COMMENTS AND RESPONSES REPORT 1. INTRODUCTION · Applicant and the Environmental Assessment Practitioner (EAP) in the BAR. The signed declarations from the Applicant and the EAP have

Proposed Subdivision of Erf 177476, St James, Cape Town

SLR Consulting (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd Comments Report 1

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES REPORT

1. INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this Comments and Responses Report is to record comments received

from Interested and Affected Parties (I&APs) on the Background Information Document

(BID) review and comment period from 20 July to 21 August 2017 and the Draft Basic

Assessment Report (BAR) review and comment period from 7 January to 6 February 2019. It

should be noted that all significant changes and/or additions to the Comments and Responses

Report that was included in the Draft BAR are underlined and in a different font (Times New

Roman) to the rest of the text.

2. COMMENTS RECEIVED

The following I&APs submitted written comments during the above-mentioned comment and

review periods:

SUBMITTED BY: METHOD, DATE RECEIVED:

Authorities and/or Organs of State

1. Department of Water and Sanitation - Melissa Lintnaar - Strauss 24 July 2017

2. Heritage Western Cape - Zwelibanzi Shiceka 25 July 2017

3. South African National (SAN) Parks - Michael Slaylen 21 August 2017 and 6

February 2019

4. Department of Environmental Affairs and Development

Planning – Rondine Isaacs

29 January 2019

5. Cape Nature - Rhett Smart 6 February 2019

6. Department of Transport and Public Works: Road Network

Management – Alvin Cope

6 February 2019

7. City of Cape Town – Dimitri Georgeades (Acting Manager) 25 February 2019

General I&APs and/or Organisations

1. Andy Paige 25 July 2017

2. Zusiphe Kapa 25 July 2017

3. Mnoneleli Mlobeli 25 July 2017

4. Andrew Swain 31 July 2017

5. Gavin Brown 31 July 2017

6. Nick Steytler 31 July 2017

7. Tommy Brummer 31 July 2017

8. Bert Stafford 31 July 2017

9. Cheri Scholtz 1 August 2017

10. Simon Draper 2 August 2017

11. Norman Malcolm 2 August 2017


SLR Consulting (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd Comments Report 2

12. Steve Doidge 4 August 2017

13. Ashleigh Sandes: Praesidium Family Trust 7 August 2017

14. Barrie Gasson: Kalk Bay - St James Ratepayers Association 14 August 2017 and 6 February 2019

15. Bev Russell 18 August 2017

16. Patrick Morris 18 August 2017

17. Barbara Elshove 18 August 2017

18. Dawn Friend 19 August 2017

19. Andy Rice 21 August 2017

20. Neil Fraser and John Fraser 21 August 2017

21. William Wiley 9 January 2019

22. P.F.P Morris 6 February 2019

23. Nick Steytler - Khula Environmental Consultants on behalf of

Kevin Hodgson and Karl and Gina Leinberger

6 February 2019

Copies of the written submissions are attached as Attachment A. The comments received

are presented, and responded to, in the tables below and have been categorised as

follows:

1. General and procedural issues;

2. Flooding risks;

3. Impacts on heritage resources;

4. Site access issues;

5. Biophysical impacts;

6. Visual impacts; and

7. I&AP registrations.

No importance should be given to the order in which the categories are presented. As far

as possible, comments are presented verbatim from written submissions.


SLR Consulting (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd Comments Report

3

Table 1: Summary table of comments received from Authorities, with responses from the project team � = Letter/Fax/Post � = E-mail

NO. ISSUE COMMENT RESPONSE

1. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS AND DEVELOPMENT PLANNING (DEA&DP)

1.1. Public

Participation

You are required to submit proof of the Public Participation Process being

conducted for the draft BAR. This will include (but is not limited to):

• Proof that the BAR was made available to registered Interested and

Affected Parties;

• All comments received from Interested and Affected Parties (including

comments from Heritage Western Cape and the Department of Water

and Sanitation);

• A Comments and Responses Report, indicating all the comments

received from Interested and Affected Parties on the BAR and the

responses thereto; and

• A complete list of registered Interested and Affected Parties.

The requested information has been included

in Section F and Appendix F of the revised

Basic Assessment Report (BAR).

1.2. Declarations by

applicant and

Environmental

Assessment

Practitioner

You are hereby reminded to include the signed declarations from the

Applicant and the Environmental Assessment Practitioner (EAP) in the

BAR.

The signed declarations from the Applicant

and the EAP have been included in the revised

BAR.

1.3. Heritage Western

Cape comments

Final comment from Heritage Western Cape (HWC) must be obtained

prior to submitting the final BAR to the Department. Where applicable,

any comments or requirements from Heritage Western Cape must be met

and incorporated into the final BAR and Environmental Management

Programme.

The Heritage Specialist has submitted the

Heritage Impact Assessment Report to HWC

and requested final comment. Once a response

has been received, it will be provided to

DEA&DP.

1.4. Comment from

Department of

You are required to obtain comment from the Department of Transport

with regards to access to the proposed site.

Comment from the Western Cape

Government: Department of Transport has



4


Transport been included in the revised BAR (see

Appendix E3).

1.5. Confirmation of

availability of

services

Since electricity supply will be provided by the City of Cape Town, you

are requested to provide this office with written proof that the municipality

has sufficient unallocated capacity to provide the necessary service to the

proposed development. Confirmation of the availability of the service from

the service provider must be provided together with the BAR.

Confirmation that adequate electrical supply

capacity is available for the proposed project

has been obtained from the Energy Directorate

of the COCT (see Appendix E3).

1.6. General You are required to indicate the correct departmental reference number on

pages i and ii of the BAR. The site layout plan (Appendix B) has not been

attached.

The reference number included in the draft

BAR was provided by the Department in

response to the submission of the Notice of

Intent application. Subsequently, the

Application for Environmental Authorisation

was submitted to DEA&DP and an updated

reference number was received. The updated

reference number has been included on pages i

and ii of the revised BAR.

1.7. Submission of

final BAR

In accordance with Regulation 19(1) of Government Notice No. R. 982,

the final BAR must be submitted to this Department within a period of 90

days of receipt of the application by this Department, i.e., the final BAR

must be submitted by 8 April 2019.

The final BAR has been completed for

submission to DEA&DP by 8 April 2019.

1.8. Compliance with

NEMA

Please note that the proposed activity must not be commenced with prior to

an environmental authorisation being granted by the Department. It is

prohibited in terms of Section 24F of the NEMA for a person to commence

with a listed activity unless the competent authority has granted an

environmental authorisation for the undertaking of the activity. A person

convicted in terms of this prohibition is liable to a fine not exceeding R10

The Applicant is aware of the requirement for

Environmental Authorisation for listed

activities in terms of NEMA and is committed

to adhering to the legal requirements in this

regard.



5


million or imprisonment for a period not exceeding ten years, or to both

such fine and imprisonment.

1.9. Reference

number

Kindly quote the above-mentioned reference number in any future

correspondence in respect of this application.

This is noted.

2. DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND SANITATION

2.1. Requested hard

copy of

documentation

Please send us a hard copy of the document. Only then will we be able to provide

comment.

A hard copy of the Draft Basic Assessment Report

(BAR) was sent to the Department of Water and

Sanitation for review and comment on 6 January

2019. SLR has undertaken regular follow-up

with DWS in order to obtain comment on the

draft BAR. To date no comments have been

received.

