Locals are concerned about new infrastructural changes being finalised by the City of Cape Town to redevelop Small Bay, a popular beach enjoyed by many Bloubergstrand residents.
Small Bay, a secluded beach which affords safe swimming conditions, is located along Sir David Baird Drive.
The City plans to heighten the existing beach wall by 920 mm to combat “wave overtopping”, as quoted by Eddie Andrews, the City’s deputy mayor and Mayco member for spatial planning and environment.
However, beach-goers challenge the City’s decision, saying it creates issues of “inaccessibility” and “danger” to the public, according to three individuals interviewed who want to remain anonymous for privacy reasons.
Residents have proposed a stepped concrete barrier as an alternative plan to safely maintain beach accessibility – a proposal the City has rejected.
Infrastructural plans
The construction plans at Small Bay are “relatively set” at this point, explained Paul Swart, Councillor of Ward 23.
Swart is aware that local residents disapprove the construction plans for Small Bay, as discussed in meetings held between the City and concerned parties.
“Although I understand where the residents are coming from, I also think the City has done a good job of informing everyone about the plans, and tending to their concerns in detail,” said Swart.
There are currently two plans at Small Bay, including the much-disputed heightened wall to mitigate the impact of worsening wave overtopping, as well as redirecting the sewerage pipes towards the play park which are becoming exposed due to sand erosion on the beach.
The wall heightening, more so than redirection of the sewerage pipes, is the point of contention among residents, given the impact this may have on beach safety and aesthetics.
“The City has worked hard to find the best fit between a robust structure that will withstand the forces of nature, while retaining public access, retaining and improving pedestrian movement, limiting the potential impact to the coastline, and minimising the impact on views and not extending a structure seawards of the existing footprint,” Andrews explained.
The City, alongside coastal engineers, designed a curved 920 mm increase on top of the existing wall to lessen the height of the waves during high tide, and direct water flow away from the communal play park adjacent to the beach, but not stop wave overtopping altogether, according to Andrews.
“Were the structure to be designed to prevent wave overtopping, it would need to be multiple metres higher than the planned 920 mm increase.
“To design the seawall to comply with recommended international guidelines, not even taking into consideration future sea-level rise, the wall should be 2 to 3 metres higher than the present wall crest,” said Andrews. raising the crest of the wall by 920 mm only, the overtopping volumes and associated risk to damage and safety is reduced by three to four times, a balance and outcome the City believes to be appropriate considering the multiple uses of the area and to minimise the impact on views,” Andrews continued.
At a meeting held between the City and concerned residents it was explained that a stepped concrete barrier, as proposed by residents which also functions as benches, does not appropriately address the wave forces needed to be combatted at the beach.
“[The concrete steps] will create excessive wave overtopping and drainage problems into the park area behind the existing wall,” said Andrews.
Concerns
Residents have expressed their concerns about the City’s plan to improve access to Small Bay, which, according to Andrews and Swart, has been tended to by the City through emails, over telephone, and in person.
The residents who have been in contact with TygerBurger explained that they have not had their concerns sufficiently accommodated, and that the public participation process only occurred very late in the City’s decision-making process, when the City already had put the construction plan together.
The City opposed this statement by the Bloubergstrand residents, explaining that thorough communication has been taking place between all parties – a statement corroborated by Swart.
“The City’s presented the information at the local subcouncil in 2020 and liaised continually with the ward councillor at the time, and met with all the directly impacted residents in 2020 and 2021, and then again in 2022,” said Andrews.
There was also a letter drop to all directly impacted residents and a public briefing was held in February 2022, Andrews explained.
Residents have highlighted various concerns, but the two that seem to be brought up most frequently include access to, and safety at Small Bay should the wall be heightened.
The high wall will provide no escape for people, especially children during high tide, residents argued, who instead proposed a stepped concrete barrier which addresses this concern.
Consequently, beach goers will also be forced to walk on the play park, or hurry along the stretch of sand on Small Bay should high tide present itself which will create traffic and impede accessibility.
Reconstruction of the existing wall, including the re-routing of the sewerage pipes, and repair of the adjacent roadway which is currently out for tender, will commence in the first quarter of 2023 “if everything goes according to plan,” Andrews explained.
Send your thoughts to TygerBurger should you have comments on the Small Bay construction plan.
