DA in Mossel Bay uses biodiversity regulations to squeeze residents out of their homes

In Mossel Bay, homeowners face steep new charges under a biodiversity offset scheme. The Strategic Biodiversity Offset Framework Plan (which can be read here), a five-part document drafted by consultants and endorsed by the local Democratic Alliance (DA)-led council and the provincial government, mandates annual levies of R30,000 to R138,000 on properties—on top of existing municipal rates—to fund conservation management. Landowners seeking development (which could include almost any form of construction including renovation of existing structures) must pay one-off offset fees of up to R3.5m.

Joe Emilio was the first person to break this as a news story, which is largely ignored by the newspapers.

The plan requires owners to rezone portions of their land as “Private Open Space II” conservation areas and transfer control to a master homeowners’ association (HOA), which doubles as a “biodiversity credit provider”. These measures, detailed in the document’s fifth part (pages 37, 41 and 60–62), aim to compensate for ecological impacts in the biodiverse Aalwyndal precinct, an urban expansion zone.

Such burdens exacerbate recent rate hikes: one resident’s monthly bill tripled from under R500 in 2012 to nearly R1,200 today. Zoning inconsistencies persist; some properties are listed as residential in certificates but agricultural in public notices, echoing 2017 administrative errors that unevenly applied rate increases.

According to the official plan, the residents are considered a fundamental obstacle to be cleared:

“Perhaps one of the most fundamental challenges is that core areas are currently under private ownership, with more than 70 individual landowners currently responsible for these areas. Portions of the target area are also currently zoned for residential use and as such, the area would need to be re-zoned and policed to prevent further encroachment into these areas. Effective coordination and cooperation across these landholdings will therefore be a challenge that will need to be addressed if effective management of these areas is to be secured. The proliferation of fences along property boundaries is already restricting movement of wildlife, whilst vehicles on roads and pets pose a risk to wildlife in the precinct. Implementation of measures for traffic calming and rationalization of fencing to allow connectivity for wildlife whilst managing security risks associated with increased accessibility are challenges that will need to be addressed. The opportunity does however exist to form a consolidated open space network that is a safe haven for wildlife and creates managed recreation and educational opportunities for residents.

[…] In this instance, landowners would retain ownership of their properties but would cede rights and responsibilities to another entity to manage on behalf of residents. As such, no costs have been assigned to this action. “

The municipality has thus made clear their intention to use coercive measures to force residents to give up control of their properties. In this case, the houses will no longer be saleable to other residents, and control over these decisions will be out of their hands. The report outlines the plan “to convince landowners of the benefits of pooling land [ownership]”. While in context, the paper argues that they could be convinced to play ball by referring to tax offsets, the mandated conservation levies outstrip the legislated tax offsets.

The report also mentions additional outlays that will be imposed on residents to manage wildfires, by making membership fees of special fire management organisations mandatory. They must also replace fencing, and a whole host of other expenses, as well as regulatory intrusions into the choices residents make in maintaining their private gardens, and include restrictions on pet ownership, including a total ban on dog walking.

Who will be allowed to scoop up ownership of this land remains to be seen, but the plan does not advocate for purchase by the municipality or state, and specifically , implying that they intend to find a private partner who will buy these properties currently being squeezed. No private party would do so without some compensation for their interests, which implies a corrupt relationship with a private developer.

Under South Africa’s Expropriation Act, conservation qualifies as a public interest, but formal notices are typically required. Here, planning documents impose rezoning, transfers and perpetual levies without such process, potentially forcing unaffordable owners to sell. With buyers deterred by the charges, property values may plummet, allowing developers to acquire land cheaply and consolidate holdings.

The irony stings in a DA stronghold, where the party champions property rights and clean governance—boasting seven clean audits in nine years. Yet pensioners and long-term holders, many on smallholdings bought decades ago, bear the brunt. Conservation is vital, but outsourcing its costs via consultants’ 400-page reports, rather than general taxation, risks dispossession. Public objections close on September 22nd; approval could set a precedent for similar “green” seizures nationwide.