The River Club owner and developer Jody Aufrichtig published an opinion piece on the River Club development (Weekend Argus Nov 2nd) attempting to justify the development with misleading claims and by ignoring facts. Here are the claims that the developer made and our explanation why they simply cannot be taken at face value.
“This was a comprehensive, open and transparent process that included extensive public engagements with all interested and affected parties …”
The rezoning was advertised In September 2018 and that was the last opportunity the public had to comment. The developers changed the project substantially over 2 years and by the time it reached the Municipal Planning Tribunal (MPT) in September 2020, there was new information. New information should trigger a re-advertising of the development which did not occur. As a result, there were 7 documents tabled to the MPT by the developer that were not available to the public in the public participation process so Interested and Affected Parties could not study these documents or provide comments in the Public Participation process. There were also documents relevant to the application which we were prevented from submitting to the MPT. This means that the MPT made their decision without full information available – they only had the information the developer chose to share with them. Hardly a comprehensive, open and transparent process…
“… a process that included … independent analyses of heritage and environment considerations …”
The independence of the process must be in question, given that key information was withheld from the MPT and the fact that the developer’s heritage consultant was allowed to justify to both to the Department of Environmental Affairs and Development and to the MPT as to why Heritage Western Cape (HWC) was wrong when they said the developer’s heritage plans failed to comply with the law. It is bizarre to think that an applicant to a decision-making process should be entitled to have the final say in judging what is lawful or not. The process was thus far from independent. LLPT were allowed to influence the final decisions in both processes, in ways that were highly irregular.
The most detailed and independent analyses of heritage and environment considerations are those provided by the City’s own Heritage and Environmental Management Department (EMD), which concluded that the development neither met the City’s policies on the environment, nor the heritage standards of the competent authority for heritage in the Western Cape, HWC.
“… a development plan that will see the conversion of the current underutilized private golf driving range, with limited public benefit …”
That the current site is underutilized and unavailable to the public is only the result of public land zoned as Open Space being sold off to private interests in 2015 and speculatively proposed for a development unsuited to a floodplain. The site could easily be developed as a park, reflecting accessible space for all Capetonians to enjoy, without seeking the billions of Rands in profits which the developers hope to extract from an inappropriate development requiring massive infill and destruction of the riverine open space. The primary purpose of this development is not public benefit but private profit.
“… It will also create thousands of job opportunities and attract international investment …”
The number of permanent jobs anticipated is between 500 and 600. And while international investment is certainly needed in South Africa, this particular site is one that needs protection as a heritage and environmental treasure, not as an ode to greed and profligate destruction of the environment. It is well known that with the COVID epidemic, many offices buildings stand vacant, as result of which much less destructive options are available for businesses needing office space in Cape Town. Moreover, the investment by Amazon will happen whether it is at the River Club or at another site, since Amazon have indicated they want a corporate headquarters in Cape Town. It’s not the River Club that is bringing them to Cape Town.
“An independent review of the project environmental basic impact assessment by carbon and climate change advisory firm Promethium Carbon has concluded that the rehabilitation of the Liesbeek River will improve stormwater drainage on the site and surrounding areas and will in fact improve the resilience of the area...”
The developers also continue to claim that they have ‘independent experts’ reviewing their reports. Who pays these developers? We would rather believe the experts who are not paid by the River Club – for example, the experts from the City of Cape Town EMD. Moreover, the developer’s claim that the naturalisation of the canalised Liesbeek course will restore the ecological function of the river ignores the fact that the canal is not the primary river. The canal was created by an apartheid authority in 1952 and no Khoi nations were ever consulted about the canalisation, just as they were not consulted when Transnet sold off spiritually important land to a private entity in 2015.
The LLPT is also misleading readers about climate change. In January 2020 the EMD stated firmly that “filling in a natural river course is not consistent with climate change resilience principles, nor the biodiversity strategy” which will “destroy a high faunal sensitivity conservation area by infilling a Western Leopard Toad breeding area.” This verdict could not be clearer.
“The current unlined water course, which is mistakenly referred to as the “river” by detractors, was in fact previously infilled and subsequently dredged, and so is hydraulically disconnected and provides limited ecological function currently…”
The existing Liesbeek river is not mistakenly referred to a river. It is the remnant of the original water course in a flood plain. Notwithstanding the extent to which parties have degraded it, the river holds critically important spiritual and environmental value and is core to the intangible heritage of the site. It has been severely impacted by decades of neglect, including in the last few years by actions of the River Club itself. For example, the Cape Argus reported on 16 September 2013 that the River Club, in remodelling the riverbank, illegally dumped material in and along the Liesbeek (see the image above). It is this neglect that allows the developer to claim the river is a gutter and can be infilled to facilitate the development.
The claim that the river is “hydraulically disconnected” is therefore false. It is the result not of a mysterious act of God but of human mistreatment of the river, including by the River Club. A study by Delft University researchers showed how a different approach could re-establish the original river as a liveable urban wetland, meaningful for both First Nation identity and for the environment, through flood attenuation, storm water mitigation, water quality amelioration and habitat provision for endangered floral and faunal species. The LLPT has full access to the report but ignored it.
The developers argue that because something is already neglected, it is acceptable to further destroy it. In a world where intangible heritage means something, this is unacceptable. Heritage Western Cape rejected the developer’s plans in February 2020, noting that the fact that the sense of place has already been impacted, “does not make it acceptable to destroy what remains.”
"… engagements with the First Nations Chiefs of the traditional custodians of the area (the Gorinhaiqua) … This has resulted in the First Nations Collective expressing their full and unequivocal support for the redevelopment..."
The LLPT maintain they have solved the heritage problem by finding some Khoi groups to support them. Let’s be clear: the so-called ‘First Nations Collective’ supporting the development did not exist until the River Club were exposed at the first meeting of the Ministerial Heritage Appeal Tribunal in 2018 as having failed to adequately consult First Nations. At that first meeting of the Tribunal, First Nations were united in their anger and rejection of the River Club development and amongst those First Nation groups, a leader from the Gorinahiqua joined us in opposing the development. The so-called consultation process afterwards described by LLPT has been widely questioned - by HWC, the Ministerial Heritage Appeal Tribunal and by those First Nations groups not co-opted by the developers. The City’s EMD noted in their comments on the rezoning that “the First Nations narrative appears not to be totally inclusive”. That’s a very polite response to what the Goringhaicona, who have been subjected to vicious attacks and anonymous smear campaigns for opposing the development, call “an act of ethnocide and epistimicide” in their appeal against the rezoning. They are supported by a wide range of other First Nation groups steadfastly objecting to the development but ignored by the developers. As for the idea that custodianship of the River club land vests in one Khoi group, one that happens to support the development, that is a fiction that is both ahistorical and completely opportunist.
"... It is regrettable that a small group of people … are trying to block this project ..."
We are comprised of more than 60 First Nations groups, civic associations and NGOs from across Cape Town with support from over 20,000 objectors. That is not a small group of people. However, the developer continues to repeat something he knows is not true.
“…who claim to speak for the working class and first nations…”
We have never spoken for the First Nations who are more than able to do so for themselves and have done so, at some cost – being vilified, threatened and subject to anonymous defamatory emails for opposing this development.
“... this project … will contribute towards spatial justice and the conversion of a private golf course and rehabilitation of its degraded surrounds...”
If LLPT really wishes to celebrate our province’s rich history and heritage, it can recognise the intense importance of the river confluence and its open space as precious intangible heritage, slated for inclusion in the National Khoi and San Heritage Route as a national legacy project. Develop a park for the people of Cape Town. That would really undo apartheid spatial planning.