Month: March 2016

During our campaign to inform the Ward 2 community of the intent by TWKM to alienate a portion of the Commonage (Erf # 595), we have tried to separate the undoubted benefits of the fruit farming venture from what we believe to be the unnecessary and illegal sale of the land itself. The fruit farming venture can proceed independently by leasing the land. In fact, it is our considered opinion that the venture would be more viable under a lease arrangement.

We highlight below the responses as received in respect of the various and extensive comments submitted by the community in response to the series of articles published by the Ward 2 Forum on the subject. The topics and points raised have, for ease of reference, been categorised into separate headings:

RESPONSES

1. Spraying of fruit trees with chemicals

Due to the proximity of the proposed fruit farming development to residential areas, sufferers of respiratory ailments such as hay fever and Asthma have expressed concern that spraying of the fruit trees may cause increased problems because of the closer proximity to Greyton, in particular when the wind is from the southeast.

The export-driven fruit industry is managed with a high level of monitoring and control. However, an EIA will have to examine the situation and if it considered that the negative impact of spraying on human health is significant, mitigation measures will have to be considered.

2. River pollution

The Sonderend River is known to have unacceptably high pollution levels at times, associated with the lack of municipal control of the effluent from both the Genadendal and Greyton sewage facilities. It is hoped that a joint venture between Ward 2 and TWKM will resolve this situation before it becomes too serious. The value of the farming businesses downstream from us is far too important to allow this to continue, but the measures needed for improvement are largely dependent on Government funding and the inclination from TWKM.

3. Loss of Renosterveld

Concern for Renosterveld areas in the Greyton Commonage has been expressed. Because it occurs in fertile clay-rich soils, the majority of the area has been transformed over the years to agriculture. Less than 2% of the original extent is now formerly conserved. Renowned for spring flower displays, it often has a high grass content, hence its value for grazing.

As part of the EIA, the quality of the Renosterveld areas will be assessed, together with a plan to mitigate further degradation, and possibly to conserve some areas. Cape-Nature and the Overberg Lowlands Conservation Trust will be asked to contribute to this process.

 

 

4. Employment opportunities

Various views have been taken of the number of employees required to operate a typical fruit farm. An important aspect of the project is the potential employment in particular of local workers. Hortgro, an organisation within the deciduous fruit industry, which is responsible for production, markets and transformation, publishes data for the industry; for example for 2014, the average number of employees per hectare was 1.17 for apple farms and 1.05 for pear farms. The figures are the total permanent equivalent, include seasonal workers. Dependents are said to average an additional 400%.

5. Housing

The financial and social benefits of using as much local labour as possible, which has been confirmed by the Consortium, are very evident in terms of minimising the possibility of having to build houses on the farm, and to provide municipal services.

It is not clear how the expectations of the Ward 2 community will match those of the Consortium.

6. Employee training and development

It is understood in the fruit farming industry that extensive training and development of employees is a major requirement, so that, although local employees are preferred, it is not always possible to guarantee sufficient numbers when they are required.

For this project to be really successful, training and mentoring are considered prime requirements. Some local agricultural educational facility may be considered and discussed as part of the EIA.

This item should be considered an essential element in the PROPOSALS FOR THE PROJECT.

7. Project funding

The original prospectus states that no Government funding of the project would be required, except for services of the Land Bank. Additional funds could be available from the Department of Agriculture.

8. Vigne Legacy – Greyton Commonage

It is clear from our research and documentation obtained from various sources that the Greyton Commonage was intended to be land for the use of all and that the land was never to be alienated. https://ward2forum.org/vigne-legacy-greyton-commonage-report-2016-015/#comment-28. It is the view of W2F that the veracity of the Vigne Legacy and intent is not in dispute and that the onus now remains with TWKM to prove the opposite.

Furthermore we are of the view that the Local Authority does not have the right?? to negotiate any alienation of the remainder of Erf 595. 

