The Mercury

Nudist beach scrapped

- Nosipho Mngoma

THE public protector has ruled against the proposed South Coast nudist beach, much to the relief of the Concerned Citizens Group which opposed it.

The outcome of the probe into whether the Ray Nkonyeni (formerly Hibiscus Coast) Municipali­ty should have approved an applicatio­n for nudists on Mpenjati Beach, was announced by the group in Marburg yesterday.

This was at a meeting with community members on behalf of whom the group had lodged the complaint to prevent the 500m stretch of beach near Trafalgar becoming South Africa’s second official nudist resort.

The group’s Reverend Mike Effanga later told The Mercury that the final report was hand-delivered to him on Friday.

“This is a victory, any wise municipali­ty will realise this idea is dead… Laws are informed by morality and if you break the laws, you are offending morality. In contraveni­ng the laws, the municipali­ty breached morality. And there is a zero possibilit­y that the municipali­ty can do anything now because they can’t change the law in 30 days,” said Effanga.

He was referring to the deadline for the implementa­tion of remedial action.

“This is what they should have done three years ago, reject the applicatio­n. They should have told the nudists to go be naked in their bathrooms like everybody else,” said Effanga.

In her findings, Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane said the Ray Nkoyeni Municipali­ty had breached its own anti-nudity policies. This means the October 2014 council resolution to “relax” the by-law was in violation of the national legislatio­n, (Local Government: Municipal Systems Act).

She called the use of the phrase; “relaxing the by-law” a “whitewashi­ng and sugar-coating exercise intended to make the municipali­ty’s unlawful act seem more appealing or pleasant when in actual fact it was unlawful and improper”.

Mkhwebane said while the municipali­ty fulfilled its obligation for public consultati­on, it was not proper and meaningful as the views of the majority – who objected – were completely ignored “without even laying the legal or factual basis”.

The municipali­ty was ordered to “reconsider” the resolution approving the applicatio­n.

The public protector also ordered the Department of Co-operative Governance and Traditiona­l Affairs (Cogta) to, within 60 days, review the municipali­ty’s coastal management programme in relation to the establishm­ent of a nudist-friendly beach at Mpenjati.

The MEC would then have to advise the municipali­ty on whether to amend or replace the programme.

Ray Nkonyeni Municipali­ty spokespers­on Simon April said he was not aware that the report had been finalised and issued. “Last we dealt with was making written and oral submission­s after the public protector issued a provisiona­l report,” he said. This was in early September.

April would not be drawn on the nature of the municipali­ty’s submission­s as they were advised that – like the provisiona­l report – any submission­s were confidenti­al. He said once the municipali­ty had sight of the report, they would seek legal advice on the way forward.

Legal action was also a considerat­ion for the applicants.

Athol “Lofty” Lutge, the chairperso­n of the South African National Naturists Associatio­n whose KwaZulu-Natal affiliate made the applicatio­n, said they were disappoint­ed at the public protectors’ decision.

The associatio­n had also not seen the report but he said if procedure was the issue, there was nothing stopping them from applying again and this time making sure the municipali­ty followed the correct procedures.

 ?? PICTURE: BONGANI MBATHA ?? In this file picture, Trafalgar residents who were against the nudist beach stroll on the contested piece of coastline.
PICTURE: BONGANI MBATHA In this file picture, Trafalgar residents who were against the nudist beach stroll on the contested piece of coastline.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from South Africa