Double standards apply to Mpunza Hill forest

A WHILE ago I approached the uMhlathuze Municipality with an application to lease a small piece of greenbelt running alongside my simplex.

My application was turned down, reason being that the greenbelt in question is a supposedly protected area, apparently a part of the indigenous forest, which was also the explanation for the lack of clearing and general maintenance of this little strip of grass (which is incidentally running between our complex and the back of a row of houses circling a cul-de-sac).

A few years ago, this area was mown regularly, trees trimmed and it was kept neat and tidy. Now it is used as an access point to the forested area behind our complex, a dumping ground and we have to keep the grass mown and trim the trees ourselves.

There is a lovely little stream running down the greenbelt and into the forest, which is choked up with rubbish, grass, weeds and goodness knows what else.

We are prepared to clear this and keep it clean at our own costs.

In the evenings and during the night, you can smell wood fires and clouds of smoke hang over the forest, not to mention a steady stream of people stomping past into the forest.

My point is, there are so many squatters decimating the forest, why are we, as nature lovers who are prepared to assist, not given the opportunity to save the municipality money and do our bit to clear up and conserve the area?

Yes, it will increase our little back garden but no, it won’t increase the property value as it would never belong to us.

It would be a win-win situation, but it was turned down based on frankly laughable reasons.

I don’t see any effort being made to stop the growing informal settlement in the forest, which begs the question: If I decided to defy the municipality and enclose the portion of the greenbelt as requested, would I also be left alone or would they take action?

LIANNE