3. SANPARKS

Comments dated 21 August 2017

3.1. Objection Having reviewed the Background Information Document, SANParks objects to the

proposed sub-division for the following reasons:

Your objection to the proposed subdivision has

been noted and is recorded here for consideration

by the Department of Environmental Affairs and

Development Planning (DEA&DP).

3.2. Disruption of natural

watercourse

The proposal to sub-divide the property unnecessarily disrupts and re-routes what

appears to be a natural and productive watercourse flowing across the property.

The potential impact on natural vegetation and the

seasonal watercourse are assessed in Section F of

the BAR and the specialist freshwater and botanical

assessments (refer to Appendix G1 and G2,

respectively).

A 10 m development setback buffer is proposed



6


along Portion 2 and the upper half of Portion 1 in

order to accommodate the seasonal watercourse.

In addition, the setback would maintain a corridor of

natural vegetation between future houses and the

neighbours adjacent to this boundary. Of the total

length of the watercourse located below Boyes

Drive (180 m), approximately 30 m would be

lost through the implementation of the

proposed diversion of the watercourse.

3.3. Development on

slopes steeper than

1:4

The proposed sub-division will facilitate development on slopes steeper than 1:4

which is generally considered inappropriate.

The suburb of St James was established on the

mountain slope and there are numerous existing

residences located adjacent to Erf 177476. Thus,

the precedent for development on the slopes has

already been established.

With reference to the geotechnical

investigation which was undertaken for the

house currently under construction, it is noted

that: “changes to the current slope geometry,

such as … cuts and fills in a bulk excavation,

will adversely affect overall slope stability

unless appropriate stabilisation (remedial)

measures are taken timeously at the

engineering design stage”.

In this regard, the engineer (Eward Grobler of



7


Grobler & Associates) has indicated that such

remedial measures would include:

• Self-drilling anchors (micro piles) and

ground beams to transfer loads deep into

the soils and reduce surface loading. This

is deemed to have a positive impact on the

overall slope stability when compared to

the current status quo; and

• In areas where platforms would be created,

it is recommended that the fill areas are

contained using gabion retaining structures

at near vertical slopes, thereby constraining

the area of fill placement. This would also

include soil anchoring which forms part of

gabion retaining wall construction.

It is further noted that as part of the current

house construction, Boyes Drive has been

secured laterally by installing pile and

shotcrete walls deep into the natural ground

during the construction of the access road.

Thus, the technical requirements for

construction on the steep slopes associated

with the site are understood and would be

considered as part of the detailed engineering

design for the future houses.



8


3.4. Disturbance of

indigenous

vegetation

The established indigenous vegetation on the property will be unnecessarily

disturbed.

As noted above, the potential impact on natural

vegetation and the seasonal watercourse are

assessed in Section F of the DBAR and the

specialist freshwater and botanical assessments

(refer to Appendix G1 and G2, respectively).

A 10 m development setback buffer is proposed

along Portion 2 and the upper half of Portion 1 in

order to accommodate the seasonal watercourse.

In addition, the setback would maintain a corridor of

natural vegetation between future houses and the

neighbours adjacent to this boundary.

3.5. Development above

Boyes Drive

The proposed garage is located on the steep mountainside above Boyes Drive

and will unnecessarily disturb the indigenous vegetation and a potentially unstable

slope and will have both visual and traffic impacts. This mountainside portion of

the property should not be developed. The proposed garage should rather be

located below Boyes Drive.

No garage or any other development associated

with the proposed subdivision is planned above

Boyes Drive. Accordingly, no vegetation would be

removed and no changes to slope would occur

above Boyes Drive.

3.6. Request to register

as an I&AP

SANParks requests to be registered as an interested and affected party.

SANParks reserves the right to request further information and make additional

comments on any additional information that might be received.

SANParks was registered on the project database

(see Appendix F1).

Comments dated 6 February 2019

3.7. Objection Your email dated 7 January 2017 refers. Having reviewed the Basic

Assessment Report, SANParks objects to the proposed sub-division for the

following reasons:

This objection is noted and is recorded here for

consideration by DEA&DP during the

decision-making process.



9


3.8. Loss of

endangered

vegetation and

current stream

In response to SANPark’s previous comment (letter dated 17 August

2018) that “The proposal to sub-divide the property unnecessarily disrupts

and re-routes what appears to be a natural and productive watercourse

flowing across the property” and that “The established indigenous

vegetation on the property will be unnecessarily disturbed”, the applicant

states in the Comments and Responses Report (Annexure F5, Pg. 4) that:

“A 10 m development setback buffer is proposed along Portion 2 and the

upper half of Portion 1 in order to accommodate the seasonal watercourse.

In addition, the setback would maintain a corridor of natural vegetation

between future houses and the neighbours adjacent to this boundary”.

However, SANParks is of the view that a narrow, partial and reconstructed

water course and corridor of 10 m and does not mitigate the loss of

endangered vegetation due to the extent of the proposed development.

Notably, the massive earthworks, excavation and re-shaping that will be

required to create the two building platforms (as evidenced by the

construction of the upper platform and access driveway), will result in the

permanent loss of the current stream and the destruction of the riparian

forest.

This comment is noted. While the loss of

existing indigenous vegetation within the

future building footprints of each subdivided

portion cannot be avoided, this loss can be

mitigated to a degree through the use of

existing indigenous vegetation for landscaping

on completion of construction.

Furthermore, the proposed 10 m buffer would

allow for the preservation of a large portion of

the seasonal watercourse and associated

existing riparian vegetation (over and above

the remaining upper part of the seasonal

watercourse located adjacent to the approved

dwelling). Of the total 180 m length of the

watercourse located below Boyes Drive,

approximately 30 m of the existing

watercourse would be lost through the

implementation of the proposed diversion of

the watercourse. However, an allowance has

been made for the continuation of overland

flow along this section and a 3 m building line

would be incorporated along this section of the

property boundary. Thus some vegetation

establishment and modified ecological

functioning along this portion of the

watercourse could still occur.



10


3.9. Does not support

loss of Peninsula

Sandstone Fynbos

vegetation

In addition, the botanical specialist report states that: “The proposed

development of Erf 177476 would result in the loss of mostly intact

ENDANGERED Peninsula Sandstone Fynbos” and that “The vegetation is

likely to survive, although not optimally, without fire even though some

species may be lost over time”. (Annexure G1 pg.36).

SANParks does not support the loss of this remnant portion of endangered

vegetation and maintains its concern in this regard in the light of the

enhanced rights that are being applied for.

In Section F1(b) of the BAR it is indicated that

while the proposed project would require the

clearance of the Peninsula Sandstone Fynbos

located on the property, this vegetation type is

exceptionally well conserved, with 95% of its

total original extent remaining, of which

approximately 98% of this being formally

protected (mostly within the TMNP). Thus,

the proposed project would not have a

significant impact on the overall conservation

requirement for this vegetation type.

3.10. Disturbance of the

watercourse

The Freshwater Assessment Report states that “the extant development of

this site has already substantially impacted on the ravine, stream and forest

environment. The proposed additional development will result in the near

complete loss thereof”. (Annexure G2 pg. 8). Our previous comments in

this regard stating that “the proposal to sub-divide the property

unnecessarily disrupts and re-routes what appears to be a natural and

productive watercourse flowing across the property” have clearly not been

adequately addressed.

Refer to the response provided in Section 3.8

above.

