Breaking News

6 July 2017

Letter from DPSC to Barkers Attorneys – for general distribution

___________________________________

20 June 2017

POINT YACHT CLUB AND DURBAN PADDLE SKI CLUB

 

CONCERNS REGARDING THE TERMS OF THE PROPOSED LEASES

AND WATERSPORT CLUBS RELOCATIONS

AND PADDLE SKI CLUB’S ADDITIONAL CONCERNS
The Point Yacht Club (PYC) and the Durban Paddle Ski Club, (DPSC) as well as the other two beach clubs, have been served with notices by DPDC (the developers in partnership with the Durban Metro) to vacate their beach site premises within two months. That is by 8 August 2017. In return three clubs have been offered two leases for future tenancy on Vetch’s Beach. One lease is for the temporary relocation pending the building of permanent homes for the Clubs and the other is for the location on a longer term under the promenade. Both leases are essentially similar in content and nature of intent.

The PYC and the Paddle Ski Club have expressed their committed willingness to work together on our relocation in the utmost and transparent good faith with the DPDC, as well as the other two affected clubs, DUC and Durban Ski Boat Club. There is an urgent need to agree on suitable circumstances under which all the clubs’ futures at Vetch’s beach are equitably secured.

Unfortunately what has been placed on the table by DPDC raises many concerns and does not look like an acceptable option.

PYC and the Paddle Ski Club both agree that further discussion is necessary before any agreement can be reached. A senior member of the PYC with much experience in this field has studied the temporary and permanent lease agreements being offered to the beach clubs. His observations and comments from a businessman’s perspective (before the lawyers have expressed their views) are as set out in the numbered paragraphs below.

Whilst the two lease agreements are not distributed with this document, the observations stated below should assist the members to have a better understanding of the concerns we have. (The developer’s proposed leases will be made available on the respective Clubs’ Websites.)

1. Clause 1.1.

Temporary premises – in extent of approximately 450 m2, whilst the plan is illegible being so small, the size is 38 metres x 12 metres or there about as a bare steel structure shell.

Assuming an internal fit out to include a workable and functional kitchen, ablutions and change rooms, committee/meeting room, bar/ liquor store, staff facilities and so on, there will not be much space left.

If these facilities are to be constructed whether internally or externally to the temporary structure that will require considerable cap cost.

Without going any further into the lease what we have here beggars belief and must be rejected out of hand.

2. The opinion is that this facility would not be able to adequately cater for sailing regattas, the DSBC fishing festival(s) and what about the visiting ski boats, Hobies, parking and so on notwithstanding the parking area being offered.
3. Clause 1.11

Schedule of finishes appears not to have been included in the dockset. The schedule of finishes to comply with food standards is onerous and expensive for such areas as kitchens and food preparation.

4. Clause 1.6

Noted as calendar days, not working days.

5. Clause 2.2

Observation: Does this clause apply to the permanent lease or to be read in conjunction with it?

6. Clause 2.3

Observation: Once the Landlord (DPDC) has completed the temporary premises the tenant is then obliged to occupy and only then has to compile and submit plans to the entities noted under clause 9.4.

This is onerous, time consuming and expensive. And to be at the mercy of eThekwini municipality and the plans department could on past performance take months.

7. Clause 4.1.

If the interpretation is correct in that as no time frames are stipulated then this temporary lease could run for an indefinite period to the point that the permanent premises could or may never be constructed.

This is a serious consideration as the clubs would not survive in the temporary facility and question whether they will even survive in the short term as who would pay Club subscriptions as the temporary structure offers no attraction to the beach and “umbrella brigade”.

8. Clause 9.1

This clause is typical in construction contracts but in this context there is no guarantee that the structure would be fit for its intended purpose which is considered to fall a long way short particularly when it comes to, for example, public habitable spaces and food preparation.

The structure is, with respect, nothing more than a cheap farm shed.

9. Clause 10.2.

This clause is very onerous on the tenant and gives every opportunity for the Landlord to find any excuse or reason to evict.

10. Clause 10.8.

PYC to ensure that its concerns are incorporated into the rules of the Durban Point Waterfront Management Association NPC as per Craig Millar’s letter to the Municipality.

