Fight over tourism development in the Cederberg

The semi-completed building on Trekkloof farm in the Cederberg. This unlawful construction was halted, pending an application for the non-submission of plans and an environmental impact assessment. Photo: John Yeld.

• The Cederberg Conservancy, which represents 20 landowners managing 170,000 hectares, has been criticised for taking a neutral stance on unlawful construction.
• Anton Kok started construction of tourism facilities on Trekkloof farm in late 2022 without building plans or environmental authorisation.
• The provincial Department of Environmental Affairs fined Kok R625,000 but later reduced this to R125,000, citing his membership of the Cederberg Conservancy as one of the reasons for the reduction.
• Critics say this sets a dangerous precedent, giving licence for future developments to flout the law and the rules of the Conservancy.

For the past three years, tensions have been rising over the construction of a large tourism facility on Trekkloof farm in the heart of the Cederberg mountains in the Western Cape. These past two months, matters have come to a head, with debate raging over what is an appropriate tourism development in the Cederberg wilderness area, and the obligations of, and cooperation between, landowners and conservationists.

Debate peaked when a R625,000 administrative fine levied on Trekkloof owner Anton Kok for unlawfully starting construction without building plans or obtaining required environmental authorisations was reduced to just R125,000.

The issue escalated because Trekkloof is a paid-up member of the Cederberg Conservancy, which has decided to remain neutral.

Constituted in 1997 as a voluntary agreement between landowners to manage the environment in a sustainable manner, the Conservancy represents 20 landowners whose properties collectively total 170,000 hectares in the central Cederberg area.

Clause 19 of the organisation’s constitution states: “Membership may be terminated if a member … fails to comply with agreed guidelines applied within the Conservancy [and/or] is convicted of a violation of environmental and development legislation.”

Kok initiated his project in late 2022.

A year later, on 25 August 2023, he addressed a letter to Conservancy members and “fellow custodians of the Cederberg”, saying they were probably aware that he had started construction of a building without submitting the required plans.

One of the owners of neighbouring Shunyata property had approached him and expressed strong objections to the construction and to his proposals for its subsequent use, he explained.

One of Shunyata’s co-owners is Karoline Hanks, well-known Noordhoek environmentalist who with her partner Filippo Faralla (both members of the Conservancy) have been leading the charge in opposing the unlawful development. Faralla has filed several objections with the provincial Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning (DEADP).

Kok said in his letter that because of Hanks and Faralla’s objections, he had decided to submit plans to the Cederberg Municipality. The municipality in turn referred him to independent consultants who determined that the project triggered a Section 24G application under the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) for condonation and rectification of the unlawful development.

“This whole process is being done totally transparently and in public,” his letter stated in Afrikaans.

Two years later, on 29 August 2025, and after two rounds of public participation, DEADP issued Kok with the R625,000 fine, reduced to R125,000 and payable before his application for condonation could be processed.

He paid the amount on 26 September.

Bad precedents

The objectors are irked that Trekkloof’s membership of both the Cederberg Conservancy and the smaller Rooi Cederberg Karoo Park is cited in the province’s explanation for reducing the fine.

The decision by DEADP’s Head of Rectification reads: “I have considered the deviation criteria, as well as the representations put forward by [Trekkloof]. The applicant is an active member of the Cederberg Conservancy and follows their guidelines for tourism and environmental care and management, as well as the fact that Trekkloof is also a member of the Red Cederberg Karroo Park. Taking all the merits of the application into consideration, I agree with the fine committee’s recommendation that the calculated fine amount of R625,000 be deviated to a reduced administrative fine amount of R125,000.”

The reduction of the fine has been widely condemned, and critics include Martin Hutton-Squire, a retired planner by profession. He describes the reduction as “an insult to all those who do so much to maintain the Cederberg as a special place”.

Faralla wrote in one of his objections that “such a small fine sends a deeply troubling message to all land owners and the general public that such illegal actions can be ‘rectified’ by the payment of a 4% [of the total project cost] fine”.

Cartographer, author and conservationist Peter Slingsby has also spoken out about the Trekkloof controversy and what he sees as the “hands-off” manner of the Conservancy, accusing it of “a complete lack of comment or censure” and arguing that its silence suggests approval or lack of any real care or concern.

“The illegal nature of the building and its massively negative impact upon the quiet rural corner in which it is situated, its impact upon surrounding communities as well as the insult to the visual senses of visitors to the area combine to deserve the censure of any body claiming to be concerned with environmental conservation.”

Slingsby is concerned that the Conservancy’s failure to act is setting a precedent, giving carte blanche to anyone to act illegally against the Cederberg environment without incurring its censure.

Conservancy defends neutral stance

On 30 September, the day after the fine was levied, Conservancy chair Jannie Nieuwoudt sent a letter to all members, reminding them that Kok’s unlawful development activities on Trekkloof had already been discussed at a meeting two years earlier, on 23 August 2023, where the Conservancy’s viewpoint had been agreed to.

This had involved two elements: “While the Conservancy respects the rights of landowners to develop their properties, it emphasises that such development must comply with environmental legislation and be sensitive to the ecological character of the region.

“The Conservancy clarified that it is an interested party – not an affected party – in this matter, and therefore will not become involved in disputes or enforcement actions relating to private property. Accordingly, the Conservancy and its management will not take any further steps regarding this issue.”

However, after several members expressed concern about this apparent contradiction, a special meeting was called on 5 October to discuss Trekkloof. Kok was among those present and spoke.

The unratified minutes of this meeting state: “The meeting focused on a long-standing environmental issue involving Anton’s development project, which included a fine for administrative violations. Anton explained that he had paid the fine and undergone a rigorous three-and-a-half-year process, including public consultations and mitigation measures, as required by law … Anton assured them that all issues had been addressed in the Section 24G process.”

To the dismay of some members, the Conservancy then effectively closed ranks behind Kok without formulating any resolutions about Trekkloof, agreeing instead to review its own constitution at its next meeting in December.

Nieuwoudt defends Kok, insisting that he’s an active paid-up member of the Conservancy who agrees with all its objectives, guidelines and activities, and he defends the Conservancy’s decision not to become involved, saying it has to deal with facts, not opinions.

“At the end of the day, our approach is that this is a municipal problem and people have misunderstood the administrative fine that was imposed on [Kok] as part of his Section 24G application. It’s between him and the authorities, and there’s no way that we as the Conservancy are going to get involved with the process. We also never get involved in personal matters ­– we don’t have the capacity or the authority.”

Nieuwoudt also rejects concerns that the Conservancy will be discredited by its refusal to take sides in the Trekkloof dispute.

“We have something special here, 170,000 hectares, give or take. We managed it for 30 years as a Conservancy, without any help or funding from outside and therefore we must protect the community spirit in the Conservancy and treat our members with respect – that’s why we’re neutral.”

Provincial government to adjudicate

The focus has now switched to Western Cape environment MEC Anton Bredell who must adjudicate the formal objections by Faralla both to the amount of the fine and to the acceptance of Trekkloof’s Section24G application.

If Bredell approves this application, his department must then investigate the case and, if deemed appropriate, issue a formal Environmental Authorisation for the development.

But such an EA will also be subject to appeal, again to Bredell, for adjudication.

Support independent journalism
Donate using Payfast