3.11. Development on

slopes steeper than

1:4

Likewise in response to SANParks comments that “the proposed sub-

division will facilitate development on slopes steeper than 1:4 which is

generally considered inappropriate, the applicant states “The suburb of St

James was established on the mountain slope and there are existing

residences located adjacent to Erf 177476. Thus, the precedent for

development on the slopes has already been established”. To our

understanding, each application needs to be assessed on its merits and in

No rationale has been provided by SANParks

as to why it is of the view that subdivision or

development on steep slopes may not take

place – there are numerous locations along the

Cape Peninsula where similar development on

steep slopes has been undertaken. As noted in

Section 3.3, the technical requirements for



11


this case the visually exposed and steep slopes should not be subdivided or

developed as proposed.

construction on the steep slopes associated

with the site are understood and would be

considered as part of the detailed engineering

design for the future houses.

3.12. Right to provide

additional

comment

SANParks reserves the right to request further information and make

additional comments on any additional information that might be received.

This is noted.

4. COMMENTS FROM CAPENATURE

4.1. Desktop

Information

The subject property is classified as No Natural according to the

Biodiversity Network (BioNet) for the City of Cape Town and the

Western Cape Biodiversity Spatial Plan. A watercourse is mapped on the

watercourse layer on City of Cape Town Map Viewer along the north

eastern boundary of the site flowing in a south easterly direction, and

entering the site in the eastern section. It is also mapped on Surveys and

Mapping along a slightly more easterly alignment. The natural vegetation

occurring over the site is Peninsula Sandstone Fynbos, listed as

Endangered.

This information is noted and was included in

the Basic Assessment Report, where relevant.

4.2. Application

The proposal is for subdivision of the subject erf into three erven (initially

five) for residential purposes. While subdivision would require a planning

approval and in itself does not require environmental authorisation, the

application is to allow for authorisation for the listed activities related to

excavation or deposition of material within a watercourse or buffer and

clearing of endangered vegetation, which is likely to be relevant to the

future development of the proposed erven.

It must be noted that planning approval was provided for the construction

of a dwelling on the largest northernmost erf, which is currently underway.

This information is correct.



12


The Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning

(DEA&DP) determined that no listed activities would be triggered for this

activity, as indicated in the correspondence dated 5 November 2014

(DEA&DP ref. no. 16/3/1/6/1/A6/82/2219/14). The determination was in

terms of the DEA&DP Circular regarding the term “commencement” and

it was determined that the development of a single dwelling had

commenced in terms of the original subdivision of the suburb and the

related commencement of earthworks (clearing of vegetation, excavation

and deposition) which would relate to the relevant NEMA listed activities.

4.3. Botanical

Assessment

A botanical assessment was undertaken and identified the presence of

intact and semi-intact vegetation occurring across the site which is typical

of the south-east facing slopes above this coastline. The presence of the

watercourse and associated ravine results in a higher presence of thicket

and forest species, and which is further enhanced by fire exclusion at this

location. The addendum to the botanical assessment includes an evaluation

of the reference in the freshwater assessment to the vegetation adjacent to

the stream as riparian forest. CapeNature wishes to express that we do not

consider there to be a discrepancy between the two reports in this regard,

as within all vegetation types, riparian/riverine vegetation would differ

from the surrounding vegetation due to increased moisture availability,

however this can only be mapped at a national scale for the larger

watercourses with more extensive riparian/riverine vegetation and not

smaller watercourses such as the stream on site.

This comment is noted, however it is unclear

how the national scale mapping of larger

watercourses is relevant with respect to the

information provided by the Botanical

specialist.

4.4. BioNet

Classification

In terms of the mapping on the BioNet for the site, CapeNature is

assuming that the No Natural classification was based on the existing

rights and the assumption that the site would be developed, because based

This comment is noted. Given that the

applicant has existing land use rights to

develop property, the assumption that the site



13


on the botanical (and freshwater) assessments there is natural vegetation

present on the site, which does not concur with the current classification.

would be developed in the future is considered

reasonable.

4.5. Watercourse

buffer zone

The botanical assessment mapped the intact and disturbed vegetation on

site and indicated a 10 m buffer from the stream as a no-go area, which

was subsequently reduced to 3 m based on the cut and fill requirements as

a result of the steep slope. CapeNature wishes to query this reduction and

whether the buffer should not remain at 10 m as originally recommended.

The overall assessment is that the impact is considered of low negative

significance both before and after mitigation, however certain species and

specimens thereof are listed as of importance.

The 3 m buffer referred to in this comment

relates to a project layout alternative that was

determined to not be feasible and was screened

out of the BAR (refer to the discussion of

alternatives presented in Section E of the

BAR). The preferred project alternative

includes a diversion of approximately 30 m of

the existing watercourse and a 10 m

development setback buffer along Portion 2

and the upper half of Portion 1 in order to

accommodate the seasonal watercourse.

Furthermore, allowance has been made for the

continuation of overland flow along this

section of the watercourse diversion and a 3 m

building line would be incorporated along this

section of the property boundary, vegetation

establishment and ecological functioning

along this portion of the watercourse can still

occur, albeit in a modified way.

4.6. Freshwater

Assessment

findings

The freshwater assessment has delineated the centreline of the stream

which more or less aligns with the mapping of the City of Cape Town

Map Viewer. The assessment reveals that the stream channel is

geomorphologically intact and is typical of a steep sloped mountain stream

flowing through a narrow ravine with an intact riparian forest zone. It

The summary of the freshwater assessment

findings is noted. However, it is pointed out

that, as per the Botanical Assessment

Addendum, no remnant coastal forest

vegetation is located on the site.



14


should be noted that the freshwater assessment has included several

additional riparian tree species to those listed in the botanical assessment.

The recommendation provided was that a minimum of a 10 m buffer from

the centreline of the stream is required.

4.7. Development

alternatives

The initial development proposal for five erven is that the stream will flow

above ground in the uppermost proposed erf (containing the existing

dwelling) after which it will enter a below ground box culvert and be

piped to where it joins with the existing underground culvert which exits

into the sea, with the remainder of the run-off from the site channelled to

the same underground culvert. The revised proposal for three erven allows

for above ground flow in the natural channel until halfway down the

lowermost third erf after which it is channelled underground as above.

This information is correct.

4.8. Concerns raised in

freshwater

assessment

Several concerns are raised in the freshwater assessment:

• Firstly, the precedent set by the existing dwelling which has

encroached into the riparian area of the stream with evidence of

material within the streambed and the associated impacts.

• The steep slopes of the site are a general concern and steeper than the

generally recognised maximum gradient permissible for development.

The steep slope significantly increases the risk of impacts associated

with erosion and sedimentation and substantially increases the

footprint size for development due to cut and fill requirements.

• The loss of the stream habitats in the lower parts and most of the

• It is noted that any impacts associated with

the construction of the existing house will

be rehabilitated on conclusion of the

construction phase. Any material located

within the seasonal watercourse would be

removed and landscaping of disturbed

areas would take place.

• Refer to the response provided in Section

3.3 above regarding development on steep

slopes.

• This comment is noted. As highlighted in



15


riparian habitat is still a concern associated with the preferred

alternative, even although the revised proposal for three erven is an

improvement on the original proposal for five erven in this regard.

The addendum to the freshwater assessment which assesses the revised

proposal of three erven as opposed to five erven provides a good summary

of the concerns with the proposal and is supported by CapeNature.

