SPARKS AT PARK FORUM MEETING
By helene.meissenheimer
2014-07-14 07:00
Sparks flew at the Friday meeting of the Park Forum, an advisory body to the West Coast National Park, representing civil society and conservation organisations.
The hottest topics were the making of audio recordings of forum meetings, the proposed new rest camp at Klein Mooimaak in the West Coast National Park and SANPark’s turnaround with regard to the Shark Bay residential development.
Forum member Chris Bester, representing Afriforum, said the ruling by the forum chairman, Mel Richter, and Park manager Pat Bopape, not to allow recordings of forum meetings was in contravention of the country’s Constitution. After many to-and-fro arguments, Richter ended the discussion by saying he knows it is illegal and against the Constitution, but “I say no recordings”.
The next controversial topic was the proposed rest camp at Klein Mooimaak on the lagoon’s edge near the Seeberg view point in the park.
SANParks has stalled on the Klein Mooimaak project for more than a year. Monique Sham of Khula Environmental Consultants said on Monday they haven’t received any plans for the project from SANParks yet, but over 200 interested and affected parties have registered so far.
Interested parties can still register as I&APs by emailing
monique-sham@gmail.com.
Park Manager Pat Bopape said on Friday they have identified a need for accommodation in the park with a view of the lagoon. Therefore they propose building a rest camp at Klein Mooimaak which will include 15 accommodation units, 20 camping and caravan sites, bulk services (water, sewer, electricity) and internal roads.
Keith Harrison of the West Coast Bird Club said “it’s a no-brainer birdlife wise” to oppose the project. Several forum members said the park’s own environmental management plan was also against the Klein Mooimaak project.
Bopape eventually said the decision on Klein Mooimaak wasn’t hers to make, but a separate department in SANParks. * (Bopape later denied that she excluded herself from the decision-making group on this issue, although it is the Infrastructure & Special Projects Department within SANParks that is communicating directly with the environmental consultants with regards to Klein Mooimaak.)
Jaco Kotze of the Langebaan Ratepayers’ and Residents’ Association told Weslander this week they have proposed Mooimaak, an old farmstead with housing, water and electricity connections and access roads, to the park as an alternative, but he says they weren’t interested, possibly because it doesn’t have a view of the lagoon. Alternatively Kotze suggested the park considers building a rest camp on their office property (Erf 304) and the adjacent Erf 158 (currently eyed by the Defence Force for the building of housing) “if having a view of the lagoon is so important”.
SANParks also took flack for signing an agreement with the developers Dormell regarding the Shark Bay residential development bordering Myburgh Park to the north and the Langebaan lagoon to the west.
After years of opposing this development close to their Langebaan entrance last December, SANParks accepted Dormell’s proposal that 85% of the Shark Bay property be donated to the park in return for strict environmental controls being enforced on the development. Bopape said the donation ensures no further development of the area and freezes the northern urban edge as the park’s new northern boundary “allowing SANParks to effectively manage the Shark Bay lagoon area”.
Park Forum member, Jaco Kotze, said that SANParks, by accepting “this deal”, became “estate managers”. “That is not your job, your job is conservation.”
Willem Louw, SANParks manager: Park planning and development, responded “we are not estate managers, there is no need for that. We only manage the high biodiversity part.”
Forum member Jimmy Walsh’s concluding remarks were, “I just hope there is something left here for the next generations to come.”
)
