“There should be a balance between the security needs of the suburb’s residents and the freedom to use public spaces.”

Jody Kollapen (South African Human Rights Commission)

Contents

• Introduction
• What is an Enclosed Neighbourhood?
• Restricted Access Communities in South Africa
• Perceived Advantages and Disadvantages
• The Main Issues in the Debate
• Local Government Policies on Restricted Access Communities
• Alternative Community Safety Measures

Introduction

Many local governments across South Africa are facing increased requests from communities for permission to close off roads and erect booms to restrict access to residential areas. Local authorities have adopted different policies in this regard. There are advantages and disadvantages to restricting access to suburbs and there is no clear-cut solution.Countries across the world are debating the pros and cons of enclosed communities. The extent to which South Africans are exploring this option is evidenced by the fact that the fifth international conference on gated communities will be hosted in South Africa by the CSIR in 2005. Most of this level of attention is focussed on the spatial development questions posed by enclosed communities and their implications for local government planning.

This article is directed not at policy makers but at people living in communities who may be considering restricting access to their neighbourhood. The article aims:

• To provide information to allow residents to make informed decisions.
• To clarify the legal situation.
• To identify alternative methods of increasing neighbourhood security.

What is an Enclosed Neighbourhood?

This refers to a situation where access to an existing neighbourhood has been restricted by placing barriers across entry points. It does not include security villages that were designed and built to restrict access to privately owned property.For an example of what restricting access to a neighbourhood means in practise we can look to the Gallo Manor community in Johannesburg. There the residents have introduced the following measures:

• Metal-spike fencing around the area
• Only five roads into the area remain open, the rest are closed off
• The remaining roads are closed by booms which are manned by security guards
• At night only two roads are open

In return residents pay a monthly fee of R110 which also covers the cost of having a private security car patrol the area.

Restricted Access Communities in South Africa

Communities across the country are considering restricting access to their neighbourhoods as a means of increasing security. Most restricted access communities are in Gauteng but communities in smaller towns are also exploring this option. Local authorities in 20 cities and town across South Africa indicated to the CSIR that they have received requests from communities for road closures.

The main reason communities are interested in limiting access to their homes is to increase security. Many South Africans do not feel safe in their homes at night. Institute for Security Studies (ISS) research has shown that 65.2% of Johannesburg residents feel unsafe in their homes at night compared to 42.5% in Cape Town.

Interviews with residents in communities that have limited access to their communities indicate that many people feel that government is unable to provide measures to reduce crime in the short-term. This has led people to be proactive about protecting themselves through a variety of measures, including physical barriers to prevent strangers from entering their homes and their communities.

In the past, these measures were limited to burglar bars, walls and security systems. It is becoming increasingly popular, however, for communities to build fences around the entire neighbourhood and erect booms manned by security guards to limit the number of people entering the area.

The City of Johannesburg conducted a survey in 2003 that shows that there are almost 275 neighbourhoods in Johannesburg that have restricted access. Many of these have been erected without the necessary city council approval and are illegal.

Perceived Advantages and Disadvantages

Before looking at the debate more closely, it is useful to consider what people perceive the main advantages and disadvantages of enclosed neighbourhoods to be. The table below summarises opinions expressed in the media.

The Main Issues in the Debate

This list of pros and cons provides a clue to the issues that are central to the debate around enclosed neighbourhoods. The most emotive issues are the questions of security and rights. Enclosed neighbourhoods are all about increasing the safety of residents. But what about the safety of people living in adjacent areas and do these measures actually reduce the levels of crime? For people excluded from these areas, there is the matter of rights. Is the creation of an exclusive neighbourhood a new form of apartheid? And why should taxpayers be denied access to public roads, schools and recreational facilities?

When considering these issue (and the many other question relating to enclosed neighbourhoods) it is important to balance the rights and interests of the various groups that are potentially affected. Specifically, it is important to take into the account the following:

• Residents’ concerns around increasing the safety of the homes.
• Neighbouring communities’ concerns about displaced crime and traffic and impacts on property prices.
• The general public’s right to freedom of movement and to access public spaces.
• Service providers’ need to access these and surrounding areas.
• Local government’s need to consider the urban planning implications of enclosed neighbourhoods.