Section E of the BAR, the rationale for

selecting the preferred alternative included

the fact that the proposed layout would

have a lower impact on the seasonal

watercourse.

This comment is noted.

4.9. Support of the

freshwater

assessment

In conclusion, CapeNature supports the findings of the freshwater

assessment, and recommends that that the proposed 10 m buffer must be

implemented to allow for the persistence of the natural stream and

associated riparian vegetation. We do not support the proposal of

tunnelling the stream underground, despite the poor historical precedents

downstream of the site. CapeNature in general does not support the

artificial canalisation (above ground or underground) of natural

watercourses supporting natural habitat.

This comment and the position of CapeNature

against the planned underground diversion of

the seasonal watercourse is noted. However, it

is pointed out that of the total 180 m length of

the watercourse located below Boyes Drive,

approximately 30 m would be lost through the

implementation of the proposed diversion of

the watercourse into an underground culvert.

Furthermore, in addition to the proposed

diversion, allowance has been made for the

continuation of overland flow along this

section of the watercourse diversion and a 3 m

building line would be incorporated along this

section of the property boundary. Vegetation

establishment and ecological functioning

along this portion of the watercourse can still

occur, albeit in a modified way.



16


4.10. Objection In terms of the application, CapeNature therefore objects to the current

proposal. While we do not object to the principle of three erven, the 10 m

buffer as indicated in Figure 5 of the freshwater assessment must be

implemented as a minimum, and should the remaining development

envelope not allow for feasible development options for the proposed

erven, the subdivision proposal must be revised. The approved

development envelope and no-go area must be binding on the title deeds

of the subdivided erven. Ideally there should be no subdivision of the

existing erf.

This objection is noted and is recorded here

for consideration by DEA&DP during the

decision-making process.

However, in response to the statement that

there should be no subdivision of the existing

erf, it must be pointed out that the current erf

represents a recent consolidation of two erven

and that the project proposal would entail the

subdivision of the current erf into three

portions. Thus, when compared to the status

quo prior to the consolidation only one

additional erf would be created.

4.11. Landscaping

recommendations

The recommendation is that landscaping should utilise locally indigenous

species, and includes those species which already occur on site. We wish

to query if the recommendation should rather be to keep as many of the

existing specimens as possible in particular mature specimens. We do also

wish to express that although fire exclusion may result in a different

vegetation community, however, it is still of biodiversity value as habitat,

particular as riparian habitat. We also wish to note that the Leucospermum

conocarpodendron specimen which was the only threatened species listed

(Endangered) was present on the already developed footprint of the

approved dwelling.

This recommendation has been updated to

reflect the requirement to keep as many of the

existing indigenous plant specimens (in

particular mature specimens) as possible for

use in site landscaping.

4.12. Comments relating

to the construction

of the existing

With regards to the existing large dwelling which has already been

constructed on the site, CapeNature does not support the use of “legal

loopholes” to enable activities which will have a significant negative

It is pointed out that the applicant has followed

due process and obtained all relevant

approvals from COCT to facilitate the



17


dwelling. impact on biodiversity. While we will not interrogate the legal

interpretations, other aspects of the National Environmental Management

Act (NEMA) such as Duty of Care (Section 28) and application of the

mitigation hierarchy (Section 2) remain relevant.

construction of the existing house.

4.13. Rehabilitation of

watercourse

The encroachment of the existing dwelling into the riparian area of the

watercourse is not supported due to the impacts on the riparian and in-

stream habitat. Although not within the ambit of an authorisation in terms

of the NEMA EIA Regulations, CapeNature recommends that a setback

line/no-go boundary from the stream needs to be established adjacent to

the dwelling which is being constructed and that a rehabilitation plan is

compiled following completion of construction.

This comment is noted. While not related to

the planned subdivision, rehabilitation of

impacts associated with the construction of the

current house will be undertaken on

completion of the construction of the current

house.

4.14. Right to provide

additional

comment

CapeNature reserves the right to revise initial comments and request

further information based on any additional information that may be

received.

This is noted.

5. HERITAGE WESTERN CAPE

5.1. Requirement for the

submission of a

Notice of Intent to

Develop

The email below and the letter attached have reference. Kindly be informed that

Heritage Western Cape (HWC) has received the letter as indicated above. As

such, HWC cannot comply with the due date mentioned. Kindly note HWC

requires a Notice of Intent to Develop (NID) in order to start this application.

Aikman Associates has been appointed as the

independent specialist heritage consultant. A Notice

of Intent to Develop (NID) form was compiled by the

heritage specialist and submitted to HWC. On 5

October 2017, HWC confirmed that a Heritage

Impact Assessment would be required.

The potential impact on heritage resources are

assessed in Section F of the BAR and the specialist

Heritage Impact Assessment (refer to Appendix

G3).



18


6. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT AND PUBLIC WORKS: ROAD NETWORK MANAGEMENT

6.1. Previous approval of access off

Boyes Drive

NOTE: This email correspondence was addressed to Mr Marlyn Botha of

the City of Cape Town: Transport Impact Assessment & Development

Control and copied to SLR.

Erf 177476 (JN 24891) is a consolidation of Erven 88268 and 88273 (JN

20155). We approved the access (Section 17 of the Roads Ordinance)

based upon the COCT’s support – it appears as though it was indeed an

existing carriageway crossings (CWC) access.

Your previous approval of the access off

Boyes Drive is noted here for consideration by

DEA&DP during the decision-making process

(a copy of this approval has been included in

Appendix E3).

6.2. No foreseeable

issue to support

proposed access

off Main Road

One extra dwelling unit using the PMR 106 (Boyes Drive) access – should

be no problem for you to support – I would suggest that it be made clear

that only single residential use will be allowed – no Bed & Breakfast or

other consent uses [sic] should be allowed.


6.3. Safe access A new access on Main Road (PMR 101) is proposed - safe? There is an existing servitude located on the

south-western section of the erf that links to

Main Road. Erf 88308 currently obtains access

of Main Road from this servitude and is thus

deemed to be safe.

6.4. No requirement for

Department to

comment

Please note that the COCT is the Regulatory Authority for both PMR 101

and PMR 106 in this area and no further input is required from this branch

- assuming there is an existing access to PMR 101, if not, with your

recommendation we will approve it in terms of Section 17.


6.5. It appears as though the reason why this branch has not received any

official request for comment on the subdivision is that there is no legal

requirement for us to comment. The same applies to the NEMA

application for subdivision – no official request for comment.



19


6.6. No objection to the

subdivision

As stated previously (for the PMR 106 access), this branch will offer no

objection to the subdivision, if requested to do so, both in terms of your

legislation as well the NEMA.

This support of the application is noted here

for consideration by DEA&DP in decision-

making.

7. CITY OF CAPE TOWN

INTEGRATED URBAN MANAGEMENT - LAND USE MANAGEMENT – KEVIN MCGILTON

7.1. Requirement for

environmental,

heritage and visual

assessments and

public

participation

process

The property in question is zoned Single Residential Zone 1 and is within

a Heritage Protection Overlay Zone. Any proposed subdivision the

property would require an application which, given the nature of the

property with its watercourse, would require an environmental assessment

and heritage assessment including a visual assessment as the property is

visible from the Main Road as well as Boyes Drive.

A process of public participation would be required before the

adjudication of the proposal.

