A motion to build a fence along portions of the Lourens River, among other measures to combat the issue of vagrancy and alleged prostitution along the certain parts of its banks in Somerset West, was submitted by councillor Carin Brynard of the Cape Independence Party (Capexit) to include on the Subcouncil 8 agenda on Thursday 22 February. It seeks to address “problem areas” at the bridge in Main Road, Andries Pretorius Street and Island Park.

“These areas are plagued with vagrants and prostitutes, who live and operate from there,” said Brynard in a media statement. “Several life- and property-threatening veld fires have already broken out, a house belonging to the City has burnt down and was looted due to such fires.”

She also stated ratepayers living close to the said areas are desperate for a solution as they are subjected to crime, degradation, human waste, burglaries (and) prostitution, all on a daily basis.

Brynard noted that some years ago the previous councillor for the area, Stuart Pringle, motivated for fences to be erected between the two bridges crossing parts of the Lourens River to manage the area better.

She stated this motion was supported by the then subcouncil the ward formed part of at the time.

According to a report prepared by Subcouncil 8 manager Erika Williams, when the motion was being discussed at the meeting Ward 84 councillor Norman McFarlane stated it was not a matter of his being in favour of fencing or not.

He said he had taken advice from the line departments consulted, and their conclusion was unanimous, that fencing would not solve the problem.

Moreover, the Lourens River Conservation Society made it quite clear that as an interested and affected party in this matter it was not in favour of fencing, as this was public open space and it would be inappropriate, not to mention unlawful, to preclude people from using that public open space.

area a construction site

McFarlane also reported that the area under discussion would, in the near future, become a construction site for a couple of years due to phase 2 of the Lourens River flood alleviation project and as a result no illegal squatting will take place.

The matter was put to a vote, in which nine councillors voted against the motion and only Brynard voted to support it, and the subcouncil chairperson confirmed the decision was not to support or accept the motion tabled and would remain as is.

Providing additional comment, Law Enforcement spokesperson Wayne Dyason clarified to DistrictMail & Helderberg Gazette that the City’s Area Law Enforcement staff conducted operations in the area, where resources allowed.

“Due to the many competing demands on enforcement staff it is not possible to maintain a static presence,” he said. “It bears repeating that Law Enforcement officers can only enforce the bylaws, and cannot force any person to vacate the area.”

According to Mayoral Committee member for Water and Sanitation Zahid Badroodien his directorate provided the following comment during the last subcouncil Activity Day meeting on 17 August 2023, when several important issues were raised:. Fencing the Lourens River will not be allowed, as this will negatively impact the hydraulic flow of the Lourens River and does not align with the City’s vision for livable urban waterways, and. Vagrants located along the river and on the island (in the middle of the Lourens River) require coordination with the City’s Law Enforcement and Anti-Land Invasion Unit (ALIU).

Mayoral Committee member for Community Services and Health Patricia Van der Ross stated the Social Development and Early Childhood Development Department’s Street People Programme Unit visited this site frequently as it is a well-known hot spot.

many leave the site, but tend to return

“The individuals all refuse assistance when it is offered by the team,” she said. “There have even been instances where individuals requested assistance, only to return to the site again. It must be noted that no person can be forced to accept assistance.”

Brynard concluded that after the recent demarcation the ward was moved to form part of the now-Sub Council 8.

“The motion, I have found, ‘fell through the cracks’, so to speak, because implementation never occurred, and it is my belief that it is still valid up to this day for there has never been a subcouncil motion to negate the current, standing one.

“The motion asked for the given areas to be cordoned off to keep them free from possible vagrancy and crime. It is a known fact that criminals and ex-convicts lurk among those who are homeless. Crime has also escalated steadily in the areas near to the river.

“The motion submitted by me to try and resurrect the motion by Pringle was wiped off the table, in this way leaving the affected community with very little recourse.”