The pipetrack above Hout Bay is closed!

[dirtypot]

You were looking majestic AF!

[Bicyclegear]

There may be a case to be made for common law public access rights, similiar to the right to traverse Ruyteplaats along the old historic Baines path. The developer had to put gates in and allow the public to continue using the road.

 

We need a lawyer cyclist willing to take this on pro bono (or on risk if it's a strong case) backed I guess by a big petition for what it's worth.

 

The guys who ran the zip lines got closed down by court order, loosing the case with costs...ouch. 

Indeed...anyone out there?

[dave303e]

Are the general public allowed to request a deed from a private piece of land?

You can get a deed report which contains most of the data summarized for a nominal fee from various websites

 

We walked from suikerbossie to orangekloof fence last week. apart from the 67 dog turds on the path (yes I counted) The fence is totally fubar. It's too much of a ballache to get a legal access so we'll just break the fence down so we can enjoy the nature. Namaste.

 

People are Erseholes.

 

Regarding the servitude question. The answer is in the name. It needs to remain accessible for servicing. It's not a free to access thing. If it is a servitude the owner can close it up but it has to be accessible via a gate so whatever infrastructure exits there can be serviced. I know this because I had a mini sub station on my previous property.

 

Regarding the closing of that road. That's very surprising to me. I've been a resident of HB for a number of years and there have always been rumblings of Bay road being used as a 2nd access road to HB. That's pretty much the primary reason I didn't buy in bokkemans kloof.

So on my long run along jhb's favorite greenbelt Sunday. I spotted a few dogs chopping off a log and as I ran past I confronted a few owners. Usually most just ignore or walk away. One I had fun, it was near a busy entrance with lot of people around and as they walked away from the turd on the ground at full volume I shouted- "Oh look at the savages who can't pick up their dog poop, their house must smell awful." Boy did it get a good reaction. I will keep doing this, thankfully I am happy to deal with the most aggressive dogs and can easily outrun 90% of dog owners.

 

Yeah, that is mostly to stop the hikers/runners from illegally going up all the closed ravines which are under restriction trying to recover from fires.

 

It doesn't work though... I see so many people social media'ing about their epic trips up there.... same as Wally's cave. Closed but busy!

 

A well constructed proposal with weight and the right backing might just start something cool. It is an avenue I would be interested in getting behind.

 

Seen a good few social media fights about Wally's Cave. Slipknot had an appropriate song for this- People = s...

[Flowta]

Orangekloof would be epic, but remember still under the restricted restrictions of 12 users per day, only with permission and member of the hiking club needs to be part of the party or a guide. A struggle enough to get permits in place for other areas on the mountain. But can only be hopefully of one day....

To my knowledge you can actually ride your horse in there if you have an activity card, but not ride a bike.

 

Have seen someone riding there on a horse before (I was on other side of the fence)

Edited April 14, 2021 by Flowta

[Patensie]

I would be very interested in knowing what constitutes an "ancient use" time frame.

Harryn should know better than me. But delving in my limited Law of Things archive from 1996 (i.e. my whiskey infused memory), prescription on property rights occurs after 30 years. This is from Roman Law. My best guess is that the court will apply those principles. 

[ChrisF]

To add to what Hairy has posted.

 

2019 we did a project where there was a "servitude" along the side of the client's premises.  Okay, so these must be for services, as we have encountered many times before ....

 

NOPE, when they planned that area they sold the erf along the road to this client.  While marking off some 6 or 8m along the edge for a ROAD to be constructed when the erven behind him gets developed.     When that day comes a road with permanent access will run through his property.

 

As for "services servitudes", we often see these "inside" clients private property.  Only two requirements:

- they may not build on this,

- they must provide access to Council, or approved contractors, as and when needed.

 

 

 

The discussion around "historical access" is something many farmers deals with.  There are guidelines for providing access to other owners along the road.  But every so often a road is closed to the public.  Would be interesting to see if and how it applies in this case.

 

As Jawbecca says, an amicable solution would be better ....

[Bicyclegear]

I went up there today to try speak to the developer. He was not present. I have messaged him with no reply as of yet...#amicablesolution

[my_intense]

I went up there today to try speak to the developer. He was not present. I have messaged him with no reply as of yet...#amicablesolution

I tried to call the developer but he red-phoned me

Edited April 15, 2021 by my_intense

[Bicyclegear]

I think lets first try engage with the developer, and open a conversation, before we name and shame. 

Edited April 15, 2021 by Bicyclegear

[Danger Dassie]

See the topic has come up on the SanParks FB page. Same spot?

https://m.facebook.com/groups/7915287987/permalink/10158936690037988/?anchor_composer=false

[Alouette3]

From the FB comments

 

"A neighbour of us has asked Councilor Quitas about the gate going up at the Nek. We have been asked to mail our concerns in writing, here is the address if anyone else wishes to make a comment.

“Kindly put correspondence in email so that we can together discuss and get feedback which you will site of.”

Roberto.Quintas@capetown.gov.za"

[tubed]

I'll have a chat to my dad, he was responsible for a number of the access points in Hout Bay when it was being developed years ago - Ruyterplaats, Myburghs Ravine, Tierboskloof, Valley Road Weir. As a mountaineer, cyclist and lawyer he tried to make it a condition of the City's development approval was the retained public access to the mountain and historical footpaths - developers disliked him as it infringed on their security estate selling point - the MCSA strongly supported it. Nowadays its trail runners and gravel bikes that thrive on the access.

 

The Constantia Nek pipetrack and road servitude was included in the above. Lets see what the facts and law says - and hopefully the memory.