11. Clause 15.

We are uncertain as to how to interpret this clause. If the temporary premises are destroyed, for example, by ocean wave action or fire and the Landlord serves notice to vacate, is the tenant then left on the street with no remedy to demand or be offered suitable alternative premises assuming the permanent premises have not been constructed or made available and thus effectively the four sporting bodies would no longer continue to exist.

12. Clause 7.1

THE PERMANENT LEASE talks of the deposit that has to be paid (R 123 530. 40) to the Landlord “that shall be refunded to the tenant after expiry of the Lease”.  By inference or indeed fact is this the end game and the eventual outcome?

There has been a long expressed opinion that the clubs are in all likelihood regarded as an impediment to the overall development notwithstanding DPDC’s comments at our meeting last week that they form an integral part of the development in being able to offer water sports activities to tourists and the general public. Their proposals would seem to suggest otherwise.

General comments and observations.

1. A tenant cannot be expected to take occupation of a property such as the proposed “farm shed” without basic infrastructure such toilets and ablutions etc.

DPDC would have to provide the infrastructure at its cost; we cannot be expected to carry this cost.

The temporary shell structure portrayed on the plans would cost about R1.5M to build at today’s rates.
Whilst the tenant is called upon to carry out the tenant improvements strictly in accordance with plans approved by the LANDLORD’s Design Review Committee, the requirements of the ASSOCIATION and the eThekwini Municipality, is in itself not unusual but in context could prove to be fraught with barriers.
Assuming the temporary structure plans would be submitted to eThekwini for plan approval by DPDC then its usage plus such aspects as ventilation, glazing requirements etc. would have to be stated on the plan.

Without full compliance with SANS 10400 the plan would not be approved. This does not make logical sense unless of course DPDC would bypass all due process. In this event we could be blocked in obtaining plan approval for the improvements.

1. Nowhere is mention made of any time frames in the lease agreements or on the letter dated the 8th of June 2017 serving the official two months’ notice to vacate the current premises occupied by the three Clubs and PWC.

Whilst DPDC stated the tender notice is due to be issued shortly for the construction of the promenade, it raises the question as to why the urgency to construct this which offers no return on investment.

Even assuming we did sign the lease agreements and vacate the current premises on an undisclosed time frame, we could be destined to occupy the temporary premises for an indefinite period especially if the DPDC fails in its endeavours at any given point in time and to abandon the development, for example, the investor(s) pulling the plug, not unheard of.

1. It appears there is little thought being applied to the planning of the first phase of the proposed development and what we have been presented with displays an amateurish and a desperate attempt to try and shut the clubs down and save face for the DPDC and its investors who are most probably losing patience and applying pressure on DPDC to commence.

Unless the point is being missed the documents we were presented with by DPDC are transparent in their intent and we venture to suggest that any reasonably prudent business person would never pen a signature to the agreements in their current format whether it be for the PYC or in a personal capacity as an investor (not in this development!) or as a property developer.

1. And of course one of the most pertinent issues of all- how and by what mechanism did the land upon which the proposed PWC facility is to be constructed change from FREEHOLD to LEASEHOLD?

There is the question of a 2015 agreement that DUC Chairman, Cuane Hall, made a statement and referred to in a press statement that is consistently being hidden from the stakeholders.

To summarize, what we have here is fraught with danger for the stakeholders (the clubs) and the question must be asked, “Can the DPDC be so naive as to believe that we would be gullible enough to accept their proposals?”

In conclusion we remain hopeful that the DPDC will see fit to discuss the challenges with the clubs and ensure that both parties are satisfied with a final solution that will give security of tenure to the Clubs in harmony with the development itself.

PYC Gencom

FURTHER CONCERNS OF THE DURBAN PADDLE SKI CLUB

1. A further concern for the Durban Paddle Ski club is the factthat they have not been given new leases to sign as the other clubs have. This is a clear indication that the developers are not complying with the agreement they signed in 2012 in which it clearly states that the paddle ski club will become part of Point Watersports. Although this issue is currently under arbitration, both DUC and the Durban Ski Boat Club are still refusing to accept the paddle ski club as an equal party within Point Watersports, despite having agreed in writing to accommodating them on a “fair and equitable basis”. The paddle ski club is thus expected to vacate its premises while they have no guarantee of being accepted in the new sites by the two above-mentioned clubs or of their tenure by the Landlord. This of course is totally unacceptable.

