Page 246 - Bulletin 8 2004

243

The Beach

In 1920, shortly after the first sale of plots, the first controversy over the beach arose.
This revolved around 21 plots that had been laid out between the seaward beacons of

1818 and the highwater mark, where the bathing boxes stand today. A local resident, Mr.

“Bull” Pritchard, who worked in the office of the Surveyor-General, recognised the legal
problems associated with this part of the sub-division which was described in the sales

notice (see Fig. 5.5) in the following words:

A number of plots on the foreshore, some of the finest near the sea and
constituting the cream of the estate are included in this sale.

A number of lots most conveniently situated facing the new railway station

and 21 very choice lots situated on the sea-side of the new railway line are
also included.

From living memory it was known that the old high tide line lay west of the railway line
and so all land east of the line was technically foreshore (ie. the land between high and

low water marks) and belonged to the State. But the eastern boundary of the Farm had
been defined in 1818 by a straight line running between one peg at the Clovelly end of

the beach and another at the Fish Hoek end, and in doing this had cut across the curve of
the bay placing the Farm boundary effectively below the highwater mark and enlarging

the extent of developable land belonging to the Estate. On the other hand, the coast had

changed during the century just passed as the dunes had been stabilised and the
Silvermine River had altered its course each year. The highwater mark now, in fact, lay

eastward of its 1818 position and this changed the position and extent of the foreshore.
The Fish Hoek ratepayers mobilised to prevent the historic foreshore from being built

upon and a notice appeared in the press, at the same time as the sales notice, warning
prospective buyers of possible legal proceedings against them. (Fig. 5.9). The Estate, on

the other hand, prepared to challenge this.