previous applications for higher rise residential blocks were opposed by residents’ associations – including high court litigation – and so more land space is required to provide housing opportunities. Herron clearly states that the residential blocks were opposed by residents’ associations, including through“high court litigation”.