9. Rural Development – Greyton Infrastructure

Concern was expressed by many about the current status quo in respect of the Greyton Infrastructure and in particular the road system that would have to cater for additional agricultural and large vehicular traffic, which will be utilising the R 406 through Greyton. This will be addressed in the EIA.

10. Availability of Water from the Breede-Gouritz Water Management Area (WMA)

It is a known fact that no “free” water is available in the Sonderend River, as all available water has already been allocated to existing farms in the Water Catchment Area. The only water still available would have to be “procured” from existing farms and transferred to the new proposed farming entity that is hoping to develop portion of Erf 595 as a fruit farm. The transfer of water rights, if there are any available, is done by the Dept of Water Affairs in conjunction with the WMA. However, if water is available and motivation good, this could potentially be negotiated between the relevant parties.

11. Flooding of the project area

The Engineering Report for the Greyton Commonage Spatial Framework Plan (June 2000) refers to the absence of flood line data for the Gobos and Sonderend Rivers in the area of the project. It was recommended that a detailed study should be carried out in order to identify areas suitable for the construction of habitable structures. It was also suggested that minor earth works may be necessary to control the routing of flood waters.

It was stated that agricultural, recreational and sporting activities could be carried out below the 1:100 flood lines, based on their understanding of the probable position of these flood lines.

The possible failure of the category 3 Theewaterskloof Dam was also considered. The inundated area would be expected to cover a wider area than the 1:100 flood lines, but the risk of such failure was stated to be far lower than the 1:100 return period – “it is in fact extremely low and unlikely”.

12. Financial failure of registered owners of ‘Newco’

Unfortunately the possible failure of the proposed new business has to be considered as it may lead to the sale of assets of the business, such as the land itself, the subsequent development of which could be against the interests and expectations of the community. This could not occur if the land ownership is retained by TWKM, and it is leased to the business.

This is an ADDITIONAL OBJECTION AGAINST ALIENATION OF THE PORTION OF ERF 595.

13. Alternative business partners

The proposals made by us originated in the reality of Ward 2, where the whole community must benefit from a significant opportunity such as this project. Farm 39 has sufficient ‘spare’ land suitable for fruit farming, also adequate water rights. Within this community and the Consortium there should be sufficient labour with the required experience and skills, coupled with training and mentoring, to minimise the need for workers from outside the local area.

Because of our understanding that the elements of a successful business were already available in the area, we have not looked at alternative business models or constituent elements. However, it must be up to all the parties concerned to discuss and negotiate the way forward. Their success will undoubtedly lead to other such ventures.

We will keep you informed.

Should you want to be placed on the Ward 2 Forum Database please email us at the following address mygreyton@ward2forum.org

 Ward 2 Forum Team

The objection in Part 1 only applies to the alienation of the portion of Erf 595 on which the proposed fruit farm project is located. Part 2 proposes an alternative leasehold method of acquiring land for the same project.

Part 2 also identifies various aspects of the farming project itself, which are considered to enhance the benefits for the Consortium of Fruit Farmers, TWKM and the Ward 2 community.

PART 1: OBJECTION TO ALIENATION OF PART OF ERF 595

With reference to the Notice in the Theewaterskloof Gazette on 19 January 2016 for the proposed alienation of about 235 ha of Erf 595 in Greyton at R 4,329,850, and a subsequent Notice in the Gazette of 23 February 2016, extending the period for submission of comments and objections to 31 March 2016, we are hereby submitting an objection to the proposed alienation on the following grounds:

1. The price of the property

The proposed price of R 4.3 m is based on the valuation of vacant land with no consideration at all for its potential value if professionally marketed with its various features identified. Although still zoned ‘Undetermined’, which means no Primary or Consent Uses, once rezoned the potential uses of the property could include housing development, agriculture or resort development, representing considerably different land values. In fact, the valuation incorrectly states that the land is ‘Authority’ zoned. As Commonage, the land has considerable added value because of the grazing of horses and cattle, and recreational uses, enjoyed by the community for over 150 years.

