Page 85 - Bulletin 22 2019

82

The shortage of bathing box sites and the congestion in the pool, where over 1,000 bathers

were reported to be in the water on occasion, produced suggestions to develop nearby Danger
Beach, despite its notoriety arising from several drownings that had taken place there. In

1927 Mr AE Precious of the house Sandy Beach (now Sonnekus) recommended construction
of a pool of 100 ft or 125 ft or 150 ft width across the front of the beach, and 100 bathing

cubicles.

Although the IPC approved Precious’s idea wiser Council opinion put it on hold pending an

investigation into the need for pools elsewhere along this coast. The City Engineer reported
on this matter in August 1928. There were six possibilities: (i) enlarging Woolleys Pool and

erecting 11 concrete cubicles; £800; (ii) a new pool in the gulley opposite the house Disodi,

Kalk Bay; (£500); (iii) expanding Dalebrook sideways by 63 ft (£1,325), (which was done
around 1960); (iv) at Danger Beach a 150 ft pool plus 150 concrete cubicles; (£7,500); (v) at

St. James building a new adjoining pool 75 ft wide, raising the wall of the old one 18”, and
providing an additional row of bathing box sites; (£2,325); and (vi) at Bailey’s Beach a small

pool using the abandoned rail foundations near Rhodes’ Cottage – but this was rejected as
being too small and shallow to be viable. (Figs. 2.58 – 2.61.)

In 1933 the Danger Beach proposal was revived again, this time by Mr F French of Ley Road
who claimed this to be the finest beach on the False Bay coast. (Figs. 2.62 & 2.63.) His pencil

drawing on transparent paper showed a curved wall enclosing a semi-circular pool and
standing on the reef of rocks immediately in front of the subway exit. He was inspired by

something similar at Durban and thought it appropriate here. The KB–M Ratepayers
Association supported it but Council was luke-warm because of the huge recent investment

on the False Bay coast and believed there was no extreme urgency to provide anything at

Danger Beach. Further discussion on the matter was adjourned sine die, ie. indefinitely. At
this time Council was turning its attention to the Atlantic coast and the upgrading of Sea

Point pool and pavilion.

In 1936 Council made 10 more sites available at St. James but difficulties with the Minister

of Lands prevented them from being taken up. Presumably this was because they encroached
on the railway land beyond the fence-line?

Then the world war commenced and interest in new schemes here lapsed. During the post-