This Basic Assessment process has been

undertaken for the proposed subdivision. The

requested specialist studies (heritage and

visual) were included in the draft Basic

Assessment Report (BAR) which was

circulated for a 30-day comment and review

period (see Appendix G).

A public participation process has been

undertaken as part of the Basic Assessment

process (see Section F of the BAR)

WATER AND SANITATION (RIVERS, STORMWATER AND CATCHMENT MANAGEMENT) – JUSTIN SMIT

7.2. Requirements for

Stormwater

Management Plan

A Stormwater management plan is to be submitted to this office for water

quality only, due to the size of the Erf. Water quantity is not required due

to the close proximity of this site to the ocean. Although Stormwater

detention for water quantity is not required, the volume of water generated

during the different scenario storms must be calculated and accommodated

for and therefore the Stormwater management plan must also clearly

indicate (with details) all required Stormwater overland escape routes to

cater for flood water not piped underground. No runoff from this site must

cause a nuisance to neighbouring properties, including Main Road. It must

This comment is noted. A preliminary

stormwater management plan has been

prepared by the project engineer. This will be

submitted to the COCT for approval as part of

the relevant town-planning application that

would be undertaken should the proposed

project receive Environmental Authorisation.

A copy of the Stormwater Management Plan

has been also appended to the Engineering



20


be further noted that due to the steep nature of this site, critical velocities

must be designed for and if so required, energy dissipaters will be required

as well as a device/devices that will prevent the blocking of any

Stormwater intakes/headwalls. Best management principles are to be

applied to this site regarding the Stormwater management.

Services Report (refer to Appendix G).

7.3. Support for

freshwater

specialist

recommendations

This office supports the recommendations of the Fresh Water Specialist. Your support of the freshwater specialist

recommendations are noted.

ROADS AND STORMWATER (ASSET MANAGEMENT AND MAINTENANCE) – HEUPPSCHENNE LEKAY

7.4. Engineering design

drawing approval

Civil Engineering drawings pertaining roads and storm water to be

submitted for approval should municipal services be affected. Civil

Engineering drawings demonstrating combined engineering services must

also be submitted for perusal. This approval must be obtained prior to

building plan approval.

Engineering design drawings will be submitted

for approval to the relevant office as per the

normal building plan approval process.

The approved civil engineering plans shall be implemented to the

satisfaction of Asset Management and Maintenance before building plan

approval or clearance application in case of sub division or taking

occupancy.

This requirement is noted.

7.5. Comply with

conditions issued

by Transport

Impact Assessment

and Development

Control

Department

Prior to submitting a full set of detailed engineering drawings to this office

(Roads and Stormwater) for approval, the applicant shall ensure that all

conditions relating to engineering requirements stipulated by Transport

Impact Assessment and Development Control (TIA & DC) are met and

depicted on the drawings. Consent given by TIA & DC must accompany

submission of the engineering drawings.




21


7.6. Development of a

Stormwater

Management Plan

Prior to submitting a full set of detailed engineering drawings to this office

(Roads and Storm water) for approval, the applicant shall submit detailed

Stormwater Management Plan to Catchment, Stormwater and River

Management for approval. Consent from Catchment, Storm water and

River Management must accompany submission of the detailed

engineering drawings that depict the SMP.

As indicated in Section 7.2, the stormwater

management plan will be submitted to the

Catchment, Stormwater and River

Management for approval as part of the

relevant town-planning application that would

be undertaken should the proposed project

receive Environmental Authorisation.

7.7. Development

contribution

Development contribution will be applicable and payable prior to or

clearance application.

This requirement is noted.

WATER AND SANITATION (WATER SECTION) – GAIRONESSE VAN WYK

7.8. Provision of

standard approval

conditions on

application for

water connection

No objections to the proposed subdivision.

Standard approval conditions will be provided when a water connection is

applied for to the respective properties. In addition, confirmation from

Water Planning will be required that there is sufficient capacity in the

existing water reticulation systems to accommodate the proposed

development or units before approvals can be granted for water

connections.


TRANSPORT IMPACT ASSESSMENT & DEVELOPMENT CONTROL – MARLYN BOTHA

7.9. No objection Please note that this branch offers no objection in principle to the proposed

subdivision of Erf 177476, St James. However, due to the fact that Boyes

Drive is classified as a Provincial Main Road (PMR 106), this branches

final comment on this application which will be issued at LUMS stage of

the process will be subject to the final approval being issued by the

Provincial Roads Engineer.

This comments is noted, however, it is pointed

out that the current access of Boyes Drive was

approved as part of the approval process

associated with the development of a house on

the site.



22


SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT – CHANTAL ERLANK

7.10.Residential

properties required

to use council

refuse removal

services

The council wishes to ensure that all new developments, that require

planning permission, contain suitable accommodation for the storage and

disposal of waste to a licenced landfill site. Council reserves the right to

service all residential properties that falls within its boundaries for refuse

removal services. In terms of the Waste Management Tariff Policy,

Section 18.2.1 all residential properties are compelled to use council

refuse removal services and may not use private contractors directly. Non-

residential properties may opt to use either Council services or a private

contractor directly.

The requirement for all residential properties

to use council refuse removal services is

noted.

7.11.No objection In connection with the above proposal / development, I confirm that Solid

Waste (Collections) as the Service Provider in the St James Area has no

objection to the Proposed Subdivision and has sufficient unallocated

capacity to accept and collect and dispose of all types of waste to a

designated licence landfill site.

A good waste management system must be in place to handle all waste

generated by the activities and to mitigate against negative impact on the

environment. The generation of construction waste and waste during the

operation phases should be recycled on site or reused to fill up other sites

and clean builder’s rubble can be disposed of at the nearest licenced

facility under the guidance of the City of Cape Town. The waste generated

by the construction personnel e.g. lunch remains and packaging etc. must

be placed in approved refuse bins on site during the construction phases.

The proposed development will not have any implications on the

infrastructure of the area provided that the contractors identify a permitted

refuse disposal site for various categories of waste, provided that a refuse




23


room is included in the planning stages of the development for the storage

of waste to the satisfaction of the Director: Solid Waste Management.

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT: HERITAGE RESOURCES SECTION (HRS) – SJANEL MARTIN

7.12.Site development

plan

Site Development Plan:

The response to the Notification of Intent to Develop, (NID) requested a

detailed site development plan (SDP). The submitted SDP only indicates

the proposed subdivision lines and although these are generally in keeping

with the pattern of subdivision in the immediate surrounds, it does not

indicate proposed building platforms, proposed building massing/envelope,

proposed access roads or existing mature trees to be retained.

This comment is noted. As the application

only relates to the proposed subdivision of Erf

177476, the location of the building platforms

or the proposed building massing/envelope of

the future houses are not required at this stage.

Thus, they are not indicated at present.

If Environmental Authorisation is granted for

the proposed subdivision, any future building

plans for proposed dwellings on the

subdivided portions would have to be

submitted to the COCT for approval before

they could be constructed.

It is noted that the proposed access roads were

indicated on the layout plan included in the

draft BAR. In this regard, the approved access

road (currently under construction) would be

used to provide access from Boyes Drive to

Portion 2, while Portion 1 would obtain access

from Main Road via the existing servitude



24


adjacent to the south-western section of the erf

(closest to Main Road).