 

2. From the Durban Paddle Ski Club’s point of view, and in emphasis of what has been said above, the fact thatFreehold rights to extremely valuable property on the Durban beachfront have mysteriously been exchanged for onerous leasehold rights, without the various clubs members being aware of this, is to say the least alarming. It would appear that this might have taken place when the so-called “directors” of a PWC which they registered as a company without the knowledge of their members, may have agreed to an amendment during the course of the 2015. The chairman of DUC, Cuane Hall, has previously alluded to an amendment to the Memorandum of Agreement having taken place in 2015. Despite copies of this “agreement/amendment” having been called for several times by our attorneys and others we have been denied access to this document. This has been deliberately hidden from us. Why? How can we trust the present leaders of the DUC and Durban Ski Boat Club if this is what they are leading their clubs and its members into, without their members even having knowledge of all of this? No Special General Meetings to deal with the momentous decisions and never raised at AGM’s. In fact it was never tabled or voted upon in any manner. This clandestine behaviour is in our view unacceptable.

 

3. Even if these most questionable leases were worthy of consideration and possible negotiation, (any real security of tenure under these leases being highly dubious) whatremains amajor point of concern forthe Durban Paddle Ski club is the fact that they have not been given new leases to sign as the other clubs have. This indicates that the developers, seemingly in collusion with the current leadership of DUC and the Durban Ski Boat Club, are not complying with the agreement the developers signed and bound themselves to in 2012. This Settlement Agreement, which also put an end to the small craft harbour for the benefit of the entire boating fraternity, clearly states that the Paddle Ski Club will become part of Point Watersports.

 

4. Although currently under arbitration (at immense legal cost to the respective DUC and Ski Boat Clubs and no immediate costs to PYC and the Paddle Ski Club), both DUC and the Durban Ski Boat Club continue to play the game as if the Paddle Ski Club is not an equal party within Point Watersports. This, in the face of having agreed in writing to accommodate them on a “fair and equitable basis”. In conflict however with their real intentions and the way in which they are excluding the Paddle Ski Club from any engagement in other meetings they are holding, both chairman of the DUC and Durban Ski Boat Club are on record as having included the Durban Paddle Ski Club into their PWC format. For instance Mr Hilton Kidger is recorded in one of his newsletters as saying the following in paragraph 4 of “Summary of the General Meeting held at the Durban Ski Boat Club on 6/2/2017:”

The PWC was approached by the DPDC to accommodate the PSC within the structure.It was agreed that the PWC “would endeavour to accommodate the PSC within the PWC on a fair and reasonable basis”. This will happen in the same way that the other three clubs will retain their identity and constitution. In some of the media, commentary has suggested that the DUC and DSBC are opposed to this inclusion. This is nonsense! They will be accommodated even though they were not part of the 2008 agreement.

 

Mr Hall is on record as having made similar statements, all of which are blatantly contradicted by the stance of their Clubs in the arbitration proceedings as well as their actions in negotiating with the developer, statements made by them from time to time and their attempts to negotiate with PYC.

 

5. Mr Kidger is in any event wrong on the issue of the 2008 agreement because the Paddle Ski Club has indeed become a party to this agreement through the Settlement Agreement of 2012. It continues to astound us that neither the leadership of DUC and the Durban Ski Boat Club nor the DPDC under this new company the UEM (the developers) are aware or have bothered to make themselves aware of this.

 

6. Only as recently as 17 July 2016, in an official letter to our attorney, both DUC and the Ski Boat club stated“The Durban Paddle Ski Club is one of the four founding pillars of PWC.”And yet today in all their correspondence they are still referring toPWC being made of three clubs and ignoring the paddle ski Club as if it does not exist.