Do Enclosed Neighbourhoods Actually Reduce Crime?

First, let’s look at the security aspects of the debate. When interviewed about the impact of access restrictions on their communities, residents often refer to reduced levels of crime.In an interview with the Sunday Times, Bryanstan resident Peter Van der Meer said, “During the nine months of the road closure there has been not one hijacking. It’s fantastic – the children can go outside to play and we can all walk around the suburb. It has transformed our life.”

Whether statements like these reflect fact or perception, it is indisputable that enclosed communities feel safer than they did before access to their neighbourhoods was limited.

Researchers agree that in some communities crime is significantly reduced. CSIR research has shown that restricting access to neighbourhoods does reduce or prevent most types of crime, especially property crimes. This may be temporary (for six months to a year) or more permanent. However, Karina Landman, a researcher from the CSIR, emphasises that the effect of booms on crime differs from place to place. “It is difficult to generalise, but in some areas, crime has definitely declined, while in others, the crime pattern remains unchanged. Booms on their own don’t guarantee a safer living environment”.

Another consequence of enclosing neighbourhoods is that police are less likely to patrol there. This, and the fact that they have to take a detour to the neighbourhood’s official entrance, means that police (and other emergency service) response times can be increased. This can obviously have a negative impact on safety.

All in all, it seems that enclosing communities does reduce crime in these areas, at least initially. Unfortunately, this often simply means that the crime is displaced to a neighbouring area. Enclosing neighbourhoods does not actually stop crime.

A Matter of Rights

There are compelling rights arguments for both sides of the debate. These centre around the rights to freedom of movement and freedom and security of the person.

Our constitution entitles us to move freely in our country. This is an important right, especially considering our history. During apartheid most South African were prevented from living or even being in certain areas. Many commentators on the enclosed neighbourhood phenomenon have questioned whether these enclosures, (which are generally in well-off, traditionally white suburbs) don’t recreate the exclusive conditions that whites enjoyed under apartheid.

Not only do we have the right to freedom of movement, we also pay taxes towards the maintenance and upkeep of public property. Many people argue that this gives them the right to use public roads and access public facilities, whether they fall within an enclosed neighbourhood or not. Also, once the neighbourhood is gated off, who should be responsible for the maintenance of the neighbourhood roads, the local government using taxpayers’ money or the community that has chosen to close the roads in the first place?

Residents in favour of enclosed neighbourhoods, argue that their right to freedom and security of the person (which entitles us all to be free from violence) gives them the right to take measures to protect themselves, especially if government is unable to ensure that this right to be safe is ensured. As long as these measures are within the law, it’s difficult to argue against that.

A Matter of Law

Laws and regulations are created for the public good and need to take into account the interests of individuals and the broader society. Municipal traffic and development laws need to ensure that everyone’s interests are taken into account. Currently, there are processes in many towns and cities that allow people to apply to have roads closed and to install access restrictions. These applications will only be successful if the traffic and other implications of closing the area are not overly negative.

“Enclosed neighbourhoods influence traffic patterns, influence lifestyle and have a major impact on the maintenance of roads, urban management and functioning,” said Karen Landman, who also points out that although the impact of a single enclosed neighbourhood may be negligible on the broader community, a number of these areas close together can have a significant impact, especially with regards to traffic and urban management and maintenance.

Despite the possibility of being able to enclose a neighbourhood legally, many communities are not bothering with these “formalities” and have erected barriers without council approval. In Johannesburg alone, there are over 180 illegal access-restrictions on public roads. The irony of communities breaking the law in order to protect themselves from criminals shouldn’t be overlooked.

Luckily, this situation is likely to improve as city council’s finalise their policies on this issue. Remember, if you are considering the access restriction option for your neighbourhood you must first find out from your local municipality what you need to do to get council approval.

Isolation and Exclusion

Although it is widely agreed that enclosures distinctly increase community-spirit within the neighbourhood, there are concerns that they separate the group off from the rest of the community. Commentators have voiced a great deal of concern over the exclusionary and isolating impacts that enclosed neighbourhoods have on communities.