There is no evidence that the longer term future value of this land has even been considered.

The proposed price of R 0.02 m per ha is unrealistically low compared with rateable values (July 2014) of other vacant land in the Greyton Commonage (R 0.05 – 0.08 m per ha). The rateable value of a further area (8,7 ha) of land within the urban edge, although zoned for residential use, but also vacant and without any services, is R 0.33 m per ha.

It seems that the lowest possible valuation of the land has been determined, based on a nominal cultivated ‘field price’ of R 45,000 per ha, discounted by 60% on the basis that the soil has not been cultivated and contains alien vegetation. However, the prospectus, when considering the financial benefits to TWKM, states that the business will apparently be worth R 150 m when it is mature, which is R 640,000 per ha. The difference between current cost and future business value of over 1400% must be questioned.

It is considered that the price for this property has been hugely under-valued, without any reasonable justification, and therefore does not comply with the requirements of Section 14 of the Municipal Finance Management Act (Act 56 of 2003) which states that:

• The municipality has considered the fair market value for the asset, and the economic and community value to be received in exchange for the asset (section 14 (2)(b));

 It is further considered that the unrealistic price represents the loss of a potentially highly valuable asset by TWKM, the whole municipal population and in particular the community of Ward 2. 

2. The economic and community value received from the disposal

The disposal of the Commonage land itself is stated in the prospectus to create significant financial benefit for the municipality from Rates and services. However, the Rates payable are dependent on the annual valuation of the land so will take time to grow to the estimated annual potential of R 300,000 and even then will only account for a very small part of the TWKM Rates base.

The net value to TWKM of municipal services, although dependent on the scale of the development, would not be significant.

On the other hand, the provision of bulk municipal services, which would also vary depending on the scale of development, has not been assessed in terms of their availability and the cost of providing them. The prospectus does not include a clause specifying that the buyer of the property is responsible for the full costs of providing the services.

The above benefits are real, but are dependent on the farming business itself, independently of the land disposal. They would be the same if the land was leased at a realistic level instead of being sold off. Therefore they should not be considered to support the argument for sale of the land.

The transfer of ownership is considered to be unfair, inequitable and not competitive in terms of the Municipal Finance Management Act (section 14 (5)), thus making it illegal.

3. Public Participation Process

TWKM reported that they were in discussions with potential purchasers of this property in 2003, and had earmarked it for alienation for small holdings. There is no reference to this in the SDF of 2003-2005, and the project was abandoned. We requested the Municipal Manager on 3 February 2016 to provide access to Council resolutions relating to the rezoning of the property at that time, but have received nothing.

We have also requested the following information relating to the current proposal, but to no avail:

• Minutes of the TWKM Council Meeting at which a vote on the project was taken;
• Details of any restrictions in the Title Deeds for the property;
• Details of any alternative projects that were assessed in comparison with the proposal.

We have been unfairly denied these documents in time to make meaningful comment on them before the deadline.

There is no record of any attempt by TWKM to communicate with any person who uses the Commonage for any legitimate reason, and there has been no offer of alternative land or financial compensation for these users. Further, there has been no attempt at all to determine the level of support from the residents of the community for the sale of the land.

This does not conform to the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (No 3 of 2000), particularly section 3 which relates to the fairness of administrative action which materially and adversely affects the rights or legitimate expectations of any person.

