vertical-endeavour.com

Welcome, Guest

Nondela golf estate: good or bad?
(1 viewing) (1) Guest
This image is hidden for guests. Please log in or register to see it. Didn't find a category to post under?
  • Page:
  • 1

TOPIC: Nondela golf estate: good or bad?

Nondela golf estate: good or bad? 17 Feb 2008 23:35 #57

Nondela is a golf estate being developed in the northern Berg. See www.nondela.com.

The general response from hikers is it will bring an unwanted development and negative impact to the Berg.

I see this kind of thing as inevitable, though I am saddened by the environmental impact of this kind of development will have on the Berg. How many other estates and associated infrastructure will be built? I have no doubt that it is financially beneficial for the surrounding communities. Lets hope the development is controlled and responsible. And keep the Berg wild!

Please share your views on Nondela here.
  • intrepid
  • NOW ONLINE
  • Moderator
  • Posts: 1455
Keep the Berg clean, keep the Berg free!

Re:Nondela golf estate: good or bad? 20 Feb 2008 00:30 #59

Personally, while I am very happy for Ernie and his developer buddies from JHB (and Victor Matfield...) that they are over the moon, essentially what Nondela is doing is developing a separate node of development which will have an ultimately detrimental effect on the environment and the area. The roads built for this development indicate that they are gearing for more than just Nondela. Apart from the access roads crossing vital wetlands and drainage lines between the development and the R74 to Oliviershoek Pass, there are further impacts also to be considered. Nondela will need sewerage reticulation. It will need electricity, which means more ugly Eskom poles ruining the skyline. It really is in the middle of nowhere, and it is reducing the agricultural viability of the area. Any Heritage site must have an associated buffer around it, with acceptable land uses, and these increase in complexity as you move away from the heritage site. How a residential development ever cracked the nod from the powers that be escapes reason. Hopefully they will consider the negative effects on the environment if and when any further development is proposed alongside Nondela, and the reduction it will pose on the food security aspect of that area, as well as the water purity (the Berg is the major catchment for KZN AND Gauteng) and volume.

There are cumulative effects to Nondela which will be hard to escape now that Nondela is going ahead.
Lets all help maintain the values for which the Berg was proclaimed a World Heritage Site

Re:Nondela golf estate: good or bad? 21 Feb 2008 15:16 #62

I agree that estates like Nondela are inevitable.
That is the price of "progress".
Farmers in the area are probably receiving offers from developers that they just can't turn down.
The effects on the Berg will be detrimental in many ways.
Besides the actual estate being an eyesore, how long will it be before shopping centres with filling stations, Spar , PostNet etc start mushrooming in the area.
And what about roads that reach deeper and deeper into the mountains ? a cableway to take people to the summit ?
Residents will need things to entertain them.
The sky is the limit and there is no way to hold back this tidal wave.
There will be some positive spin-offs such as employment for locals but these are far out-weighed by the negative impacts.
Maybe Ernie and co should be made aware that this project is opposed by Berg devotees?
  • harryh
  • OFFLINE
  • New Participant
  • Posts: 3

Re:Nondela golf estate: good or bad? 12 Mar 2008 00:14 #67

"Besides the actual estate being an eyesore, how long will it be before shopping centres with filling stations, Spar , PostNet etc start mushrooming in the area."

That is exactly what I mean, besides the entertainment stuff. I mean, you start flooding the area with rich Jhb executives who are there for the view mainly, and what inevitably follows are heli-flips, more aeroplanes, high level entertainment. I recall seeing a hotel chopper dropping off a crate of cokes and beers for a group of hikers at the top because they had phoned the hotel from the top to request it. Hopefully whoever the registered authority is (It looks most likely to be Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife at this point), they will be able to clamp down on these secondary impacts. Also, the more development which happens in the primary catchments, the less potable water is available for Gauteng and the rest of KZN. The Tugela river is already battling a little at the estuary mouth, as is the Umzimkhulu.
Lets all help maintain the values for which the Berg was proclaimed a World Heritage Site

Re:Nondela golf estate: good or bad? 04 Sep 2008 14:39 #146

I like the buffer zone idea but agree that nothing will stop development. I wish they could add the Mweni area to the heratige site and at least save that part to and so-doing have the range in a protected area.

