RESIDENTS of a Kuilsriver housing development have been slapped with a fresh order by the City of Cape Town to dismantle an “illegal” security gate.
Property owners of the Oxford Village erected the gate nine month ago to ward off criminals. They have since been engaged in a spat with the City which wanted it removed.
The City is also demanding that the residents apply to lease the small piece of land where a security hut has been placed, for a “small fee”.
"We have done all we could to engage the City on the matter. A few months ago an official from the City was presented with all the evidence, even by the local police station on crime, to back up the need for the security gate. But we are yet to find a resolution,“ said one ”Lubba“, a resident and member of a committee representing the residents.
After experiencing a spate of armed burglaries and attempted hijackings, the property owners installed the gate in December.
However, the City said the residents should dismantle it as it was not in compliance with by-laws and the gated development policy.
But residents said if the security gate was to be demolished, this would expose their families and assets to criminals again.
"Since we installed the gate we have not experienced crime again," said one of the residents.
He also added that improved security measures were also recently put in place, including installing a telecoms system, to enable ease of access for residents, as well as a security guard who manned the gate and supply remote access cards to each resident.
The residents said previous proposals by the City to the residents to set up a Neighbourhood Watch and patrol the area had failed as most property owners worked during the day and could not carry out the night patrols.
Police patrols were also not sustainable due to lack of resources at the nearby police station.
In May, the dilemma facing the residents also caught the attention of members of the provincial legislature, some of whom voiced concerns over the City's stance. Opposition parties called for a reform on municipal by-laws that "impacted and compromised the safety and lives of people".
Mayco member for Urban Mobility, Rob Quintas, said after "much deliberation" between different departments, the City found that it “couldn’t legally allow the gate".
However, residents in Watergate Boulevard, Mitchells Plain had also installed a similar security gate for safety reasons.
When asked what the difference was between the two areas, Quintas said: "Watergate Boulevard does have an access gate with a guard standing there. However, the guard does not stop vehicles or request an entry logbook to be completed etc. Vehicles pass freely. In other words, freedom of movement is not being managed or curtailed.
“Also, we have not received any complaints from the residents residing in various developments along Watergate Boulevard.”
Residents at Oxford Village denied there was obstruction of movement of motorists in their complex.
"Ambulances move in and out freely when they are called out to the complex. Municipal services were never turned away. The residents have not been restricted at all.
"Those who were initially opposed to the security gate because they refused to pay for the remote control were supplied (with them) for free. Most of them are now singing praises because they feel safe. The 0,5 % still complaining probably have their own agenda. Now weigh that against the overwhelming majority who support it," a committee member said.
Quintas said the residents were also required to formally apply through the sub-council for the placement of the (security) hut.
"They will be requested to ensure that the gate is fully functional and that the whole section of the road is accessible to motorists and that there are no obstructions," he said.
He added that in terms of the security hut policy, the residents could lease a portion of the road reserve on a two-year cycle at a nominal rate.
"On approval, they would be able to put up a security hut with a toilet to monitor the movement in and out of the development. However, no gate is allowed.“
Quintas said the City was still looking into how to resolve the matter and would liaise with the community.