By Bev Mortimer:
On Friday this week Kouga Municipality is expected to announce its decision on whether the municipality will raise a levy to meet the costs of sorely needed rock revetments for the most precarious dune Spit. Rock revetments are the only option available to protect canal homes from the fierce sea storms expected as usual in Spring.
Home owners have been asked by the municipality to respond by Wednesday this week with comments about the levy and protection of their homes..
The facts basically are:
The canals need protection from severe sea storms as it is severely eroded in places. There is an EIA, granted by the SA government department of Environmental Affairs at the end of last year, that allows rock revetments to be built along the spit to fortify it.
This EIA for rock revetments expires in August. Any other solution for the beach will have to undergo another EIA which will take two years and cost about R300 000. While there are many other solutions offered to protect the Spit from the ravages of the Indian Ocean in winter, someone would need to offer to pay for another EIA, but no one (including the municipality) has any money to pay for this lengthy process in the foreseeable future.
Some home owners do not want rock revetments nor do they want to pay a levy, so there are two differing camps among canal home owners.
In the case of the majority of canal home owners advising the municipality that they do not want to pay the levy, the Spit could well be left unprotected and at the mercy of the elements as the SFBRHOA will have insufficient funds to place rock revetments along the whole of the ski canal to fortify it against destructive Spring waves.
Experts such as highly qualified marine scientists and engineers from Port Elizabeth, who know this St Francis coastline well, have warned that the Spit may be breached in Spring this year.
Many canal home owners are praying that common sense will prevail in the voting process as they say: “The levy is a small price to pay to protect our mansions – anything form R3-million–R20-million and upwards – from the merciless waves that could flood and destroy the canals and its stately upmarket homes.”
At a recent meeting with the municipality the committee said some canal home owners have questioned why the levy will only apply to those living on the canals when in fact all people living in St Francis benefit from the canals? “In response to this we can state that it is our intention to ensure that going ahead non-canal home owners will be required to pay a premium for their licence to use the canals,” the committee says on its website. “Additionally it was felt by the SFBRHOA Committee that the application of a levy across all SFB residents will be even more contentious and that we as canal home owners should take control of our own destiny.
“The outcome of our efforts is not ideal but unfortunately due to the untimely intervention of the process by certain opposing parties, we were forced to obtain a Court Order to facilitate the process and as a result have had to comply with municipal regulations that have in effect taken control away from your Association. Unfortunately we do not have an alternative option but with constant monitoring we believe we can still achieve a satisfactory end result.”
Deadline: Canal home owners are reminded that the Notice from the municipality gives all canal home owners the opportunity to make comment and raise objections to the proposed levy by writing directly to the Municipal Manager. These responses should be submitted to the municipality by Wednesday, 27 June 2012 and will play a large part in determining whether Kouga Council proceeds with the collection of the levy for revetments or not – after a vote by councillors. This issue will be decided at the Council meeting on Friday this week.
“Canal Homeowners should note that by objecting to the collection of the levy they are effectively rejecting the construction of revetments as the municipality has no alternative funding options available to carry out this work,” the committee also says. “This will leave the Dune Spit exposed to the well documented vagaries of the winter storms. “There is therefore much at stake and Canal home owners should think carefully about their decision as there is unlikely to be any other opportunity in the short to medium term to address this issue. We now await the results of the comments and objection notice period and urge all canal home owners to respond to the municipal notice to ensure that, whichever way it goes, it will at least be viewed as being the wish of the majority of canal home owners.”
The committee adds that all canal home owners have been notified by the municipality of the latter’s intention to include an amount of R4.5m in its Budget for the construction of revetments, which will be funded by the raising of a Special Levy on all Canal Home owners to cover this construction.
Invoicing of the Levy: If approved by Council, Canal Home owners will be invoiced in the July 2012 billing period.
Amount of Levy: The SFBRHOA reiterated that the levy should not exceed R10 000 per Riparian Erf. (Those who are facing financial hardship, such as some pensioners, can approach the committee with a request for exemption.)
Security of Funds: The Acting Financial Director has given her assurance that, as per the Court Order, all funds raised via this levy will be ring fenced and placed in an Investment Account pending the appointment of contractors. The SFBRHOA expressed the concern of their members in respect of the municpality taking control of these funds and were categorically assured that under the Court Order these monies could not and would not be used for any other purpose.
VAT: The SFBRHOA believes that the levy should be Zero Rated for VAT and this is being reviewed by SARS following which a Directive will be issued.
Appointment of Contractors: Regrettably, due to existing Municipal Regulations and the fact that the Erf in question is Public Open Space owned by the municipality, the appointment of contractors lies in the hands of the municipality. The SFBRHOA expressed concern that unsuitable and unqualified contractors may secure the contract as was experienced previously. In response the municipality advised that it was still reviewing the regulations that might allow the possibility of streamlining the tender process and have undertaken to revert on this issue next week.
