A group of Strand residents residing in apartments along Beach Road, Haarlem Street and the immediate vicinity have outright rejected the City of Cape Town’s proposal to convert a portion of Beach Road into a one-way.
In a letter addressed to various municipal departments, the group stated, with the exception of one person, all of the 30 people at a public information day at the Strand Municipal Offices at the end of August publicly indicated they disapproved of the suggested one-way conversions.
In August, the City called on Strand residents to comment on the proposed conversion of a portion of Beach Road and Haarlem Street into one-way streets to accommodate the second phase of the Strand sea-wall rehabilitation project. The public participation process commenced on Monday 22 August until Thursday 22 September.
The City’s Coastal Management branch will be constructing a new promenade and enhance the existing sea wall along Beach Road, it explained. To achieve this, council proposed the conversion of a portion of Beach Road into a one-way street for west-bound traffic and for Haarlem Street’s conversion to a one-way to accommodate east-bound traffic. It also proposed the conversion be permanent following construction.
One of the objectors Francois van Wyk, who represents at least 30 affected property owners, said trustees of the Body Corporate Kuriake representing all 51 owners of sections within the Kuriake building, unanimously resolved to join the objection to the proposal since the submission of the letter.
“It is concerning that many owners were not directly notified of the suggested changes,” Van Wyk said. “Electronic municipal accounts did not contain this information, neither were physical letters delivered to street addresses, in which case some tenants and owners would have received them.”
He pointed out some residents tried to comment on the “Have your say” link on the City’s website and were directed to a public participation pamphlet. Van Wyk claimed the specific project was not listed there.
The letter by the group outlines a number of apparent flaws in the process, Van Wyk said, such as a missing environmental impact assessment (EIA). “There should have been some kind of EIA specifically pertaining to the conversions, in which all possible impacted stakeholders should have been known,” he said.
“Why were no alternatives to the proposal presented? As part of the EIA, services should have been investigated and a Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) should have been done. This is key, but missing from the process.”
Van Wyk believes the TIA should address, among others, the impact of additional traffic on traffic flow on residential streets, the impact of parking removed along Beach Road, the movement of road users on residential streets, traffic calming, and more.
“Affected parties were not included in any environmental authorisation by authorities, so what is the point of this public process?”
Residents agreed that routing half of the Beach Road traffic through their activity area will severely impact them, Van Wyk said, citing several examples such as road safety, noise pollution and concerns over property values.
‘Conversion should be trialled’
“Many pedestrians, especially children coming from Gordon’s Bay Road, use Haarlem Street as a safe passage to the main beach areas,” stated the letter, which appeals to the City to reconsider the transport rationalisation proposal for Beach Road.
“Our residential area is also home to many senior citizens and less mobile residents who use Haarlem Street daily, both for exercise and walking to the beach. In conclusion, we do not ever want to be in a situation where we would have to ‘get our streets back’.”
In a joint statement by Annelie Rossouw and Wilhelm Esterhuizen of Future Strand, an initiative by local business owners and residents to revitalise the iconic seaside town, they acknowledged the necessity of second phase of the sea-wall project to mitigate the impact of rising sea levels.
“It should be noted that Phase 1 of the sea-wall project brought about an increase in pedestrian activity within the broader Beach Road area and assisted with the formalisation of non-motorised options for visitors to the area and residents from the area,” the statement read.
“We also want to acknowledge the necessity for space during the construction phase, hence the proposal for a one-way conversion of Haarlem Street and a portion of Beach Road. However, we believe that the proposed permanent conversion of the two streets is premature.”
Future Strand proposed the construction phase of the sea-wall should serve as a trial run for such a conversion.
“This will provide the City and residents to fully analyse (by means of a TIA and everyday experience) the impact of such a conversion on the area,” it stated.
“During this phase, it is also argued that the temporary conversion of the streets will allow for more and broader public participation as well as the opportunity to economically activate the portion of Beach Road that is proposed for conversion.”
Eddie Andrews, deputy mayor and Mayoral Committee member for Spatial Planning and Environment, acknowledged and appreciated the comments received from Van Wyk in respect of the proposal.
He further advised that the City complete the public participation process, which includes a number of presentations to representatives of the local subcouncil.
“The valuable feedback received by Mr Van Wyk will be included as a submission as part of the formal public participation process. It will be reviewed along with all of the other comments received,” said Andrews, adding that the City will respond to all technical queries submitted as part of the public participation process.
“All the comments received through this process will be assessed and, depending on the outcomes of this assessment, relevant changes will be made where practically achievable and feasible,” he related.
“The City is committed to a rigorous process in respect of considering all comments received and will ensure all possible avenues are thoroughly interrogated and explored before finalising the proposal. We will ensure the final design addresses the needs and interests of the broader community.”