 

7. Yet in the face of all this thePaddle Ski Club is expected to meekly vacate its premiseswhilst it has no guarantee of any tenure by either the above mentioned clubs or the Landlord. Not very likely. This is patently wrong, unacceptable and defensible in law. If there is not going to be transparency and open good faith, as expressed above, the current state of affairs can only lead, yet again, to prolonged and very expensive litigation, to the detriment of us all. We so desperately wish to avoid this. But we shall do so only once we are certain of being able to protect the rights of our Club and its members.

 

8. We as the Paddle Ski Club strongly contend thatthis is all actually so very unnecessary. The more so when one considers the sacrifices and efforts made as well as money spent over so many years in litigation with the developer (then under Mr Brink) by the Durban Paddle Ski Club, and the Save Vetch’s Association in saving Vetch’s Beach from being destroyed by the proposed small craft harbour. Laying a foundation to what could have been so good for us all. Throughout our long struggle we received no support at all from the other Clubs, nothing but scorn and criticism from DUC and the Durban Ski Boat Club and their elected leaders, even though these two clubs have benefited substantially and materially from the Paddle Ski Club’s and SVA’s efforts. For how much longer can these two clubs continue allowingtheir members to live on in blind ignorance and carrying on enjoying the fruits of the Paddle Ski Club’s efforts, whilst actively still trying to exclude it from taking its rightful place in a harmonious PWC, a PWC made up of good and trustworthy people genuinely striving for the ultimate benefit of all of our watersports lovers?

 

Durban Paddle Ski Club Committee

_______________________________________________________________________

From: ToThePoint [mailto:info=pyc.co.za@mail167.suw16.rsgsv.net] On Behalf Of ToThePoint
Sent: 06/02/2017 8:26 AM
To: karin@words-out.co.za
Subject: “Open Forum Meeting” message from Craig Millar

Dear PYC, DUC, DSBC and DPSC members

Thank you to the hundreds of you that attended the open forum meeting in the PYC beach site dinghy park on Thursday night. To those of you that did not attend, I urge you to speak to someone that did and to update yourself as quickly as possible.
I want to be clear at the outset, that this document is not a broad condemnation or slagging of the members of the DUC and Durban ski boat club (DSBC). It is quite the opposite. We are all water people and share the values of those in Water sports. We live in a country riddled with corruption and avoidance of transparency and due processes. This is a call to you all to please hold your leaders accountable to transparency in the decisions that they are making on your behalf.  I include myself in this. This is critical to the survival of water sports at Vetch’s beach.
There is too much detail to recap from Thursday night in this broadcast. However — I will summarise only some of the reasons why you must please ask questions:

1. Four clubs have equal rights to exist in a proposed new development. The leaders of the DUC and the DSBC, for no explained or apparent logical reason, aim to deprive the Durban Paddle Ski Club (DPSC) of this right, despite their enormous sacrifice to save Vetch’s beach for all of us. The PYC supports our friends at the DPSC 100% in their rights to equal inclusion in any future development.
2. The DPSC and the PYC have been excluded from negotiations and perhaps agreements with the developer, by the leaders of the DUC and the DSBC whilst they, or possibly only DUC and its chairman, have illegally continued negotiating with the developer without PYC and DPSC being appraised of the nature of their dealings.
3. Both the DUC and the DSBC are holding “Special General Meetings” on Monday night. Both are asking you, the members, for what amounts to blank cheque mandates to make any decisions on your behalf.
4. They are also asking you to retrospectively ratify any decisions they have made, without you having any idea what they have done. By agreeing to this blanket ratification, you are breaking your club constitutions and unwittingly being used to ratify any private agenda.
5. Neither club is following their own constitutional procedures to achieve this vote. The DSBC has for several months and up until yesterday, in fact removed its constitution from its website stating it is “currently being amended”. NO Changes can have legally taken place without specific resolutions being passed at an SGM or AGM.
6. “Proxy votes” are being called for which are extremely difficult to vet (If you wish to have a copy of either constitution please contact the PYC office.)
7. If the DUC and DSBC leaders receive the mandate that they seek, they would have it in their power, should they so decide on a given day, to dissolve both clubs. You could then no longer even cite the requirements of the constitutions, as the clubs will no longer exist.
8. Your club assets will be placed in a COMPANY posing as a club.
9. For your information, any resolution passed at an SGM must be written in full, circulated with the notice of meeting; it must include a motivation and can only be accepted in its original format. For obvious good reason, no properly constituted club will allow a blanket mandate to any individual ever.