4. Legality of the proposed alienation

4.1 PC.Doc.12/1997: Municipal Commonage policy and procedure:

• There is no evidence that TWKM have consulted with the Dept of Land Affairs (DLA), to satisfy themselves that the proposed development will not result in the dispossession of people’s rights (formal or informal) granted on or over the Greyton Commonage.
• Local people who have rights to graze cattle or horses on the property have not been approached on the matter, and their situation has not been considered. No arrangements have been made for alternative land or financial compensation.
• Where town development and urbanisation require Commonage to be sold, wide support from local residents must be obtained. There is not, and never has been, any municipal policy that maintains that this or any other portion of the Commonage is required for the development of Greyton.
• The municipality may not alienate, dispose of or sell the Remainder of a Municipal Commonage property but must retain and utilise the said Remainder for public use, which is to ensure that such land is released to the needy local residents for agricultural purposes on a leasehold basis.

The Minister of Land Affairs approved the municipal commonage policy on 12 June 1997, emphasising the fact that municipal commonage is land, which has a public character, and that land needed by local poor residents for agricultural purposes should be made available on a leasehold basis for such purposes.

It is clear that the proposed alienation fails to comply with any of the 4 policy statements above that are the essence of the Government policy issued in 1997.

4.2 TWKM By-law:

According to the TWKM By-law, which was gazetted on 21 June 2015, municipal commonage means land owned by, or under control of, the municipality which has a zoning of ‘undetermined’ and which may be set aside for grazing or for such other purposes or use as may be deemed necessary by the municipality. There is no reference whatsoever to the possible sale or alienation of Commonage land.

Clearly, the proposed alienation does not comply with the above municipal By-law.

4.3 The Will of Herbert Vigne

It is absolutely clear that Herbert Vigne bequeathed the Commonage to the people of Greyton. Neither the Will, nor the intent, has ever been in dispute. It is considered that if there had been any intent to permit alienation of all or part of the Commonage, contrary to Herbert Vigne’s Will, then some evidence would have been found. No such evidence has been found.

There is no known record of the removal of restrictions presumed to have been in the original Title Deeds when the 2 farms Kanon Berg and Boschmanskloof were separated out of Erf 595 to create the Greyton Nature Reserve on 13 May 1977.

Whatever may have actually happened to cast doubt on the validity of the Government policy in relation to Greyton’s Commonage is shrouded in mystery. We are aware of only one legal opinion on the possibility of alienating part of the Greyton Commonage – done by Hannes Pretorious Attorneys of Hermanus, as part of the Greyton Commonage Spatial Framework.

There is much confusion in this document, and therefore in the conclusions drawn and recommendation made, that makes one very suspicious of its validity. For example, there is no mention of any record of the removal of restrictions presumed to have been in the original Title Deeds for Greyton and the 2 farms mentioned, but ‘apparently’ missing from the deeds for the remainder of Erf 595. We consider that if there had been any intent to permit alienation of all or part of the commonage, contrary to Herbert Vigne’s Will, then some evidence would have been found.

Therefore, we submit that the onus must be on TWKM to prove beyond all doubt, that they can legally alienate any part of the Greyton commonage.

4.4 Conditions of tender

Although the following Conditions of tender imposed by TWKM are essential elements supporting the decision to go ahead with this project, it is considered that they cannot be enforced in law. If they are not fully complied with, they have no penalties or other forms of compensation attached and therefore are meaningless. The pertinent Conditions are that:

• development of the land commences within 2 years of the date of registration of the property;
• a minimum of 95 ha of land is developed with deciduous fruit trees;
• a minimum of 150 work opportunities are created ;
• 80% of the workers must be from the Greyton/Genadendal/Riviersonderend area;

Should any of the above conditions fall significantly short of expectations, assuming of course that accurate monitoring of the conditions could be achieved, it is contended that the benefits from the proposed project for the municipality and the surrounding communities will also not be achieved.

This would lead to an unnecessary waste of municipal funds and a reduction of economic and community value from the project, which would be contrary to the requirements of Section 14 of the Municipal Finance Management Act (Act 56 of 2003).

