It’s become commonplace for detractors of our campaign to repeat the developer’s claims that the Liesbeek River is polluted and an ecological disaster. This is useful to the developers because they can claim that their burial of the original course of the river to the west of the site and the decanalisation of the artificially-created concrete channel to the east of the site is somehow a form of ‘rehabilitation’.

This is completely misleading.

Firstly, the Liesbeek River is the least polluted river in Urban Cape Town. It is certainly stressed but it is far from the neglected cesspool that naysayers like to claim it is. A 2020 study for the City of Cape Town confirmed that the Liesbeek River showed less impacted Dissolved Oxygen concentrations (a marker of organic pollution) than other urban sub-catchments in the City, particularly the Black and Lower Salt River, which are severely impacted as the result of treated and untreated sewage waste entering the river system upstream. 

Secondly, before construction started the developers had to conduct a search and rescue operation for faunal species as a condition of approval. Remarkably, they recovered almost 100 aquatic and terrestrial creatures in less than one week – a tally does even begin to include the fish, crustaceans and birdlife using the river. In late May 2021, birders recorded 39 bird species around the River Club site in the space of 2 hours, including the resident malachite kingfisher, black-crowned night heron and African black duck. Nick Fordyce’s wildlife photos show some of the diversity of life in the area. Researchers have noted the presence of three species of kingfisher in the catchment area as critical for creating habitat for other organisms in the river banks. The Liesbeek River upstream is home to a breeding ground of the endangered fish species, the Cape Galaxias. 

That is quite an achievement for a river characterised by the LLPT spokesperson as “severely degraded and polluted”.

Thirdly, the baseline Heritage Impact Assessment for the River Club re-development recommended the rehabilitation of the original river course as well as the decanalisation of concrete channel to the east. It did so because the original river course was and remains a central feature of the important intangible heritage associated with the Open Space of the riverine valley. However, the developers chose to ignore that option and plump for the version that infilled the river. Why? Because you can’t build within 30m of a river. And when you have 150 000 square meters of concrete to distribute on a relatively small 14.7 ha site, its rather bothersome to have to leave a buffer of 30m on both sides of the site, in which you can’t place any buildings. By infilling the river and turning it into a swale, you have no obstacle to building to the edge of what used to be the river course. 

Remember, also, that a swale is a feature you construct in order to manage storm water run-off. It is not a substitute for a river and it most certainly can’t be interpreted as rehabilitating a river, unless you live in the world of George Orwell, where words can be twisted to take on dimensions of meaning that are exactly the opposite of what is intended.

In fact, the design of this swale and how it might ‘resemble’ and function as a river is still unknown. The City of Cape Town mandated the developers to finalise a stormwater management plan prior to approval of the building plans but this plan has not been released nor have the local environmental organisations, such as the Friends of the Liesbeek (FoL), had the opportunity to contribute to this plan. The most western part of this river is on land belonging to the City land and is therefore public land. It’s a mystery as to what is planned.

Fourthly, we aren’t the only people who think the river should not be infilled. In their appeal against the EA, the City’s own Environmental specialists noted that (i) “Piping a 30m wide river underground is clearly contrary” to policies intended to “make optimal use of stormwater and urban waterways for the purposes of flood control, aquifer recharge, water reuse and recreation, and that is based on sound ecological principles”; (ii) observed the development failed to apply “best practice riverine management principles and design principles for sustainable water management”; and (c) lamented the fact that “The EA essentially results in further degradation of this historic river channel.”

Fifthly, the fact that the distal portion of the Liesbeek to the west of the River Club has a connection to the rest of the Liesbeek upstream through a pipe that is poorly maintained by the City of Cape Town, has been used by the developer to reduce that last 1km stretch of the Liesbeek to a ‘neglected stormwater gutter’, which can then be conveniently infilled. But it is human inaction that has failed to maintain the hydrological connection. The simplest solution is to improve the hydrological connection of the two parts of the river, through proper maintenance, not to use this as an excuse to destroy what the City’s own water experts recognise as “the last remains of the historic Liesbeek River channel which has ecological and eco-historical importance.”

Moreover, global interest these days is to ‘make room for a river’ as a critical measure to build resilient cities in mitigating and adapting to climate change. You don't make room for a river by filling it in. The lesson from the recent flooding in KZN are a sign of things to come.

The developers were presented with a proposal to rehabilitate the remnant of the original course of the river, in research conducted by Delft University researchers. Their study found that re-establishing the original Liesbeek River channel could improve aquatic and ecological status, mitigate flood risks and add to the amenity of the Two River Urban Park by transforming parts of the area into a liveable urban wetland thereby meeting the city’s objectives of creating a water sensitive city by 2040.

But since retaining the river would not enable the bulk required on site, it was quietly bypassed. Yet, we know that rehabilitation efforts elsewhere on the Liesbeek are possible and have proven successful, as shown in work organised by the local NGO, Friends of the Liesbeek (FoL). Notably, the owners of the River Club have never given FoL access to do any rehabilitation work on the stretch of river adjacent to their property, nor had they shown any interest in rehabilitating either the river or the Canal until this development appeared on the scene.

Sixthly, while the developers claim that what they will do for the Liesbeek will help to rehabilitate the river, it is entirely unclear how anything they do on the last 500m stretch alongside their property will have any serious effect on the River, which is a watercourse of 9 km. If the Liesbeek River was in terrible shape (which it is patently not), nothing they might accomplish in the short stretch before it empties into the Black River would materially change the water quality of that River system.  Such a claim therefore lacks any logic. It is useful, however, to those making the claim as propaganda to appear to be solving a problem which is not possible for them to solve, even were the river to be in such bad shape as they claim.

Lastly, the National Khoi and San Liberation Trail, a presidential legacy project signed into existence by Cabinet in 2021, will include the confluence of the Black and Liesbeek Rivers (Two Rivers Urban Park) as a significant site of early resistance to colonialism. Research has confirmed that “…the historic landscape contained within the land between the Black and Liesbeek River marks one of the most tangible and earliest historical frontiers that were to eventually herald the fragmentation of the Khoikhoi nation.” Moreover, for the liberation trail, heritage experts  have pointed to the need to ensure the route follows the original river course for reasons of authenticity. While it is not possible to identify the exact course of a river that frequently flooded and meandered its way to Table Bay through umpteen wetlands, what is known is that current river’s course to the west of the River Club is the last remnant of that original river course. Moreover, the current canal, artificially created in 1952, is most definitely not a remnant of the original river, located as it is, at the point the land starts to rise to the hill that currently hosts the South African Astronomical Observatory.

So, next time anyone tries to tell you that the Liesbeek River is ecologically degraded, ask them to look at the facts listed here. More accurately, as described by UCT Water Scientist, Dr Kevin Winter, the Liesbeek is “under siege” from the development.

We are happy that Judge Goliath’s this week rejected the respondents’ application for leave to appeal which opens the door for the full range of environmental, heritage and planning decisions to be reviewed in the High Court in future.

Meanwhile, please remember that we are completely reliant on Crowd Funding to cover our legal costs. If everyone who signed this petition was willing to donate R20 (or $1), we would be able to fight our court battle on an even footing. So, please help us fund our legal costs by making a donation – for whatever amount you can - at our fundraising site. Donors outside of South Africa might find it easier to donate via our BackaBuddy site[LL26] .

You will find more information on the campaign at our website. 

Follow the Liesbeek Action Campaign on twitter: @LiesbeekAction.

Make the Liesbeek Matter!