The PYC has no wish to disrupt the development, however due to the hostile, clandestine and unprofessional actions by the leaders of the DUC and DSBC, we will have no option but to bring the development to a halt, to safeguard the rights of PYC and DPSC members whose rights are being trampled. The PYC and DPSC want no more than what was promised in the 2008 agreement in harmony with the DUC and DSBC.

Sincerely
Craig Millar

____________________________________________________________

From: Water Rat [mailto:savevetchies@gmail.com]
Sent: 05/02/2017 8:47 AM
To: undisclosed-recipients:
Subject: DUC and DSBC – SGM’s 06 February

The MOI is endorsed with the words ‘amended by Barkers – 01.02.2017’. Therefore, in accordance with the club’s constitution, it cannot be voted on at tomorrows meeting as it has not been presented to the membership within the 14 day time frame.

MOI reads :
 Notice reads :

Constitution reads :

________________________________________________________________________  

From: Water Rat [mailto:savevetchies@gmail.com]
Sent: 04/02/2017 8:42 AM
To: undisclosed-recipients:
Subject: DUC and DSBC – SGM’s 06 February

Just a reminder that these meetings will take place on Monday and I both urge you to attend and consider the following:

a) The 3 M’s.

1.MOU – 2008 : The Clubs and the DPDC.

DPDC agrees to sell the clubs a piece of land on which to build the “Point Watersports Clubs”.

2.The MOA – 2013 : The PYC and DUC.

The PYC and DUC enter into an arrangement where the DUC runs the day to day affairs of the 2 clubs, combining their facilities and spaces.

3.THE MOI – to be discussed on Monday.

This draft agreement has not yet been finalized and, I understand, has recently been heavily edited.

It proposes that the clubs forego their right to freehold land and envisages that the DPDC will build the shell of a joint club house to be situated below the still to be planned and built walkway which will extend the promenade from the foot of uShaka Pier to the North breakwater. This clubhouse will be leased to a “Company” which will run it on behalf of the 4 Clubs.

b) The need to be flexible and open to negotiation is important if we are to secure our rights to access to Vetch’s Beach. However I believe that we should:

• Never lose focus of the fundamental difference between owning the land and clubhouse,versus leasing it.
• Remember that our rights are already secured by the 2008 MOA and the 2012 Save Vetch’s Association’s settlement agreement with the DPDC. Why tamper with these without having full details of acceptable alternatives ?
• Not rush into any agreement that does not first provide plans – or at the very least architectural renders – of the proposed club, an indication of the costs, how ski boats, beach cats, rib’s, paddleskis and sailing dinghies will access the beach to launch and where vehicles and trailers will be parked.
• Carefully consider the implications of our clubhouse being run by a company rather than by the sporting clubs.

c) Recent examples of the dangers faced by clubs are the recent eviction orders served on the Knysna Angling Club and Mossell Bay Yacht Club.

The Mossell Bay Yacht Club. http://www.sabc.co.za/news/a/51a2d0004f47458a897df95d9cc72cdd/Clubundefinedclosureundefinedtoundefinedaffectundefinedtourism-20161012

Knysna Angling Club. http://www.knysnaplettherald.com/news/News/General/161097/Knysna-angling-club-evicted

The Durban Model Yacht Club faced a similar fate which was only averted after a struggle with the city.   http://www.drbc.co.za/id17.htm

You may recall the following article which was published in The Mercury in 2013. This is an indication of how far vision has departed from the current 2008 MOA.

“Tuesday Jul 23, 2013

Watersports clubs want clarity on Durban Point property development

Another row is simmering over Durban’s Point Waterfront upgrade with concerns that in its revised plan, the development company has broken a deal it had with the watersports clubs by including a swimming beach and public promenade in front of their site.

An artist’s impression of the Point Waterfront Development.