5. Municipal Policy

Policies and guidelines, relevant to the Commonage, in municipal spatial planning frameworks since 1999, including the most recent SDF of 2012 are:

• Conserve the natural resource base and its bio-diversity;
• Promote sustainable economic development;
• Ensure that the community have continued access for recreational purposes;
• No subdivision or alienation of land is permitted;
• The desirability of combining small scale farming activities in Greyton and Genadendal;
• The introduction of farming activities in the Commonage;
• The areas (dark green on the map) to be formally incorporated into the Greyton Nature Reserve in order to protect the ecological role of the Commonage within the context of the mountain catchment area, the river eco-systems and the Greyton Nature Reserve (in process).

The proposal to alienate a portion of Erf 595 is contrary to policies expressed in all the spatial planning framework documents since 1999.This is supported by the absence of any detailed management plan which must surely be a prerequisite to such an important change of policy as the alienation of the Commonage.

6. Property Prices

Should the Commonage land be alienated, the attraction of Greyton as a tourist destination and a desirable place to live, will be diminished. The Heritage value may also be reduced. The result will be an inevitable lowering of property values.

TWKM will also undoubtedly conclude that they can freely alienate additional portions of the Commonage, further contributing to the decline of Greyton, and further reducing local property values, which would be contrary to the municipal policies for sustainable growth in Tourism.

7. Environmental Impact not considered

Even though it was admitted that a significant part of the total project land value was not suitable for fruit farming (85 ha of total 235 ha), there is no commitment from the Consortium or condition in the prospectus either to clear and maintain the land free from alien vegetation particularly along the river corridor, or to identify and assess areas of land containing conservation-worthy Renosterveld. Both of these activities represent costs and potential future benefits that should be examined in the EIA, and any approval of the project may be conditional on satisfactory management of these activities.

There is no evidence that the financial implications of these environmental impacts have been considered in the valuation of the land.

8. Municipal Support for Alienation

The TWKM prospectus focuses on the ‘sale of a portion of Erf 595 for BEE commercial farming’, but fails to contemplate the separation of the project into ‘alienation of the land’ and formation of a BEE venture ‘to promote investor friendly practices …… leading to increased employment and growth in rates base …’ It is argued that the BEE venture itself is not dependent on alienation of the land, and could indeed have more financial and social benefits through the alternative of a leasehold agreement instead.

The municipality fails to consider this argument in the prospectus. A special Ward 2 Committee meeting on 5 October 2015 records that ‘the committee noted and awaits the outcome of the project plan as presented’.

Clearly, neither document constitutes a vote of approval or agreement for the alienation of a portion of the Greyton Commonage.

Furthermore, TWKM failed to consider any alternatives to the proposed alienation, in particular a leasehold agreement.

CONCLUSION

We strongly object to the alienation of approximately 235 ha of a portion of Erf 595, being part of the Greyton Commonage, on the grounds stated above.

However, our objection only applies to the actual alienation itself, and not to the whole project. Therefore, if the project can be revised to accommodate a leasehold agreement, we offer our support conditional on a number of additional proposals in Part 2 that we believe would be beneficial to all the parties concerned.

Part 2 will be issued as a separate document.

PART 2: PROPOSALS FOR THE FRUIT FARMING PROJECT as per previous article.

We will keep you informed.

Should you want to be placed on the Ward 2 Forum Database please email us at the following address mygreyton@ward2forum.org

 

 

Ward 2 Forum Team

GREYTON COMMONAGE SELL-OFF [Report 7.3 of 7]

Herewith the last in the series of comments on the proposed alienation on the Portion of Erf 595 as envisaged by the Local Authority. What will follow hereafter is a Summary of the numerous comments as received from the Community in response to the articles as published by the W2F (Ward 2 Forum) team.

The full document as submitted to TWKM by the Ward 2 Forum Team will also be published for general information to the W2F database & on Social Media.

The following proposals are part of a larger concept that includes a considerable increase in the area of the Greyton Nature Reserve. The community of Farm 39 intends to register Bakenskop & potentially parts of Snyerskraalkoppe, to the West of Loerkop, as a Nature Reserve. This will eventually form part of the proposed Greyton/Genadendal Biosphere.

