1. Urban sprawl that brings with it receding rural landscapes, the loss of productive farmland and disruption of ecological systems;
2. Ad hoc rural subdivision and settlement intensification which erodes those cultural and scenic qualities which tourists find attractive;
3. The intrusion of urban activities into the rural environment giving rise to no clear distinction between town and country; and
4. Declining levels of security and poor service delivery to rural households.

Cape Town’s rural areas are under pressure to accommodate a greater mix and

intensity of activity, and associated with this there is escalating demand to sub-divide rural land. Whilst some of these activities are of a rural function and form, the rural area is also vulnerable to an intrusion of urban activities. The intrusion of urban activities manifests itself in a growing incidence of non-conforming uses (e.g. transport operators) especially in rural areas peripheral to industrial and low-income areas and on smallholdings of little or no agricultural potential.

One also needs to consider the effects of a drought or international market influences on agriculture and then the socio-economic implications of having the wrong rates policy in place and the problem becomes complex enough in my humble opinion that it requires compliance with / subject to NEMA and a full EIA before any changes occur that could seriously affect the future of these already threatened areas. I fully accept and understand that this would require courage and boldness by the authorities concerned, and that this could jeopardize their perceived income stream from this source, but is not now the time in South Africa for this kind of courage and boldness?

Now is the time for proactive partnerships between municipalities, conservation bodies, organized agriculture and smallholders to combine their strengths and ideas to work towards a sustainable future for all. If we can successfully combine the talents already existing in the Spatial Planning, Environmental and Finance departments of a municipal authority with the current and future needs and vision’s of the conservation, agricultural and smallholder sectors, we could move ahead very quickly towards a constructive and vibrant future for all concerned.

Taking all of this into consideration, I would like to make the following recommendations at this time for one main reason – it costs Municipalities more to implement a policy to prevent and police illegal land uses than it would cost to give the rebate under the correctly worded affidavit scenario.

• That the rural rebate applies to all land zoned rural or agricultural, and that is not being used for purely residential purposes, unless the property is earmarked conservation worthy and being used as such.
• That the rebate must be applied for via a sworn affidavit and that this document is the joint work of the financial, environmental and spatial planning departments as well as the to ensure that it fits the vision of the Unicity and its people as well as the full legal requirements to ensure a durable document that will survive a court challenge.

Criteria for receiving rebate for general open space, natural veld, farmland and smallholdings:

1- All zoning use restrictions are complied with

2- All municipal by-laws are complied with

3- National and Provincial laws and regulations governing natural resource management, land, planning, conservation, invasive alien clearing, fire etc, are complied with (may need to add in progress towards compliance clause here?)

4- Signed affidavit received by Municipality (may require mandatory inspection) for the above.

Properties complying with 1-4 above should be eligible for whatever rebates are afforded Agricultural lands, and should receive 80% (this discount in its current form is aimed at the current Unicity of Cape Town policy, which we feel is too little and should be about 90%) at least. For simplest implementation, this could apply to the entire property incl. improvements. For maximum income retention, this would only apply to the land, and the improvements or residential portion could be rated as standard suburban residential. However, it should be borne in mind that the idea behind this concept is the carrot and stick approach. Give the maximum rebate possible for compliance and apply the maximum penalty for non-compliance. This would serve to increase the municipalities’ coffers to be able to assist in court fees, as the rebate must be withdrawn for the entire fiscal year that the offence occurred in and would need to be reapplied for in the next fiscal year. Given time, this policy would breed a willingness and culture amongst the relevant landowners of compliance, as they would feel that the authorities are doing something positive to solve this dilemma.

For properties of conservation worthy land, the following additional criteria should apply for receipt of additional rates incentives:

5- Rezoning to appropriate conservation use only (might require clarity on new model scheme zone regulations to be adopted)

6- Entry into a contract with a relevant statutory conservation agency (in the W Cape= SAN Parks or WCNCB)

7- Production of an approved management plan for the affected portion of property, or group of properties (if applicable)

8- Annual inspection by conservation authority (or nominated representatives)

Properties complying with additional 5-8 above should become eligible for a 100% rebate on the affected portion of the land. The improvements or residential portion would be treated as for 1-4 above, with the 80% rebate in place as a minimum if this is offered to agricultural property residences.

Our starting point should be a cent in the rand scenario of between 0.75 and 1.25 cents in the rand depending on municipal location to markets and tourism.

When reading this document, the following points should be borne in mind.

1. What is the real cost of trying to police and control these areas due to illegal land use deviations.
2. What is the effect on neighbouring property values as well as the overall loss to the area of rural vistas?
3. What are the direct as well as indirect losses to the area due to loss of income from jobs in the enviro and agri tourism arena as the area degrades? Ultimately this will affect the municipal coffers as well.
4. What will be the future costs of trying to restore and rehabilitate these areas.
5. What are the legal ramifications for the municipality due to the lack of enforcing their own zoning bylaws? There is a growing tendency for landowners to take the municipal authority to court to force them to fulfil their legal obligations.
6. The loss of the recreational opportunities for city dwellers such as equestrian sport, zoos, farm visits and many other activities as non-conforming land uses increase. These areas are often referred to as the green lung of cities and towns – what would the cost be if this were lost.
7. What would the direct and indirect effects be to the local and national fiscus?, if agricultural and conservation land taxes are not very carefully monitored and managed.
8. The tendency to quote models of land taxation from Europe and America are flawed in that these same farms receive major subsidies from government, a luxury not possible in a country trying to restore past imbalances.
9. Agricultural and Conservation land are a major part of a nations wealth and should be recognised and protected as such.
10. In any nation, food security should be one of the major focuses of any government, and anything threatening this should be very carefully managed.

I sincerely hope this document serves to enlighten and challenge the reader to consider the environmental approach to the rural/agricultural/ conservation rates issue. In determining a rating policy for residential and commercial properties, authorities have a wealth of local information and past experience to draw upon. The rural/agricultural/conservation rating policy is, however, mainly new ground. Please tread lightly.

Yours kindly,

Tim Stockhall

Chairman