Sir,
The long-awaited local by-laws, which were published by the Municipal Manager in terms of the Municipal Systems Act, Act 32 of 2000, have finally been been made available for comment by the public. Some of these by-laws will impact negatively on the local tourism business, especially the laws relating to the control of public nuisances.
A substantial number of local B&B and accommodation establishments in Dundee are run from their owners’ homes, which means that they have received consent to run businesses from their private residences. The by-laws now treat these private residences as business premises.
The definition of a B&B, as found on the website of Tourism Kwazulu-Natal, is ‘An informal, periodic accommodation operation undertaken from a private dwelling.’ The maximum number of guest bedrooms in a B&B is three. Any application received by the authorities for a B&B establishment with more than three bedrooms is automatically treated as a guesthouse.
Section 7 of the by-laws, more particularly pertaining to public nuisance, and in this case littering, read together with Section 8, which deals with the cleaning of sidewalks and verges, presents the first problem to B&Bs.
Subsection 8(a) now requires ‘…occupiers of any premises in, or on which there is carried on any business, occupation, trade or manufacturing, shall at all times… keep any sidewalk and verge abutting on or adjoining the premises, inluding the gutter and kerb, free of litter, and shall keep the sidewalk and verge in a clean and satisfactory state…’.
For tourism stakeholders and B&Bs in streets like Victoria and McKenzie this is easier said than done. The passing taxi trade litters prodigiously, with the illegal traders at the hospital entrance providing copious amounts of litter as well, which makes this provision almost imposible to comply with. Policing of these contraventions are non-existent, with the local SAPS definitely turning a blind eye to these infractions. The fact that all these B&Bs are actually residential premises, zoned as such, make these by-laws discriminatory in nature and application. Residential owners with B&Bs pay the same rates and taxes as their neighbours, but they cannot, like their neighbours, rely on the municipality to keep their streets clean, because they are regarded as businesses, and would now have to do it themselves, a fact which many deem unacceptable and unfair.
Section 19(2) may also give rise to confusion and different interpretations. If a B&B owner undertakes ‘building’ or ‘contract work’, as provided for in subsection 19(2)(a), to repair or maintain his or her business, would it be prohibited by subsection 19(2)(a)(i), that stipulates that ‘…such activity is not for or related to any business conducted from the private property…’.
This is still unclear, and it is also unclear how this section would be interpreted. Another glaring omission from the by-laws is the problem of loud music, and the accompanying consumption of alcohol, emanating from motor vehicles.
There is still no indication who the municipality’s ‘authorised official’ would be, and who would be policing this plethora of regulations. The indicated law enforcement officials, in this case the traffic police and the South African Police Service, are turning a blind eye to all these contraventions, and only act under public pressure.
The municipal traffic police is woefully understaffed to police these offences, and the SAPS simply ignores complaints of this nature. Complainants have reported over time that they were often harassed by police officers late at night, who were almost always ignorant of the laws they have to police.

JN Hamman