PROPOSALS FOR THE FRUIT FARMING PROJECT IN WARD 2

Click on the image for full size

The grounds for objection to the alienation of portion of Erf 595, the Greyton Commonage, are considered a reasonable basis to allow the main parties concerned – TWKM, Consortium, and the Ward 2 community to contemplate an alternative outcome for this joint venture. W2F proposes that the Consortium, their labourers and Farm 39 (Genadendal) enters into a joint venture whereby:

• A new company is formed with the above parties as shareholders. The shareholders’ contributions are illustrated in the accompanying graphic.
• The major portion of the fruit farming, as envisaged, is not done on the proposed portion of Commonage, but on a 200ha portion of Farm 39, whilst a portion of the Commonage is retained for grazing, a biological corridor and current recreational activities. This arrangement will have much less impact on neighbouring Greyton and addresses most of the concerns noted from Greyton residents.
• The Consortium leases a portion of the Commonage land for the farming of fruit, as envisaged;
• TWKM retain ownership of the Greyton Commonage, and its intrinsic value, through a medium term leasehold arrangement for the land to be used;
• Minimum infrastructure for the farm, no residential housing for workers;
• Ward 2 acquires a new sustainable business, labour intensive, mostly local labour, who will have the added benefits of ownership through dividend-paying shares in the business;
• Some of the Commonage to be managed for grazing, which could be improved by additional water availability from Farm 39;
• Mutual agreement between the Consortium and Farm 39 for additional leased land and water rights for fruit farming on Farm 39, further ensuring employment of local labour;
• The amenity value of most of the Commonage to be retained for the community (MTB biking, riding, walking etc);
• Suitable remnant Renosterveld areas to be protected;
• Facilitate & register a Biological corridor, connecting parts of the Nature Reserve and separating farmland from Greyton;
• The areas Knietjieshoogte, Maermanskloof and Loerkop that were designated in 2000 and confirmed in the SDF (2012) to be formally incorporated into the Greyton Nature Reserve, and having recently been surveyed as such, must be proclaimed and finally gazetted by TWKM;
• Clearance of Sonderend River of alien trees and protection of the river banks.
• Energy-efficient tourism project along Sonderend River to be considered for the future;

The benefits for all the parties concerned are evident:

• Seasonal labour problems are minimised;
• Need for new housing and additional municipal services is minimised;
• TWKM retains ownership of an asset of significantly higher value than the proposed sale price;
• Additional opportunities for joint ventures between Farm 39 and the Consortium.
• The aims and intent of the Government Commonage policy are met;
• The Will of Herbert Vigne who created Greyton and its Commonage will be honoured;
• Community approval is anticipated to be widespread;
• Platform from which to launch similar projects throughout the Overberg.

This alternative is an intrinsic part of our objection to the original proposal and as such should be considered together with the objection. This is the preferred concept from Ward 2 Forum, which is subject to modification and agreement between all parties concerned. There could be significant changes resulting from the EIA and the public participation process, from input from TWKM, the Consortium and Breede-Gouritz Catchment Management Area and after detailed discussions with the Departments of Agriculture, Land Affairs & Water Affairs.

Should you wish submit an objection to the proposed Alienation of the Portion of Erf 595 by TWKM please note these have to be submitted to TWKM, by latest 31 March 2016:

Address your objection to:

 

The Municipal Manager (Stan Wallace)

Theewaterskloof Municipality,

6 Plein Street,

Caledon 7230.

 

The submission can be handed in at the Municipal office in Greyton (DS Botha Street) or via Email to stanwa@twk.org.za, please ensure that you CC the following when submitting via email:

Cc: records@twk.org.za

Cc: annettesw@twk.org.za

 

We will keep you informed.