7.13.Pattern of new

building platforms

New building platforms should follow the existing pattern of development

to mitigate the impact of the new building in a currently undeveloped

landscape. Most erven in the Heritage Area are rectangular in shape. This

is derived from the historic gridiron pattern of subdivision. The

predominant building form is simple narrow rectangle with attached

verandhas or stoeps. The houses are almost always situated parallel to the

boundaries.

The requirements for new building platforms

are noted.

7.14.St James/Kalk Bay

Heritage

Protection Overlay

Zone Design

Guidelines

Design indicators in HIA:

Heritage Resources Section (HRS) agrees in principle with the following

design indicators in the HIA:

• The subdivisions should complement the overall gridiron pattern of the

area;

• New buildings to be made up of simple rectangular forms parallel to

the boundaries;

• New building to be visually recessive with landscaping the dominant

element. The use of sandstone is recommended together with plastered

masonry painted with neutral recessive colours;

• Large areas of glass/windows to be situated in shadow by pergolas

and/or verandas;

HRS also draws the developer’s attention to the already established

design guidelines for the St James/Kalk Bay Heritage Protection Overlay

Zone (HPOZ), which should be included as a condition of approval to any

proposed subdivision. These guidelines are currently used as the

Support of the proposed design indicators

listed in the Heritage Impact Assessment

Report is acknowledged.

The requirement for the future houses to

comply with the St James/Kalk Bay HPOZ

design guidelines is noted.



25


establishment of ‘best practice’ for all new developments in the St

James/Kalk Bay HPOZ and are available on the City’s Website.

7.15.Contradiction of

the St James/Kalk

Bay HPOZ

HOA and Design guidelines:

Given that the site falls within the HPOZ, HRS already comments on all

applications in order to obtain approval to do work in the HPOZ.

Currently, HRS strongly advises applicant to obtain HRS support during

the design phase as well as input from the local conservation body prior to

formal submission. The Design Guidelines suggest that the proposed

Home Owners Association (HOA) would scrutinise plans prior to

submission to the COCT, which may cause undue conflict with

applications that meet the HOA’s requirements but not the City’s. This

needs to be reviewed and all applications need to be in accordance with the

existing design guidelines for the area.

Although HRS is not averse to architectural guidelines that are more

restrictive than the current design guidelines for the St James/Kalk Bay

HPOZ, any guidelines that are in contradiction to the established

guidelines need to be removed and are not supported. HRS will review the

guidelines in detail during the subsequent commenting period on the final

BAR as well as in HRS comment to HWC on the HIA.

The requirement for HRS to review all

applications within the area and the fact that

the requirements of the HPOZ Design

Guidelines would supersede the HOA design

guidelines are noted.

It is noted that in terms of the EIA Regulations

2014, as amended, there is no requirement for

an additional comment period on the BAR.

Thus, the revised BAR will be submitted to

DEA&DP for decision-making.

7.16.Support for Visual

Impact Assessment

mitigation

measures

VIA

HRs supports all mitigation measures that are in accordance with the

design guidelines for St Kames/Kalk Bay HPOZ.

Support of the mitigation measures contained

in the Visual Impact Assessment is

acknowledged.

7.17.Provide comments

from Kalk Bay

• Kalk Bay Heritage Subcommittee

Please provide the Kalk Bay Heritage Subcommittee’s comment to HRS.

The comments received from the Kalk Bay

Heritage subcommittee to date have been



26


Heritage

subcommittee

This is also a requirement of HWC’s response to the NID. forwarded to the HRS.

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT: ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SECTION (EMS) – CRISPIN BARRETT

7.18.Summary of

application

This application is for material exceeding 10 m3 being removed /

deposited from / in an unnamed watercourse traversing the site and

clearance of an area exceeding 300 m2 or more of indigenous vegetation.

The complete table of listed activities that

would be triggered by the proposed project are

provided in Section A of the BAR.

7.19. General comments

on

Botanical Report

The following is garnered from the Botanical Assessment Report:

• The site contains the Endangered vegetation type Peninsula Sandstone

Fynbos, which is adequately represented within the Table Mountain

National Park so the conservation value is sufficiently protected for the

geographical location, but it is still a loss that should be assessed with

possible alternative development proposal that could see more

vegetation protected rather than lost.

• The 10 m development setback is seen as adequate for the vegetation

impact but this does not take into consideration the ecological buffer

for the watercourse corridor, where the indirect impacts are not

assessed.

• The impacted and invaded patches have the potential for

restoration/rehabilitation.

• Dr David McDonald, states that the proposed development would

result in the loss of mostly intact ‘Endangered’ Peninsula Sandstone

Fynbos. While the vegetation type is well-preserved in its ecological

state with a number of invasive alien species present, there is high

restoration potential and the seasonal watercourse line is prominent

and sensitive feature. With particular interest on indirect impacts is the

loss of vegetation along the seasonal watercourse would reduce the

This summary is noted.

This comment is noted. However, it must also

be recognised that the ecological corridor of

the watercourse has been restricted by the

development of Boyes Drive and historic

diversion of the watercourse located on the

bottom of the erf. Accordingly, the ecological

corridor of the seasonal watercourse is

considered to be restricted to the site itself.

Nevertheless, allowance has been made for the



27


ecological corridor. continuation of overland flow along the

watercourse diversion and a 3 m building line

would be incorporated along this section of the

property boundary. Thus, vegetation

establishment and ecological functioning along

this portion of the watercourse can still occur,

albeit in a modified way.

7.20. General comments

on

Freshwater Report

The following is garnered from the Freshwater Assessment Report:

• The watercourse, together with its riparian zone, constitutes an intact

ecological entity.

• The National Environmental Management Act principle ‘sustainable

development’ requires the consideration of all relevant factors,

including that a risk-averse and cautious approach should be applied,

taking into account the limits of current knowledge about the

consequences of decisions and actions. This is very much applicable

for this application.

• Dr Harding’s findings are that although the previous proposed

application has been amended to reflect fewer portions of subdivision,

the negative impact on the environment is to a degree the same, if not

worse. This is due to the accumulative impact from the upper slope

development and with the proposed removal of virtually all the western

riparian vegetation, the intact ecological entity, causing it to be

disaggregated into smaller non-functional components.

This summary is noted. However, it is pointed

out that the preferred alternative layout makes

provision for fewer subdivided portions and

allows for a 10 m buffer zone along the

property boundary for Portion 2 and the upper

part of Portion 1 which incorporates a large

portion of the seasonal watercourse. The

second layout alternative considered five

subdivided portions and entails the complete

diversion of the seasonal watercourse over the

proposed additional subdivided portions.

It is also noted that, as per the Botanical

Assessment Addendum, no remnant coastal

forest vegetation is located on the site thus, the

“western riparian vegetation” delineated by the

Freshwater specialist falls under the Peninsula

Sandstone Fynbos vegetation type.

7.21.Construction of

approved dwelling

The construction of the approved dwelling has shown a significant impact

on the upper slope, which is steeper than 1:4, and requires that DEADP

Refer to the response provided in Section 3.3

above regarding development on steep slopes.



28


critically assess it in accordance with their ‘Guideline for the Management

of Development on Mountains, Hills and Ridges of the Western Cape’

(EIA Guideline Series File NO E12/2/P). The most significant

environmental attributes on this site are the presence of seasonal

watercourses, seeps and mostly intact endangered Peninsula Sandstone

Fynbos.

7.22.Conservation of

watercourses

Conservation and rehabilitation of our watercourses should be at the heart

of Water Management for Cape Town, being a water stressed area and

recently having experienced an extreme drought.

