On the 20th August, following a four-year process in which communities, first nation groups, environmental NGO and almost 17 000 people rejected a mega-development on the Liesbeek River, the Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning (DEADP) issued an environmental authorisation to the owners of the River Club, LLPT, for their 150 000m2 mixed use development. In doing so, DEADP ignored thousands of objections and detailed rebuttals of the developer’s claims in favour of a type of development that is heartless and driven by profit. The development, if it goes ahead, will place tonnes of concrete on a site that is commemorated as a sacred site for First nations, the site of the first anti-colonial wars of resistance, and the site where the decimation of first nation peoples was initiated by colonial powers. It is also a green lung for the city, one of few open spaces left and a site of much environmental importance.

In contrast, the developer's own views about the heritage value of the site are quite different. He said in a letter to the press "The River Club site is in fact severely under-utilised, closed to the public and degraded, with some parts being used as a rubbish dump - hardly a 'precious part of our city'..." If anyone needed a clearer indication of an imminent threat to the heritage resources on site, it is this chilling statement that makes us realise that the intangible heritage of the site means nothing to the developer, who is only looking for the best way to achieve the profits he expects from this massive outrage.

DEADP ignored arguments about the importance of the Open Space, the environmental damage and the destruction of a sacred riverine valley of immense heritage significance for first nations and all of the world. In particular, DEADP simply ignored the rejection of the applicant’s Heritage Impact Assessment by Heritage Western Cape, which is the competent authority required to comment on Heritage Matters. HWC noted that “the bulk and mass of the development proposal does not respond to the site as a living heritage” and that the HIA assessment was ‘tailored to arrive at mitigation for the development’ in order to “post-rationalize a wholly intrusive development model.”  For these and other reasons, HWC concluded the HIA did not meet the requirements of the National Heritage Resources Act. DEADP simply took these comments and dumped them in the virtual garbage bin.

But DEADP’s bias in this matter has been evident for some time.

1.      DEADP joined the applicants in appealing the Provisional Protection Order issued by HWC over the River Club in April 2018. The Protection Order was to prevent development from permanently destroying invaluable heritage resources before the site had been graded.

2.      The appeal led to the establishment of a Heritage Appeal Tribunal which met over 18 months, but which finally rejected the appellants’ arguments in favour of HWC and recognised HWC’s obligation to protect a site of extraordinarily high heritage importance.

3.      During the hearing, DEADP argued that a Section 38 process (which is what is provided for under the Environmental Impact Assessment) would adequately account for heritage matters and therefore provisional protection (under a Section 29 process) was not needed. We now can see why. DEADP had no intention of taking heritage seriously but were intent on securing the power to make a decision without reference to heritage.

4.      The DEADP representative in the Tribunal is the same Chief Director who has issued the authorisation. When we wrote to him to ask for reasons for his decision under the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, he declined to comment any further. How is it that the person who makes the decisions can also be a party to an appeal against efforts to protect heritage and still be impartial in a decision? Go figure that one.

5.      And if that wasn’t bad enough, we discovered after complaining about the bias of the Acting TRUP Manager for the Department of Public Works and Transport in the process that he was not actually a DPWT official but an employee of DEADP seconded to DPWT!!!

So, all the cards appear to have been stacked to enable this decision to be authorised without engaging with the evidence.

Besides the quiet disposal of the fact that the project is fatally flawed from a heritage perspective, the DEADP decision also simply regurgitated the developer's spin on a range of matters with zero critical analysis.

For example, the DEADP decision claims that “more than 60% of the proposed site will be retained as open space.” Take a look at the images from the developers’ own proposal documents above and tell us where you see 60% of open space. Remember the Municipal Planning Bylaw defines Open Space as “‘land … used primarily as a site for outdoor sports, play, rest or recreation, or as a park or nature area …”. Of the 14.7 ha site, podiums comprising the buildings and their covered parking cover 8ha of the site, and internal roads and bridges 1.5ha. That leaves about 5.2ha, which is about 35% rather than 65% for potential open space.  The figure of 60% open space is simply a claim made by the developers in their proposal which DEADP has repeated at face value without responding to objections which prove this figure is incorrect. So, it is very hard to avoid a conclusion that this was a decision made without reference to facts, the law, proper process or any consideration of the matters at hand. We believe this is a political decision by people who want this development to go ahead at all costs.

We will be appealing the decision and invite all of you to send an email of support to riverclubobjection@obs.org.za.

Moreover, if you are a registered Interested and Affected Party (IAP), you will have the opportunity to endorse any appeals within 20 days because the appeals will all be shared with all I&APs.

So, while the River Club owners claim that have gotten the ‘go-ahead,’ it is over-optimistic of them to imply the front-end loaders will be arriving next week. For the River Club owners to proceed with the development, they need to negotiate a number of other steps.

1. Firstly, we and other I&APs will be appealing the Environmental Authorisation and they have to respond to that.
2. The developers still have to have the property rezoned by the City which will require public participation. The rezoning application will come before the Municipal Planning Tribunal if it proceeds.
3. There are other technical approvals required (e.g. Department of Water Affairs and Sanitation must approve since they are going to reroute a river).

We also alert our supporters to the fact that we have lodged an application to Heritage Western Cape for Provincial Heritage Status for the Two Rivers Urban Park. This was briefly considered by the Inventories, Grading and Interpretation Committee (IGIC) of HWC in August but pended because of an HIA under consideration as part of the City’s revision of the Local Spatial Development Framework (LSDF) for TRUP. We are concerned that HWC is not acting with urgency since there is a much more extreme threat to heritage now than was the case when it issued the Provisional Protection Order in April 2018. We have written to the CEO of HWC to urge prompt action.

Two quote the HWC Final Comments on the River Club HIA, “the River Club is an integral part of a highly significant cultural landscape, that is at the very least of Provincial significance, but more realistically, and given South Africa’s history, is one of National significance. Indeed, the TRUP as a whole could be regarded as one of the single most historically significant sites in the country.” There should be no delay in following through and declaring the area a Heritage resource. Any developments within the resource must respect and reinforce heritage and not pre-empt any heritage protection.

The DEADP decision to grant the authorisation for the River Club development is deeply undemocratic and an offense to our humanity. It is a continuation of the contempt with which indigenous people were treated by colonial powers.

To quote a submission of the Goringhaicona in May 2019 when it referred to the “genocidal menace of colonial theft and rape,” the River Club and the wider TRUP “has the etchings of that curse, and we must seek means to redeem it as we seek to unclench the transgenerational knot of trauma that holds back our nation.” But the site also has “the promise of conciliation, and restoration of the soul of this land and all who live in it.” When van Riebeeck placed that first pole, appropriating lands for his settlers, “this action stabbed at the oldest root of collective memory, one which lies on the banks of the Liesbeeck River and the Black River. The wound holds a trauma everyone in this country faces. Felt subconsciously or in the realm of day, it is an original sin that binds us much as it divides us. It is time we pause and begin to restore.”

Protection of the environment and respect for heritage is what unites us, civic organisations, first nations, environmental NGOs and thousands of people who care about a future based on justice.

Thank you for your support as we go forward, united in this struggle.