With the recent retraction of legal action against the appointment of Point Caravan Resort (Pty) Ltd for the De Mond site, there has been increasing commentary on social media. Unfortunately, much of this commentary is misguided. 

With the recent retraction of legal action against the appointment of Point Caravan Resort (Pty) Ltd for the De Mond site, there has been increasing commentary on social media. Unfortunately, much of this commentary is misguided.  Based on our initial analysis of the tender process and award and continued monitoring of the developments we provide the following perspectives:

What is the status of the De Mond site? 

The former De Mond Caravan Park site in Voëlklip, Hermanus, situated on Erf 5327 and a portion of Erf 4831, is municipal land originally acquired via a 1942 Crown Grant. It operated as a recreational facility and a Caravan site and closed after its lease expired in late 2012. The final permanent residents were completely evicted or forced to leave by 2014.

Subsequently the Overstand Municipality has tried a few times, unsuccessfully, to put the opportunity through tender processes to secure a new operator. These delays have resulted in the site decay that we have today. 

What is Crown Land?

The term Crown Land refers to land historically held by the British Crown or colonial government, which seamlessly converted into State Land following the establishment of the Republic of South Africa. In South Africa, the title deed conditions for Crown/State land are strictly dictated by statutory frameworks rather than traditional private real estate terms. Under Section 18 of the Deeds Registries Act 47 of 1937, unalienated State Land or old Crown Land cannot be traded or subdivided without a formalized state title certificate. The applicable title conditions strictly dictate that the property cannot be sold and must be used exclusively to provide public recreational facilities, as per the following title conditions: 

• Crown Grant Origin: Acquired by the local authority in 1942 under specific title restrictions.
• Non-alienation: Title deeds stipulate the land cannot be sold off into private ownership.
• Public Purpose: Mandated strictly for public resort, camping, or recreational use rather than commercial or residential conversion outside these parameters. 

The De Mond tender specifications specifically referred to the Crown Land title constraints, and accordingly tenders that did not adhere to these principles would be no compliant or deemed non-responsive. The successful tender complied with these conditions. 

In this context social media comments suggesting that the redevelopment could entail a luxury 500 room hotel or a high density lifestyle estate, are all devoid of any substance. 

What is the current status?

The Overstrand Municipality entered into a 45-year long-term lease agreement for a public resort development – This agreement is comparable to many other such developments. It should be noted that the property reverts back to state ownership if the land is used for purposes other than what was explicitly approved and the site improvements (infrastructure) revert to the municipality at the termination of the lease.

The lease and tender award have faced active High Court litigation brought by private parties, leaving the redevelopment project sub judice and on hold pending judicial review – this challenge has now been formally withdrawn.

What are planning and consultative processes? 

In accordance with the process adopted by the Municipality, the formal public participation process for the De Mond Caravan Park site development plan has not yet taken place. While the lease agreement with the private developer was approved by the council, the planning and environmental processes still need to be conducted.

The municipality has maintained that public engagement is legally required after the commercial lease framework is secured, but before final municipal and environmental development approvals are granted

Once the planning and environmental processes are completed a comprehensive development plan needs to be drawn up by the developer subject to the standard development approval processes. This plan will be subjected to a public participation process prior to the final approval for the development to proceed. These planning and approval processes were paused due to ongoing High Court litigation. 

What are the legally mandated planning and development stages?

The public participation process is legally mandated to unfold through the following specific stages before any physical construction or resort operations can legally begin:

1. Site Development Plan (SDP) Review

• The Mandate: Planning legislation dictates that the specific Site Development Plan submitted by the tender winner must go through a formal public commentary window.
• The Purpose: This stage will grant local residents and interested parties the opportunity to scrutinize, review, and lodge formal comments or objections regarding the proposed layout, density, and amenities of the resort.
• Current Status: The plan could not be initiated until the current High Court review was resolved 

2. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)

• The Mandate: Because of the site’s proximity to sensitive coastal areas, specifically the ecologically sensitive lagoon, an Environmental Authorization is required.
• The Purpose: The Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning (DEA&DP) will dictate specific specialist studies.
• The Public Input: Independent consultants will run a separate, structured public participation process to address community concerns regarding local biodiversity, coastal erosion, and environmental impact.

What were the HRA views and concerns with the tender process?

As per our (HRA) statement released on 14 November 2024, we were of the view, that although the tender may not have been perfect, it conformed to the formats generally applied and would in all likelihood stand-up to legal scrutiny. This view was largely based on an legal opinion informally sort from an Advocate, with experience working on comparable tender processes within all spheres of government.

Our concerns with the tender pertained to the long duration, 45 years – we believe a period of 15-25 years would have been more appropriate. 

We also contended that it would have been prudent to have had more upfront public participation, rather than relying on the final consultation on the development of the detailed concept and plans. However, given the tight property title restrictions and the tender specifications, in practice there would have been little scope for deviation. 

Despite our concerns we were of the opinion that it was prudent to not challenge the tender process and to rather engage with the process and the appointed developer to ensure ratepayer interests and ideas were considered in the development of the final plans. 

What are the possible impacts of further delays in the site redevelopment?

The HRA believe that the redevelopment of the De Mond site is in the interest of Hermanus and its communities to serve both local residents and visitors. 

The ongoing delays in getting the site redeveloped has resulted in revenue losses for the municipality and site deterioration has led to adverse environmental impacts. Other important aspects that need to be considered include:

• A risk that National Government may step in and take the site back from the municipality as it has failed to utilise the site, as has been the case with the Theewaterskloof Resort. The site would then be subject to the national priorities and needs, rather than those pertaining to Hermanus and its communities.
• This coupled with the ever-increasing pressures for affordable housing, as has been recently experienced through court rulings on land being disposed on in the City of Cape Town.
• Increasing pressures from political forces with other agendas, particularly as we enter the election processes.

What is the HRA proposed way forward:?

We propose to reignite the process to engage with the appointed developer, Point Caravan Resorts, to explore opportunities for the community sectors to make early inputs into the planning process and influence the site design prior to its submission. Applying this approach, one hopes to influence the plans during the early stages of the development process, prior to the formal public process that will only be initiated at the end. 

This approach was previously flighted with Point Caravans. At the time the idea was well received as they realised the value of working together with the community to ensure an appropriate resort redevelopment. 

Ken Briggs
HRA Chair