Commenting on the situation in Brazil, where crime and violence have also driven people behind walls and gates, Delphine Dabrowski- Sangodeyi, a researcher for the Institut Francais d’Urbanisme notes that segmentation has had a disastrous effect on the social interaction of residents in Brazilian cities, where. “Gated communities have totally debased the free interaction of the varied local, European, African and Indian communities of Brazil in some cities. Traditional social life, which was a vital component of a very free and easy social fabric, has been stunted”.

In addition, there is the possibility of divides within the community if some residents are opposed to the plan. For this reason, the Durban city council has recommended that 90% of all residents should agree to the proposal before council permission can be given.

Local Government Policies on Restricted Access Communities

As noted previously, local government needs to take a number of factors into consideration when deciding whether to permit enclosed neighbourhoods or not. Although there generally seems to be recognition from these authorities that people can close off their neighbourhoods, many municipalities have expressed opposition to this course of action and will only approve applications in certain circumstances.

Johannesburg City Council

Restricted access communities are most prevalent in Gauteng where perceptions of crime are the highest. The City of Johannesburg has inherited a number of contradictory policies from the smaller municipalities that were amalgamated into it. This has caused a great deal of confusion.

In 2003, the Council finalised its policy on restricted access neighbourhoods, which sets out the conditions under which the Council feels these measures are acceptable as well as the procedures for ensuring that barriers are erected legally and with Council permission.

“The long-term impact of security restrictions is not desirable and therefore should not be encouraged or promoted in the City of Johannesburg,” Amos Masondo, Johannesburg Mayor told reporters. However communities can still make applications to the council for approval.

City of Cape Town

As yet, enclosed neighbourhoods are not greatly in evidence in the Cape Town. However, it is rumoured that a number of communities have made applications to the Council. The City of Cape Town has expressed its opposition to enclosed communities. Frank van der Velde, support officer to executive mayoral committee member Danile Landingwe, who is charged with planning, environment, transport and roads, told the Cape Times that “Gating suburbs is not an acceptable policy in Cape Town.

City of Durban

Similarly, a Durban city council discussion document on this matter recommends that booms should only be allowed in certain circumstances and only as a temporary measure.

Alternative Community Safety Measures

When conflicts of rights occur, one of the questions that we are required to ask is whether there are less harmful means of achieving the same end. Are there other community safety initiatives that can decrease crime without limiting people’s right to freedom of movement and without causing the logistical and social problems that may result from gating off our neighbourhoods?

The Johannesburg City Council Policy on Restricted Access Neighbourhoods suggests that limiting access to a community should be a measure of last resort and encourages communities to explore a number of alternatives before erecting barriers. Some of the options are:

• Private security villages or town house complexes where restricting access does not impact on community access to public roads and facilities.
• Employing street guards to patrol the neighbourhood on foot or bicycle.
• Installing closed circuit television (CCV) to provide surveillance of the neighbourhood. This can be a non-intrusive, cost-effective option.
• Neighbourhood watch programmes (increased awareness of neighbours property and safety)
• Block Patrols (voluntary patrolling of neighbourhoods by community-members)

How to go About Enclosing Your Neighbourhood

If you want to enclose your neighbourhood, you need to follow the following process:

• Find out from your neighbours whether they would support this option
• Contact your local council to find out what its policy is and what requirements you need to fulfil

Remember that the cost of enclosing a neighbourhood can be high. This includes the cost of perimeter fencing, gates and booms, as well as the fees for security guards to man entrances, the application fees and the potential costs of road maintenance. Erecting a set of booms and gates can cost in the region of R36 000 and if council approval hasn’t been given, the council will remove these barriers

More Information

If you would like more information on restricted access communities, you can investigate the following resources:

Gated Communities in South Africa website. This site is hosted by the CSIR and aims to encourage active debate around gated communities and so assist people to make informed decisions.
City of Johannesburg City Security Access Restrictions Policy, 2003

Helen Alexander
Helen Alexander is a freelance researcher. A law graduate, she was formerly advocacy coordinator for SWEAT.