EIA (Environmental Impact Assessment) (EIA): This Approval is due to expire at the end of August 2012 and the municipality is requesting an extension of the ROD.
All articles written, all photos taken, plus all adverts designed, by the Editor and printed in the St Francis Chronicle are protected by Copyright. Reproduction or copying of any part of the contents of this newspaper and its concept and design can only be done with the Editor’s written permission.
St Francis Chronicle 
Why not just declare Santareme an illegal development, demolish it and use the rubble to build a decent breakwater along the ski canal?
THE SPIT & ST FRANCIS BEACHES
The time has come for all residents & others who love the beaches & lifestyle at St Francis to drop their opposing views and listen to each other.
In any situation there will be many different approaches as to how to solve a particular problem. The Spit argument is a prime example. Dr Vermaak is anti any SFBRHOA action but they both want the preservation/restoration of the Spit as a bastion against continuing wave erosion.
Why not adopt both of their solutions? According to Dr Vermaak, the bulk of the Spit was man-made – built largely by Leighton Hulett some 50 years ago, so if the vegetation is temporarily destroyed by the rock revetment road construction, overtime it can be restored and the dune itself rebuilt. At least in the interim, canal-homeowners will be able to sleep at night, knowing that their properties are) still protected by the Spit buttress. R 10 000 is a relatively small amount to pay compared to the risk of imminent destruction of the Spit & resulting damage to the beautiful canal system. Once the revetments have stabilised the Spit, focus should then be on rebuilding. A manual labour force using barges & shovels could work at low tide moving sand. Adopting Dr Vermaak’s proposal to dredge parts of the Kromme & canals could complete the job & attention can then shift to restoring the vegetation.
At least, this way the time & money spent for/by the Municipality to get approval & authority to proceed will not be wasted & there will be no need to reinvent a solution after current permission expires in August.
BUT THE SPIT IS ONLY A START. WAVE ACTION WILL CONTINUE UNTIL THE ST FRANCIS BEACH PROBLEM IS ADDRESSED.
The real problem at St Francis, as many marine-specialists have stated, is the loss of sand from the sea-bed and the lack of replenishment from the natural land sources due to human developments. The SIC involvement has achieved limited success but is inhibited by the absence of sufficient supplies of sand.
A solution was offered in the EIA presented by GIBB last year where they proposed pumping sufficient sand from Thyspunt to St Francis Bay. There were many positive points in the EIA that would work to the benefit of St Francis residents but the opportunities were overlooked in the fear-provoked reaction to the nuclear plant proposals. The time is ripe to reconsider & if Thyspunt is selected, St Francis should be ready with a well-constructed plan as to where & how this source of sand would be utilised with minimum disruption to marine life & to benefit the marine geo-morphology of the area.
Only such action will assure the long term survival of the Spit and restoration of St Francis beaches.
The Kromme River is full of sand. It is the obvious source of sand to renourish the beach and there is the spin-off benefit of having a deeper river for boating and fishing. Why consider sourcing sand from Thyspunt when all that river sand is available?
Have you calculated how much sand is involved, what equipment is required and the logistics involved to move the sand to appropriate locations? Cost of this venture is significant & St Francis cannot expect National or Provincial Govt to allocate the funds necessary – only Eskom would be in a position to finance it. Sand from the Kromme is only sufficient to replenish the Spit and even forr this there are major logistical issues.
No, I am not a quantity surveyor, but from my knowledge of the river I would say that there is plenty of sand to renourish the beach. The lagoon is one massive sandbank, and there are sandbanks at the bridge and beyond the Kromme shacks.
Logistically it would be quite an operation, but in the long term you are faced with a river that is silting up and is seldom flushed. The prospects for boating and fishing in the future are not exciting.
Some people are quite happy to see the river silting up – they did not like chokka boats mooring in the river and who can blame them.
If the river was to be dredged it would require machinery which is not presently available on the Kromme. Some imagination in this regard is required. A wonderful yachting marina could be created in the lagoon.
We have financial institutions, insurance companies and pension funds etc which constantly seem to be plowing their funds into projects such as shopping centres (too many of them – if only they would direct their funding elsewhere). Why not, for a change, plow those funds into ploughing a river?
The dividends may not be financial, but what value can be placed on the recreational benefits of restoring our rivers to what they once were. Personally, I enjoyed many happy hours of dinghy sailing on the Kromme where one now could not even lower a centreboard.
Eskom is not the place to look for funding. If there were diamonds in the Kromme, De Beers would be in there like a shot..