National Environmental Management Act.

The principles of the National Environmental Management Act of 1998

clearly state that sensitive, vulnerable, highly dynamic or stressed

ecosystems, such as water courses and similar systems, require specific

attention in management and planning procedures, especially where they

are subject to development pressure.

These comments are noted.

7.23.Floodplain and

River Corridor

Management

Policy

As per the City’s Floodplain and River Corridor Management Policy (27

May 2009), watercourses and wetlands with their adjacent riparian areas

and associated fauna and flora must be protected or ‘buffered’ from the

impacts of adjacent development or activity. Buffers for watercourses can

be up to 40 m from river edge/bank edge.

The perennial & non-perennial watercourses in the narrow St James

valleys are threatened by, inter alia, alien invasion, infilling, increased

volumes of stormwater runoff and poor water quality. With the recent,

approved development of the upper slope of the erf, erosion has increased

and foreign debris has accumulated in the lower stretch of the watercourse.

These comments are noted. It is also noted that

in terms of this policy, the adjustment of the

recommended buffer can take place on a

site/case specific basis.

The preferred layout alternative aims to

balance the right of the applicant to extract

value from the property with the need to

conserve the seasonal watercourse through the

implementation of the proposed 10 m buffer



29


The existing watercourse, although impacted upon, needs to be conserved

and rehabilitated and there should be no further net loss, particularly

where alternatives exist.

zone. As noted in Section 4.8, any foreign

debris located within the seasonal watercourse

will be removed on completion of current

construction activities.

7.24.Presentation of an

alternative

proposal

EMS requires an alternative proposal to be presented where there is:

• An additional development setback that is taken from the watercourse

and determined by the aquatic specialist and not the property

boundary.

• In addition to this a registered river servitude that restricts any further

development/associated infrastructure as well as landscaping with prior

consent from the relevant Environmental Management department.

• A Detailed Site Development Plan that shows reduced building

platforms/massing/envelope and access roads.

• Condition that no second dwellings will be permissible on the

subdivided portions.

It is understood that the requirements listed

herein fall outside of the mandate of the

Environmental Management Section. The

proposed project proposal remains as was

originally presented in the draft Basic

Assessment Report.



30

Table 2: Summary table of comments received from I&APs, with responses from the project team � = Letter/Fax/Post � = E-mail

NO. ISSUE NAME METHOD COMMENT RESPONSE

1. GENERAL

1.1. Proposed building

lines/ boundaries.

Andy Rice �= E-mail dated

21 August 2017

Building lines / boundaries. The proposed building lines applicable

to the subdivided portions will be in

compliance with the requirements of

the relevant City of Cape Town

planning ordinances and/or by-laws, as

applicable. As noted in the DBAR, a 10

m development setback buffer would

be included over Portion 2 and the

upper part of Portion 1. A standard

common boundary building line

restriction of 3 m would be applicable

to the remaining common boundaries.

1.2. Withheld comment/objection

St. James

Ratepayers

Heritage Sub-

committee – Barrie

Gasson

�= E-mail

dated

6 February

2019

After much consideration of this application we

have decided to withhold any

comment/objection until such time as the site

works, which appear to have stalled, are

completed according to the approved plans and

to Council’s satisfaction. We are referring to,

among other things, the stone cladding yet to be

done to retaining walls, abandoned rock and

rubble heaps that should either be put to use or

removed, and the cantilever road curve, that was

You right to reserve comment on

the application is noted. However,

in terms of the EIA Regulations

2014, as amended, there is no

requirement for an additional

comment period on the BAR. Thus,

the revised BAR, which includes

this comment, will be submitted to

DEA&DP for decision-making.



31


not part of the original plans, the underside of

which requires ‘closing up’ with appropriate

stone-clad structure. Further, we expect that

environmental damage to the

watercourse/ravine, such as accumulation of

rubble and at least on large boulder, to be made

good. Once these matters have been attended to

we will be prepared to reconsider the

application to subdivide.

1.3. Legal non-

compliance

Khula

Environmental

Consultants – Nick

Steytler on behalf

of Kevin Hodgson

and Karl and Gina

Leinberger

�= E-mail

dated

6 February

2019

Over a period of several years numerous

activities have been undertaken on the lower

reaches of the site in close proximity and

directly affecting the watercourse. These

activities have included clearance of vegetation,

infilling and excavations in close proximity and

within the watercourse to create level platforms

and to re-route the watercourse. Most (if not all)

of these activities have commenced without

prior environmental authorisation in terms of

the National Environmental Management Act

(NEMA) EIA Regulations (as applicable at the

time of the commencement of these activities).

Given the direct impact these activities have had

on the lower reaches of the watercourse it is

also likely that a water use authorisation should

have been applied for in terms of the National

It is pointed out that the applicant

took ownership of the property in

2014. Thus, the applicant was not

in control of the land prior to this

date. With respect to the alleged

activities highlighted in this

comment, no evidence has been

provided to show that any of the

alleged activities took place or that

such actions would have triggered

any listed activities that may have

been in force at the time.

It should also be noted that the

residents in this submission applied

themselves for the right to

undertake activities in close



32


Water Act (Act 36 of 1998). These historic

activities should be investigated by the

competent authority as these have a direct

bearing on the lawfulness of the current

application as no application in terms of the

NEMA EIA Regulations should be considered

by the competent authority if the same site is

associated with unlawful activities. On this

basis alone the application should be withdrawn

until the competent authority has investigated

the allegations and, if found to be true, only

after the completion of a successful Section 24G

Rectification Application, can the current

application be considered.

proximity to the watercourse,

including a gabion basket retaining

wall located within a few meters of

the watercourse.

1.4. Impact on the

provision of

municipal services

Khula

Environmental


Steytler on behalf

of Kevin Hodgson

and Karl and Gina

Leinberger

�= E-mail

dated

6 February

2019

Subdividing residential property and the

associated densification of urban areas, while

being desirable from a spatial planning

perspective, results in an increase in pressure on

the Local Authority’s capacity to provide

adequate municipal services. Potable water

supply, which is currently strained given the

recent drought, in particular is likely to be

impacted with the result that existing residents

suffer the consequences which range from

reduced water pressure to dwindling levels of

household supply.

Confirmation has been obtained

from the COCT service

departments that adequate capacity

is available for the proposed

project (see Appendix E3).



33


1.5. Nuisance impacts Given the location of the site in a dense

residential suburb the potential for nuisance

impacts is high and special attention is required

to ensure that any potential nuisance impacts are

minimised. The EMP simply states that

construction activities outside normal working

hours should be avoided. This is simply not

sufficient because the Contractor could

undertake work over weekends and cause

significant nuisance impacts and motivate that

the timing was unavoidable. Working outside

normal work hours should not be permitted

without the express permission of the

independent Environmental Control Officer

(ECO). This would provide greater assurance

that the nuisance impacts associated with

working outside normal work hours would be

satisfactorily minimised.

The recommendations relating to

noise control and working hours

are set out in Section 3.10 of the

EMP (see Appendix H). In this

regard, it is specifically noted that a

permit shall be obtained from the

local authority for any deviation

from local by-laws and/or

regulations with respect to working

hours.