Nondela could be the first nail in the coffin...
  • bergbees
  • OFFLINE
  • Senior Participant
  • Posts: 30

Re:Nondela golf estate: good or bad? 04 Sep 2008 21:44 #147

The buffer to the WHS is an excellent idea. However, it will unfortunately hold no water until it is legislated. Part of the mandate of the WHS authority (it was recently announced by Marthinus van Schalkwyk that Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife would be the recognised authority for the WHS) is to develop the buffer zone with associated appropriate land uses adjacent to the WHS, and to get it legislated. There are a number of changes afoot with environmental legislation, but as with previous buffering attempts to the Berg (The Drakensberg Approaches Plan (DAP), The Special Case Area Plan (SCAP), the new buffer zone which EKZNW is working on), none will adequately protect the Berg from pollution, light, sewage etc. The DAP and the SCAP allowed for certain nodes of development, Cathkin and the Amphitheatre being 2 of the 3. Another different type of node is at Sani Pass, which is termed a "Terminus", as a result of its connectivity to Lesotho. The terminus allows for associated development with a border post type area, i.e. petrol stations, overnight accomodation etc. Bearing in mind that enough of that type of development already exists in Himeville and the Sani Pass hotel plus other accomodation options in Himeville and surrounds, it boggles the mind that other development is also proposed for those areas...

Personally I feel that further tourism style accommodation is appropriate in the recognised development areas, but not residential.

I agree that the Mweni area needs to be incorporated into the WHS, but issues with land ownership and tenure need to be resolved. The people who are already living in the area, do they get moved (like in the old days when people's rights were not respected), or compensated, or allowed to continue to use the land with associated rights? It is a tough solution to come by, but reasonable examples exist. The issue is that currently tourism does not accrue to enough income, and so other upliftment projects need to be investigated for poverty relief. One needs to bear in mind that these people live completely below the bread line, and rely very heavily on their little agricultural endeavours. Anyone who has meandered from the new Mweni visitor center along to Mweni pass or one of the other passes will have seen the subsistence farming. A suggestion is that these people are allowed to let their cattle graze up to a certain height (the contour level has been one suggestion) and the rest gets put to conservation, and included into the WHS.

It would be an excellent example of where the WHS can benefit local communities from tourism. However, this would require further development in the area, in terms of tourism related activities. The Uthukela District municipality has various plans underway which they have been investigating the viability of since around 2004. Great possibilities exist around Woodstock dam, but there may be unacceptable environmental impacts, and associated impacts on the proposed inclusion to the WHS. This all needs to be taken into consideration during the EIA process. As the Mweni area currently does not belong to the WHS, the impacts on possibly proclaiming it, don't really get accommodated.

The Mweni area is an area of unparalleled beauty in the Berg, and in anyone's opinion needs to be included. It is the how that has everyone perplexed. It will take a huge effort from the RSA and Lesotho governments, the WHS authority, and the local municipality. Unfortunately the hikers opinions are not really taken into consideration because we do not spend enough on hiking and accommodation in the mountains. Hopefully that will not change dramatically, but we really need to grow the hiking fraternity in the Berg. Hopefully we can use this site to grow the hiking fraternity in the Berg again. The numbers have dropped off in more recent times with too many other instant forms of entertainment being available, like quadbiking etc..

Hopefully, endeavours such as this site can grow tourism, and particularly hiking, in the Berg. I, personally would like all users of this site to speak to all the people they know who even have a vague interest in the Berg and hiking or climbing to get stuck in to the site. As the administration, we will endeavour to keep the content fresh, and the site growing from our side. We really appreciate the efforts of those who have already spread the word to grow this as a Berg and Mountain portal.
Lets all help maintain the values for which the Berg was proclaimed a World Heritage Site
  • Page:
  • 1
Time to create page: 0.44 seconds
Banner

Login

Logging in unlocks access to material and functionality which is otherwise not visible!
Banner