[my_intense]

I'll have a chat to my dad, he was responsible for a number of the access points in Hout Bay when it was being developed years ago - Ruyterplaats, Myburghs Ravine, Tierboskloof, Valley Road Weir. As a mountaineer, cyclist and lawyer he tried to make it a condition of the City's development approval was the retained public access to the mountain and historical footpaths - developers disliked him as it infringed on their security estate selling point - the MCSA strongly supported it. Nowadays its trail runners and gravel bikes that thrive on the access.

 

The Constantia Nek pipetrack and road servitude was included in the above. Lets see what the facts and law says - and hopefully the memory.

This sounds fantastic, looking forward to hearing back from you. Thanks a mil.

[tubed]

Spoke to my dad.

 

As far as he recalls they (Council) expropriated (with compensation) the entire length of the proposed Hout Bay bypass road starting at about 400m passed the graveyard and up to opposite the Houtkapperspoort entrance where the new fence is being erected, This encompasses the bulk water supply underground to the reservoir above IY as well, the road and water supply sharing the route in part where the erf in question is located. The road never got off the ground due to other development needs in the community and a lot of opposition from the property owners who own properties abutting the road reserve. That is as memory serves BUT its decades ago and my dad is elderly. 

 

Like Is said in the above post, it should be a matter of fact and law - somebody will need the City to confirm the actual status quo.

 

The landowners erecting the fence do indeed have rights, (unless the expropriation split their erf), so if they are doing the erection of the fence legally, then the City has authorisation regarding their development should seek to balance the needs of the community (access) and their development  (security), a deal can be struck as it was at Ruyterplaats. Experience shows that the community will have to be vigilant and make sure that the City regards the needs of the community when dealing with the developers, otherwise the City currently sees an increase in coffers via rates and can be pro development.

 

In my view the best way would be to work via the councilor and TMB who have proven very effective at negotiating access. 

 

(Sanparks are an abutting owner - but the less said of any reliance on them the better). 

[Bicyclegear]

Spoke to my dad.

 

As far as he recalls they (Council) expropriated (with compensation) the entire length of the proposed Hout Bay bypass road starting at about 400m passed the graveyard and up to opposite the Houtkapperspoort entrance where the new fence is being erected, This encompasses the bulk water supply underground to the reservoir above IY as well, the road and water supply sharing the route in part where the erf in question is located. The road never got off the ground due to other development needs in the community and a lot of opposition from the property owners who own properties abutting the road reserve. That is as memory serves BUT its decades ago and my dad is elderly. 

 

Like Is said in the above post, it should be a matter of fact and law - somebody will need the City to confirm the actual status quo.

 

The landowners erecting the fence do indeed have rights, (unless the expropriation split their erf), so if they are doing the erection of the fence legally, then the City has authorisation regarding their development should seek to balance the needs of the community (access) and their development  (security), a deal can be struck as it was at Ruyterplaats. Experience shows that the community will have to be vigilant and make sure that the City regards the needs of the community when dealing with the developers, otherwise the City currently sees an increase in coffers via rates and can be pro development.

 

In my view the best way would be to work via the councilor and TMB who have proven very effective at negotiating access. 

 

(Sanparks are an abutting owner - but the less said of any reliance on them the better). 

Thank you for the info and pls thank your dad.

[PaulieV]

Spoke to my dad.

 

As far as he recalls they (Council) expropriated (with compensation) the entire length of the proposed Hout Bay bypass road starting at about 400m passed the graveyard and up to opposite the Houtkapperspoort entrance where the new fence is being erected, This encompasses the bulk water supply underground to the reservoir above IY as well, the road and water supply sharing the route in part where the erf in question is located. The road never got off the ground due to other development needs in the community and a lot of opposition from the property owners who own properties abutting the road reserve. That is as memory serves BUT its decades ago and my dad is elderly. 

 

Like Is said in the above post, it should be a matter of fact and law - somebody will need the City to confirm the actual status quo.

 

The landowners erecting the fence do indeed have rights, (unless the expropriation split their erf), so if they are doing the erection of the fence legally, then the City has authorisation regarding their development should seek to balance the needs of the community (access) and their development  (security), a deal can be struck as it was at Ruyterplaats. Experience shows that the community will have to be vigilant and make sure that the City regards the needs of the community when dealing with the developers, otherwise the City currently sees an increase in coffers via rates and can be pro development.

 

In my view the best way would be to work via the councilor and TMB who have proven very effective at negotiating access. 

 

(Sanparks are an abutting owner - but the less said of any reliance on them the better). 

 

Spoke to my dad.

 

As far as he recalls they (Council) expropriated (with compensation) the entire length of the proposed Hout Bay bypass road starting at about 400m passed the graveyard and up to opposite the Houtkapperspoort entrance where the new fence is being erected, This encompasses the bulk water supply underground to the reservoir above IY as well, the road and water supply sharing the route in part where the erf in question is located. The road never got off the ground due to other development needs in the community and a lot of opposition from the property owners who own properties abutting the road reserve. That is as memory serves BUT its decades ago and my dad is elderly. 

 

Like Is said in the above post, it should be a matter of fact and law - somebody will need the City to confirm the actual status quo.

 

The landowners erecting the fence do indeed have rights, (unless the expropriation split their erf), so if they are doing the erection of the fence legally, then the City has authorisation regarding their development should seek to balance the needs of the community (access) and their development  (security), a deal can be struck as it was at Ruyterplaats. Experience shows that the community will have to be vigilant and make sure that the City regards the needs of the community when dealing with the developers, otherwise the City currently sees an increase in coffers via rates and can be pro development.

 

In my view the best way would be to work via the councilor and TMB who have proven very effective at negotiating access. 

 

(Sanparks are an abutting owner - but the less said of any reliance on them the better). 

Thank you for this, it is most helpful. I agree that engaging with Councillor is the way to go, which I have done. You can get him on roberto.quintas@capetown.gov.za