The significance of general

nuisance impacts during the

construction phase was assessed in

Section G of the BAR. In this

regard, although intensity of these

impacts could be high at times

during construction, the overall

construction period would be over

the short-term and would be of

local extent. Thus, these impacts

are deemed to be of low to

medium significance without

mitigation. With the

implementation of mitigation, the

significance would reduce to



34


LOW.

1.6. Operational

management

Khula

Environmental


Steytler on behalf

of Kevin Hodgson

and Karl and Gina

Leinberger

�= E-mail

dated

6 February

2019

The timing and frequency of culvert inspections

and cleaning of debris, indicated as a key

operational phase environmental management

activity, needs to be specified. Given the risk of

flood-related impacts associated with the

proposed infrastructure failing, it is important

that the precise timing of inspections and debris

removal should be recommended by a

hydrologist.

This comment is noted. The timing

and frequency of such inspections

and actions would be the same as

those undertaken by the COCT for

the existing culvert located on the

site.

2. PROCEDURAL ISSUES

2.1. Flawed public

participation

process

Khula

Environmental


Steytler on behalf

of Kevin Hodgson

and Karl and Gina

Leinberger

�= E-mail

dated

6 February

2019

The Public Participation Process (PPP) is

flawed as it does not satisfy the principle that all

information submitted for decision-making will

have been reviewed by the stakeholders (in this

case the Interested and Affected Parties, I&APs)

prior to the decision having being reached. The

flaw has come about as a result of the manner in

which the process has been designed whereby

only one opportunity has been provided to

I&APs to review the Basic Assessment (the

currently available Draft BAR) and associated

specialist studies. It is indicated that the

comment received on the Draft BAR will be

incorporated into a Final BAR which will be

It is pointed out that in terms of the

EIA Regulations 2014, as

amended, there is no requirement

for an additional comment period

on the BAR. Thus, the revised

BAR, which includes this

comment, will be submitted to

DEA&DP for decision-making. As

is commented, I&APs had the

opportunity to comments on the

BID during the pre-application

phase – this is seen as normal

practice to inform people and

provide opportunity to comment



35


submitted to the competent authority for a

decision. As such it appears as though no

opportunity is available for the Registered

I&APs to review and comment on any

additional information or significant changes to

the BAR or specialist studies that may arise as a

result of the comment on the Draft BAR.

Circulating a Background Information

Document (BID) as a precursor to the Draft

BAR should not be considered as a substitute

for a comment period on a BAR as the BID

lacks the detail presented in the BAR and the

specialist studies, a critical component of any

EIA process, are not included.

ahead of the formal application

procedure.

2.2. Concern for a need

of a Water Use

Licence

Khula

Environmental


Steytler on behalf

of Kevin Hodgson

and Karl and Gina

Leinberger

�= E-mail

dated

6 February

2019

Related to this concern is the very strong

likelihood that the proposed development will

require a Water Use Licence Application

(WULA) in terms of the National Water Act

(NWA), Act 36 of 1998. The BAR simply

indicates that the current BAR (which includes

a freshwater specialist Risk Assessment) has

been submitted to the Department of Water and

Sanitation (DWS) for confirmation regarding

the requirement for a WULA. Given that a

WULA is highly likely (and this is

acknowledged by the EAP) and that the project

This comment is noted. Once

confirmation has been received

from DWS that a WULA is

required, the applicant will have to

undertake a public participation

process which complies with the

legislative requirements for a

WULA in terms of the NWA.

Thus, registered I&APs would still

have an opportunity to review any

additional information that may be

required for the WULA.



36


Khula

Environmental


Steytler on behalf

of Kevin Hodgson

and Karl and Gina

Leinberger

�= E-mail

dated

6 February

2019

is associated with the unmitigable loss of

aquatic habitat that is assessed as having a

HIGH Risk, it is highly likely that DWS, in

order to decide on the WULA, will require

additional information and/or revisions to the

project design. If additional information or a

change is project design is required in order for

the WUL to be issued then the Registered

I&APs would not have been able to review the

additional information and the Environmental

Authorisation (if issued) would not be aligned

with the WUL. Section 24(4) of NEMA calls

for the alignment of all environmental

applications and at present the requirement for

integrated decision-making is being

implemented by DEA&DP. Accordingly the

information submitted as part of the Basic

Assessment process should also be sufficient for

fulfilling the information of other environmental

applications (viz a viz the very likely WULA

which clearly it is not).

Where there is a requirement to

alter the proposed project design

due to the findings of the WULA,

these changes would be presented

to DEA&DP to confirm whether an

Application to Amend

Environmental Authorisation (if

issued) would be necessary.

2.3. Insufficient

information

Certain important information is lacking in the

application and this also presents a flaw. In

terms of the layout and design of the proposed

development no estimate of the development

footprint is presented in the Draft BAR and the

As noted in Section 7.2, no detailed

information pertaining to the

building footprint of future houses

is required as this application

related to the proposed subdivision



37


Khula

Environmental


Steytler on behalf

of Kevin Hodgson

and Karl and Gina

Leinberger

�= E-mail

dated

6 February

2019

Site Layout Plan presented in Appendix B of the

Draft BAR does not show building footprints.

No plan is included in the Draft BAR which

presents a map of the environmental

sensitivities of the site with an overlay of the

layout of the proposed development. This is a

specified requirement as per Appendix 1 of

Regulation 3 of GN No. R326 of the NEMA

EIA Regulations 2014 (as amended).

The proposed engineered containment of the

seasonal watercourse on the eastern boundary of

the site (i.e. the proposed headwall, open and

of the erf. This information would

only be available if Environmental

Authorisation is granted for the

proposed subdivision and once

building plans have been

completed for each subdivided

portion for formal approval by the

City of Cape Town.

A plan showing the location of the

erf in relation to mapped Critical

Biodiversity Areas is provided in

Appendix D of the BAR. In

addition, Figure 10 of the Botanical

specialist assessment report shows

the location of intact and semi-

intact natural vegetation located on

the site and Figure 4 of the

freshwater assessment shows the

location of the seasonal

watercourse.

A cross-section of this

infrastructure was included in

Figure 3 of the Engineering

Services Report (see Appendix



38


closed culverts) is associated with potentially

significant environmental impacts yet no

engineering drawings of these structures are

presented for scrutiny.

Due to the nature of the receiving environment

and also the requirement for a Heritage Impact

Assessment where a key concern is the potential

visual impact information allowing for the

satisfactory assessment of visual impacts is

necessary. However upon review of the

specialist VIA and the Draft BAR it is evident

that no elevation drawings or any 3D

impressions showing the visual appearance of

the developed site are included. This lack of

information undermines the credibility of the

VIA and is considered a significant limitation.

G5). The engineer has provided

additional detail flor the proposed

structure in the Stormwater

Management Plan appended to the

Services Report.

As no detailed information

pertaining to the building footprint

of future houses is required at the

time of the assessment, no 3D

impressions were prepared.

However, the Visual Impact

Assessment practitioner deemed

that sufficient information was

available to adequately assess the

potential visual impact of the

proposed project on sensitive

viewers. The implementation of

design guidelines for the future

residences (and the required

approvals of these residences in

terms of the HPOZ) was deemed to

be significant mitigation for any

potential visual impacts (refer to

Appendix G4).



39

NO. ISSUE NAME METHOD COMMENT RESPON

Documents

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES REPORT 1. INTRODUCTION · Applicant and the Environmental Assessment Practitioner (EAP) in the BAR. The signed declarations from the Applicant and the EAP have