Should you want to be placed on the Ward 2 Forum Database please email us at the following address mygreyton@ward2forum.org

 

 

Ward 2 Forum Team

For ease of reference and due to the length of the last report, we have subdivided 7 of 7 into 3 separate documents. Herewith the first of the 3 final sections.

There are 2 separate issues involved. Firstly, the question of whether any part of the Greyton Commonage should be sold, which would prevent TWKM or the community ever having any influence over future uses of the land. Secondly, there are alternative or additional uses for the Commonage, that are briefly discussed below.

ALTERNATIVES

Alienation of the 235 ha land area

Government policy only permits the alienation of municipal Commonage for development purposes that will not result in any loss of local people’s formal and informal rights, and where there is substantial evidence that the development enjoys the wide support of local residents.

Alternative to alienation

The only alternative to outright purchase of the land is a renewable lease, possibly reverting to municipal ownership after say 50 years. It is considered that the leasehold cost should reflect the actual land areas used for agricultural purposes, thus allowing possible additional uses in the areas not suitable for intensive agriculture, for example conservation, recreation, specific community projects and tourist-related uses. Such a compromise seems to represent the spirit of Government policy on Commonages, but at the same time encourages viable and sustainable business ventures such as specialised farming. Furthermore, the future asset value of the land is retained for the benefit of the municipality and the community.

Alternative agricultural projects:

• Intensive fruit farming in the Overberg, particularly in the Riviersonderend river valley, has expanded significantly during recent years, largely for the export market. To be viable, it is said that 100-150 ha minimum are needed, water is essential (up to 6000 m³ per hectare per annum) and labour, some of which is seasonal, must be suitable for training and mentoring. The soil requirements have been assessed and confirmed by the Department of Agriculture to be suitable. Yet to be done is a detailed plan for the preferred areas to be cultivated and the layout of infrastructure and services.
• The grazing of cattle as practised on the Commonage now, where the land is partially degraded and water is very limited, is only just viable, and needs only limited labour. However, intensive dairy farming is possible throughout this area on land transformed totally to grassland, with adequate water, but labour requirements are also limited.
• Pomology farming which is the preferred use for a significant part of the project land is established in the area as a viable business, but there is limited suitable land available, and water rights are often not obtainable. Labour requirements, both permanent and seasonal, are significantly higher. The successful training and mentoring of local persons could obviate the common process of migrant labour, thus removing the necessity of providing housing and additional municipal services, in an area already with a high rate of unemployment and very limited services.
• Honeybush harvesting based on existing areas of natural growth could assist the expansion of the existing small-scale business in Genadendal.
• Fynbos farming may be an alternative for the future with lower water needs and a hotter climate.
• Domestic firewood management using a community woodlot would ensure sufficient firewood available for the whole community.

 Other alternative activities:

• Residential housing would probably not be viable because of the costs involved in providing full municipal services (maybe including tarring of part of the Riviersonderend road), the regular inundation and possible flash flooding from the Gobos and Sonderend rivers. Housing development would also not comply with municipal policy, and would be outside the urban edge.
• Recreational activities could be considered in parts of the area not being farmed, including grazing for horses and donkeys, MTB biking, walking, horse riding, dog exercising, camping site, birding, picnics.
• Tourism-related development might be considered for the longer term, particularly along the Sonderend River, possibly an energy-efficient, low density, high quality tourist lodge.

 Biological corridor

The establishment of a biological corridor from north to south would connect the different segments of nature reserve and help to ensure the long-term viability whilst also serving as a buffer zone & green lung between the proposed commonage agricultural development and the residential areas of Greyton village.

No-Go alternative Activities now in the proposed project area include some of the above recreations and some local small farmers use the land for grazing. Alien vegetation has been partly cleared. Mature wood has been harvested. There is at least one sand pit. With the exception of bike trails, the area is not used much by tourists.

We will keep you informed.

Should you want to be placed on the Ward 2 Forum Database please email us at the following address mygreyton@ward2forum.org

 

 

Ward 2 Forum Team