The deal was brokered last year between the Save the Vetch’s Association, the Durban Paddle Ski Club and the Durban Point Development Company, bringing an end to what had already been lengthy litigation stalling any development in the area.

Now in submissions on the recently released revised plan, Michael Jackson, the lawyer acting for the association and the club, has taken issue with the siting of a promenade and jetties below the erosion line, which will hinder access to the beach by vehicles with boats and trailers.

He says while he hopes the concerns are ‘unfounded’ and based on ‘misunderstandings’, he suggests that unless they are resolved, the deal could be off.

Cuane Hall, the chairman of the Durban Undersea Club, has echoed similar concerns. He told The Mercury: ‘The promenade cannot happen and will not happen. We have voiced our concerns and we will keep voicing them until it goes away.’

Jackson, in his written submission in the environmental approval process for the revised plan, says his clients fully support a development consistent with the settlement agreement, which must be complied with.

‘The litigation which preceded it was motivated by the strongly held belief that the Vetch’s Beach is iconic to Durban and the way of life enjoyed by its citizens.

‘The agreement accommodated both development and the beachcentred lifestyle. It is of fundamental importance this is not destroyed but is rather captured and celebrated,’ he says.

In terms of the agreement the entire beach zone was to be a launch zone.

‘Placing a public walkway directly across it from north to south would be both dangerous (to pedestrians) and in our clients’ view nonsensical,’ he says.

Further, by placing the promenade so close to the sea it exposed it to severe storms and damage, with debris strewn on the beach and reef which would in turn cause damage to craft.

He said it appeared the operational launch zone was only 153m long, whereas it was the intention of the settlement agreement that the entire beach zone of about 300m could be used for launching.

The Durban Undersea Club is still formulating its written response. But Hall said the issue of the swimming beach and the promenade ‘keeps popping up’ and he believed it was an attempt by the Point precinct developers to appease the city which wanted a promenade along the entire beachfront.

‘We are not happy with it and we have raised it in our negotiations. We are not sure what is intended by a promenade, whether it is just a walkway as exists now. We are also not happy with the appearance of a swimming beach when it is an operational beach,’ he said.

Coastwatch KZN, while finding some improvements in the new plan, has raised similar concerns about the siting of the promenade.

And the South Durban Community Environmental Alliance predicts that the promenade will be ‘consumed by the relentless forces of the sea’.

It has also expressed concern about the impact of a slipway allowing direct access to the canal which would place at risk its marine ecological system.

‘Neighbouring Sea World has been stocking the canal with various marine species including kingfish, spotted grunter, lionfish, mullet and parrotfish. Successful breeding is occurring and it has become a tourist attraction in its own right,’ the alliance said.

The Mercury”

 ___________________________________________

Independent on Saturday – 4 February 2017

_______________________________________________________

PYC Invitation to Open Forum Meeting of 2 February 2017

___________________________________________________________

Past Events

Two of the occupants of the precinct – the Point Yacht Club and the Durban Undersea Club – went to the Durban High Court after the Durban Undersea Club sought an interdict on Thursday to stop members of the yacht club from building a wall separating the two clubs.The two clubs are part of the proposed Point Water Sports Club that will be built by the city. The clubs had operated separately on city beachfront land, but the Durban Undersea Club and Point Yacht Club set up a joint clubhouse in terms of an agreement between them and the city in 2013.In terms of the agreement, the Durban Undersea Club would run the main restaurant and public facilities, while the individual clubs would be responsible for their sporting activities, until the construction of the Point Water Sports Club takes place.However, a dispute arose between the two clubs over the use of membership fees and the operation of the restaurant, which excluded certain races. It became the scene of protests organised by the ANC Youth League last January.The dispute went to arbitration, which failed. The Point Yacht Club then decided to rebuild a boundary wall between the two clubs. After building materials were delivered to the Point Yacht Club side of the clubhouse last week, the Durban Undersea Club went to court on Friday to stop the wall from being built.In the court papers, Durban Undersea Club secretary Leigh Phillips said that the club – which had operated on the premises for 65 years and had more than 3 200 members – had spent R3.5 million on renovations to join the two clubhouses and to upgrade the kitchen and restaurant area. Thirty permanent and 10 casual staff had been employed.Phillips said the Point Yacht Club had become “frustrated” with the process and decided to “take the law into its own hands” and build a wall between the two clubs. “[This] would be akin to resolving a dispute between the passengers on a ship at sea by sawing the ship in half,” he said.In addition, building a wall would deny the Durban Undersea Club access to the main kitchen, which is on the Point Yacht Club side of the facility, Phillips said, saying that it would also prevent the Durban Undersea Club from running its restaurants, which are a major source of income.

