These pictures of the St Francis Beach show what can happen when there is reckless disregard for the environmental regulations by both homeowners and contractors who claimed to have the support of the Department of the Environment, Economic Affairs and Tourism in Port Elizabeth.

In the case illustrated, a homeowner who believed his home was threatened obtained a permit from the Department of Marine & Coastal Management in Cape Town allowing him to get vehicles on the beach to effect repairs to his existing revetments.  Permission was also sought for extensions to the revetments in order to protect the property. However, the permit clearly states that the required permission for the new revetments needed to be obtained from DEAET in Port Elizabeth.

Before formal permission had been granted the contractor was instructed to commence the new extensions by the owner. This contractor is well aware of the need to use the existing access points to the beach.  However, he chose to ignore these and created a new access point by destroying a portion of dune close to the toilet block at the Main Beach (pic)

The SFB Beach Trust were only made aware of this once construction had commenced and by the time the relevant DEAET officials were contacted much of the damage had been done.  This in spite of the fact that the SFB Beach Trust had also previously received firm undertakings from the officials at DEAET in Port Elizabeth that they would be notified of all activities on the St Francis beach. 

In addition, it appears that the new revetments are on public open space not on the stand belonging to the homeowner concerned. The entity applying for permission should therefore, have been the Kouga Municipality, not the homeowner.

At the same time the Kouga Municipality gave instructions to the same contractor to move sand in the vicinity of the toilet block at the Main Beach.  We are however, informed by DEAET that the Municipality have not applied for the required permit and are therefore, also acting outside the law.

In terms of the St Francis beach project the SFB Beach Trust has been particularly  careful to observe all the regulations and has expended large amounts of additional funding in order to meet the requirements of DEAET on the Beach Project.  

The SFB Beach Trust were informed by DEAET on Friday 27 October, 2006 that the contractor had been instructed to stop all work pending the issuing of the necessary permits. However, on Monday morning 30 October, 2006 the contractor was back at work on the St Francis beach.  We therefore, request the senior officials of DEAET in Port Elizabeth to provide a speedy response on why these activities were allowed and what action, if any, has been taken to prosecute the offenders. 

We await the response from DEAET with interest and will publish it on this website in order to fully inform the St Francis community.

Alan Tonkin

SFB Beach Trust

30 October, 2006

BY HAND

Mr Nicholas Scarr

Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism
Eastern Cape Government

C/o P. O. Box 15549

Emerald Hill

6011

30 October, 2006

Dear Nicholas

As discussed, Emlyn Horne and I met with Mark Rynhoud yesterday to consider the situation on the St Francis beach with particular reference to the repair of existing revetments and the construction of additional protection.  Mark informed us of the current state of applications from his side and has untaken to copy us on all permit applications as they occur:

In the view of the Beach Trust the following homes are potentially threatened and need additional protection:

• Erf 46 - Mr Willem van der Linde: Repair and construction is justified here on the South side of the property where there has been extensive erosion.  We are of the opinion however, that the erosion has taken place on Erf 53 which is public open space owned by the Kouga Municipality who should possibly be the applicant.  The only way to check this would be to locate the SE corner beacon for Erf 46 to determine where this is located relative to the erosion.

• Erf 72 - Mr Ian Swanepoel:  Construction of additional revetments are required here on the North side of the property where there has been extensive erosion from the side.  In this case it appears that the erosion is on Erf 72.  There is however, erosion on the adjoining property to the North of Erf 72 which is owned by the St Francis Bay Golf Club. This situation has also been discussed with Mr and Mrs Swanepoel.  

• Erf 621 - Mr Martin Crosby: There is extensive erosion on the South side of this property which is almost certainly the most threatened on the beach at this stage.  The North side is also eroded but not to the same extent and is almost certainly on public open space owned by the Kouga Municipality.    

In addition we believe that two additional property owners are in the process of applying for permission:

• Erf 590 - Mrs Lindy Pagden: The erosion here is similar to the North side of the Crosby property and in our view does not constitute any danger to the property concerned.  In addition, we believe that the erosion is situated on public open space owned by the Kouga Municipality.  In order to check this it will be necessary to locate the SE beacon for Erf 590. 

• Erf 907 - Mr George Rautenbach: At most this property required very minor maintenance to the existing revetments.  While the equipment is on the beach it would seem reasonable to carry out any repairs required.  I have also discussed this with Mr Rautenbach.

We believe that the above approach is both fair and reasonable in terms of protecting existing properties.

Construction Window/s

We have also discussed the construction window available to the contractor which we believe should not extend past Friday 1 December, 2006.  All the schools in the country break up on that date and homeowners will be arriving from that week-end.  Having heavy equipment on the beach after this date will constitute a major safety risk and should not be allowed.  This means that all work carried out should be completed and fully rehabilitated by Friday, 1 December, 2006.

In the event that the required work has not been completed by 30 November, 2006 the schools normally re-open around 18 January and it is suggested that work should only be permitted to re-commence (if required) on Monday 23 January, 2007.  This will allow most of the holiday makers to leave as St Francis relies on a clear holiday period before any construction can safely re-commence. 

Position of the Beach Trust

I trust that this clarifies the position of the SFB Beach Trust who have a major stake in ensuring that we preserve our beach.  However, what cannot be allowed is the type of approach experienced last week.  Were this to happen again we would take whatever action is required to ensure that necessary work is carried out but in an environmentally friendly way.  This benefits all the residents of St Francis Bay and employs a fully integrated approach to sustainable development.  

We would appreciate being fully informed of all further developments as previously agreed in order to obviate any similar problems in the future.  Your assistance and that of your colleagues in the Port Elizabeth office will be greatly appreciated in this regard.  Confirmation of the above points will be appreciated.

Best regards

Alan Tonkin

St Francis Bay Beach Trust

Mobile: 082 777 1519

P. O. Box 557, St Francis Bay. 6312

Tel/Fax: 042 294 1092  Mobile: 082 777 1519

e-mail: trust@stfrancisbay.org  Website:  www.sfbbeachtrust.org