Cape Town - More than 50 years after the Protea Village community in Bishopscourt was forcibly displaced by the Group Areas Act, environmentalists are mounting a legal challenge that could further stall their return to the land.
The Friends of Liesbeek have lodged an application in the Western Cape High Court to halt the development because the organisation felt that ecological concerns, raised in the initial Environmental Impact Assessment, had not been adequately dealt with.
Protea Village Community Property Association chairperson Barry Ellman said the majority of land claimants were scattered in areas such as Lotus River, Steenberg, Manenberg, and Bonteheuwel when the dreaded axe of the Group Areas Act fell on the community.
“Over time, thanks to their enduring sacrifices and the pursuit of higher education for their children, some have managed to make the transition to more well-endowed suburbs, including Heathfield, Retreat and Strandfontein, among others,” Ellman said.
In 2006, the community was successful in its land claim, but 17 years later, many of the claimants have seen very little progress in returning to the land.
Ellman said the Protea Village land restitution has set a precedent as the first urban restitution project in South Africa with an innovative cross-subsidisation business plan, creating a model for others to follow.
“It embodies restorative justice and showcases the excellence of our country’s Constitution in action. It offers a chance for a dispossessed community to return to their ancestral land and reconnect with their heritage.
“Our forefathers contributed to building Kirstenbosch Gardens and the Church of the Good Shepherd-Protea on this land, and Rhodes Drive between Kirstenbosch and Hout Bay,” Ellman said.
The Protea Village CPA says restoring the community will restore the legacy, and those who have fought for the restitution have done so for their future generations.
“The community is deeply committed to creating a development that is aligned with the properties in surrounding Bishopscourt and Fernwood,” Ellman said.
Because of the delays, most of the beneficiaries of that 2006 land restitution have aged, with some being in their eighties and the real possibility that they would never return to live on the land.
“Furthermore, the financial burdens borne by our community over the years have been considerable.
“These expenses encompass the entire spectrum of processes required to facilitate the development of the land, inclusive of unwarranted legal costs incurred in countering legal challenges.
“The cumulative financial impact extends into the millions, underscoring the substantial monetary sacrifices our community has endured,” Ellman said.
Although it would not answer specific questions, the Friends of Liesbeek (FoL) said in a statement that it had “no vested interests in property or found itself under any undue influence from neighbouring private property owners in relation to the proposed development”.
“The disagreement has never been about resisting or delaying justice to the Protea Village Community (PVC). Indeed, we would very much hope that the PVDC will be willing to lend their support in taking care of the upper section of the Liesbeek.
“The issue is the ‘commodification’ of land that is at the headwaters of the Liesbeek comprising wetlands, springs and ‘natural’ land use cover that is responsible for regulating the water flow and quality in the Liesbeek, referred to as ERF212, which is the centre of the FoL’s objection,” the statement read.