In his response, the Point Yacht Club asked the court to strike the application for an interdict off the court roll.

Point Yacht Club commodore Craig Millar said in papers that while the yacht club had agreed to hold on building the wall when it was informed of the Durban Undersea Club’s application, the agreement between the clubs had been violated by the Durban Undersea Club.

Millar said that the Durban Undersea Club had pulled out of an arbitration hearing earlier this year, forcing the Point Yacht Club to decide to rebuild a wall behind its clubhouse.

He accused Durban Undersea Club chairperson Cuane Hall of attempting to manipulate the agreement to build a “superclub” and secure control of the future precinct.

______________________________________________________________________

From: Water Rat [mailto:savevetchies@gmail.com]
Sent: 15/12/2016 9:40 AM
To: undisclosed-recipients:
Subject: An Open Letter to the members of the clubs situated at Vetch’s Beach

An Open Letter to the members of the clubs situated at Vetch’s Beach. 

If you we’re under the impression that all is well at Vetch’s Beach you are, sadly, mistaken. 

In 2008 the Point Yacht Club, Durban Undersea and Durban Ski Boat Clubs signed a Memorandum of Agreement with the Durban Point Development Company, setting out the terms for their future tenure at the Point Precinct. This would see the clubs being housed in one common building under the umbrella of a body to be named the “Point Watersports Clubs”. Under this arrangement the clubs would maintain their individual identities to pursue their diverse interests.  

In 2012 the Save Vetch’s Association and Paddleski Club signed a settlement agreement with the DPCC, thereby saving the beach from destruction. 

This heralded in a period of relative peace and harmony, so much so that the PYC and Duc entered into what was hoped would be a mutually beneficial arrangement, by merging the operations of their 2 club houses. 

Regretfully this was short lived. The Duc and Dsbc, have decided that the terms of the agreement signed with the Dpcc in 2008, no longer suit them. It is their preference to form one ‘super’ club to cater for all watersports activities. This defies logic as it will impossible for one club to cater for such diverse activities, ranging from sun tanning, underwater hockey, surf ski paddling, ski boat fishing, scuba diving, paddle ski fishing to sailing. 

This has resulted in relations between the PYC, who prefers to maintain the terms of the official agreement with the DPCC, and the Duc / Dsbc alliance who don’t, becoming strained to the point of breaking. 

Matters have been further exacerbated by the fact that the Royal Natal Yacht Club, whose members have previously chosen to have no involvement with the facilities at Vetch’s Beach and were tacit supporters of building a Small Craft Harbour at Vetch’s, would now like to avail itself of the PYC’s facilities. Instead of joining with the Point Yacht Club, the club that has over the last 50 years made huge efforts to develop, maintain and protect the facility, Royal Natal has preferred to gain access by other means. To members of the PYC this smacks of a crass act imperialism. 

The current status quo is that only the PYC, and erstwhile ‘bad boys’ the SVA and PSC, are abiding by agreements that they have signed with the DPCC, an organization that is 50% owned by the City. This agreement was reached after a torturous negotiation process and is one that, if respected, will benefit the entire water sports community and Durban’s public. 

In light of these developments I urge all members of the clubs situated at Vetch’s to familiarize themselves with the actions of their club leaders in order to ensure that these are consistent with both the members desires, the mandates given to them and current agreements their clubs have in place with the DPCC. 

The Water Rat.

