Page 66 - Bulletin 22 2019

63

cycle that could be self-correcting to some degree. As sand had been accumulating over the

past four years it was thought the cycle might be going into reverse at about that time.

The Council responded quickly to reassure the important Rand community that the beach
would be back to its usual pristine and safe state in time for the season. Part of the restoration

relied on working with the seasonal summer-winter cycle, plus the use of sand scoops drawn
by mules to drag sand down the beach to re-establish a smooth slope. In practice this

combination produced results and a few months later the beach had returned it to its normal

profile. (Figs. 2.34 – 2.37.) Council accepted that such beach management was going to be an
annual necessity in perpetuity and would cost around £1,000 / yr.

Mr TP Francis acknowledged that there could be other schemes that would increase the beach
area, such as demolishing the promenade and bathing boxes and building a new retaining

wall along the central axis of the sunken gardens. This would provide a larger area over
which wind-blown sand could be dispersed. But removing them and the pavilion was out of

the question given the huge sums that had just been spent on them, and also considering the
conditions that had existed in the backshore area prior to their construction. (Cape Times,

16/10/1934; Cape Argus, 2/8/1935.)

Muizenberg’s bathing boxes therefore produced contradictory outcomes: while inhibiting

wind-blown sand they also caused a steepened beach and dangerous bathing conditions.

A different problem confronted Mr AT Lotz, Manager of Bathing and Seaside Attractions,
throughout the 1930s. This was the “evil of promiscuous free bathing” about which he had

been warning since 1929. By this he meant the growing practice by car-owning families, now

coming to Muizenberg and other resorts in increasing numbers, of using their cars as bathing
boxes to change in instead of hiring a bathing box or using the pavilion facilities. They also

brought their own costumes and surf boards. In 1933 Lotz estimated that 87.5% of people

bathing on all the Council beaches did so free of charge. This was a ‘menace’ to the revenue
that should be accruing from the use of costly Council amenities. He proposed a user-charge

for either car-parking or access to certain portions of the beach, but the Cape Peninsula
Publicity Association protested that this was likely to drive people away to other beaches and

harm local business. He persisted with his views but Council failed to back him.