________________________________________________________________________

From: ToThePoint [mailto:info=pyc.co.za@mail137.suw18.rsgsv.net] On Behalf Of ToThePoint
Sent: 28/11/2016 12:36 PM
To: karin@words-out.co.za
Subject: Important Meeting

**IMPORTANT NOTICE**

To All Point Yacht Club Members

We are calling for an urgent meeting of all members at an open forum discussion regarding the challenges that we face and our relationship with other clubs and sailing authorities. The PYC’s rights are continuing to be compromised by dishonourable actions and unethical behaviour. I believe that PYC members must always act with honour and integrity, however as a club, we must decide where we stand in relation to these hostile actions and agree on how to deal with these threats to our club.

If you really care about the PYC and its future, please attend and have your say.

The meeting will take place in the Islander room at the bay-side facility at 17h30 on this Friday 02 December.

Sincerely

Craig Millar

____________________________________________________________________

The Mercury  – 21 October 2015: Developers seek ‘rates holiday’
(Debt-ridden Point company)

12 August 2015 – Closing date for submission of The Planning Initiative response forms

The Mercury  – 7 August 2015: Point watersport clubs are open to all (Your Views)
Dave Southwick

The Mercury  – 6 August 2015: Writer fails to consider purpose of clubs (Your Views)
M Taylor

The Mercury  – 6 August 2015: Moodley’s racist rhetoric has no basis (Your Views)
P Cescutti

The Mercury  – 5 August 2015: Elitist whites being subsidised by blacks (Your Views)
Kris Moodley

The Mercury  – 5 August 2015: Initiatives that don’t get off the ground (Your Views)
Tony Ball

The Mercury  – 5 August 2015: North Coast Bonanza? (The Idler)
http://www.pressreader.com/south-africa/the-mercury/20150805/281848642318398/TextView

4 August 2015:  SAVE OUR BEREA MONSTER MEETING 3

The Mercury – 4 August 2015: Letters page – Many Problems at Point development
G Jansen

The Mercury – 3 August 2015: Skyscrapers fears for Durban beachfront /
No room to store boats at new Point Waterfront
Tony Carnie
http://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/kwazulu-natal/skyscrapers-fears-for-durban-beachfront-1.1894502#.VcBGlfnzrZ5

Sunday Tribune – 2 August 2015: Residents feud over Point plan
Lungani Zungu
http://www.iolproperty.co.za/roller/news/entry/durban_residents_feud_over_point

Independent on Saturday – 1 August 2015: Developing Point still contentious
Duncan Guy
http://www.pressreader.com/south-africa/the-independent-on-saturday/20150801/281612419110730/TextView

Friday 31 July 2015:  6 – 8 PM.  Public information meeting – Botanic Gardens Visitors Center.

Thursday 30 July 2015:  Notice of Public Information Meeting on 31 July.

The Berea Mail 23 July 2015:  Residents cry foul over Point Development open day
Lorna Charles
http://bereamail.co.za/60521/residents-cry-foul-over-point-development-open-day/

The Mercury 21 July 2015: The right course
Editorial
http://www.pressreader.com/south-africa/the-mercury/20150721/281797102684617/TextView

The Mercury 21 July 2015: The Street-shelter for the over-40s gets mobilized!
The Big Difference – The Point
http://www.pressreader.com/south-africa/the-mercury/20150721/281745563077065/TextView

East Coast Radio 20 July 2015: Residents concerned over Durban rezoning plans
Khatija Nxedlana
http://www.ecr.co.za/post/residents-concerned-over-durban-rezoning-plans/

The Mercury 20 July 2015: Council Backs Down On Process
Point plan meeting is on
Nokuthula Ntuli
http://www.pressreader.com/south-africa/the-mercury/20150720/281479275103122/TextView

Sunday Tribune 19 July 2015:  Angry public threaten to halt Point development
Charmel Payet

18 July 2015: Open Day:  Proposed Rezoning
5 Timeball Boulevard

The Mercury 14 July 2015: A chance to air views on new Point proposals
Nokuthula Ntuli
http://www.pressreader.com/south-africa/the-mercury/20150714

The Mercury 10 June 2015: Draft Point Waterfront Development Plan
Tony Carney
http://www.pressreader.com/south-africa/the-mercury/20150610/281479275035043/TextView