PUBLIC PARTICIPATION REPORT - biblebeliever.co.zabiblebeliever.co.za/Midvaal2/EIA_for_Midvaal_Area... · PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS/PUBLIEKE DEELNAME PROSES Notice is hereby given

1 | P a g e

Dr. Gwen Theron

PrLArch No 97082

Landscape Architect

Environmental Planner

Imbrilinx cc 2010/089810/23

P.O. Box 13185 Hatfield 0028

FAX: 086 606 6130

012 344 3582

083 302 2116

[email protected]

L E A P L E A P

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION REPORT:

Klipriver Estate – Mixed Use Township Establishment on

Part of the Farm Driefontein 146 IR.

REF:GAUT: 002/15-16/E0239

(Final Scoping Report)

Submitted to:

GDARD

PO Box 8769, Johannesburg, 2000

On behalf of

Zotec Developments (Pty) Ltd

DISTRIBUTION:

1 Copy - Client

1 Copy - GDARD

1 Copy - Public review

1 Copy - LEAP Library

May 2016

Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................................. 1

2.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS .................................................................................................................................. 1

3.0 APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................................................... 1

4.0 ADVERTISEMENTS AND PUBLIC AWARENESS .................................................................................................................. 2

4.1 Background Information Document (BID) and Map ..................................................................................................... 2

4.2 Site Notices....................................................................................................................................................... 2

4.3 Newspaper Advertisements .................................................................................................................................. 3

4.4 Adjacent Landowners .......................................................................................................................................... 3

4.5 Ward Councillor and Community Organizations/Non-Governmental Organisations ............................................................. 3

4.6 Local Authority and other State Organs ................................................................................................................... 3

5.0 I&AP REGISTRATION AND WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ........................................................................................................... 4

6.0 INFORMATION TO I&AP’S AND MEETINGS ........................................................................................................................ 4

6.1 Written Submissions ........................................................................................................................................... 4

7.0 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................................................ 5

APPENDICES

Appendix 1 Proof of site notices

Appendix 2 BID

Appendix 3 Proof of newspaper advertisements

Appendix 4 Communications to and from registered I&APs

Appendix 5 Minutes of any public and or stakeholder meetings

Appendix 6 Comments and Responses Report

Appendix 7, 8 & 10 Comments from I&APs on Report or amendments on Report

Appendix 9 Copy of the I&AP Register

Appendix 11 Other

1 | P a g e

1.0 INTRODUCTION

LEAP has been appointed by Zotec Developments (Pty) Ltd to assist with the requirements of the Scoping (EIA)

Assessment Procedure is in process under the NEMA 2006 legislation and a Notice of Intent was lodged with the

Gauteng Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (GDARD). Application for authorisation will be made in

respect of NEMA activities listed in Government Notice No. 983, 984 and 985 of 4th December 2014. An Environmental

Impact Assessment will be followed for this application. The application will be submitted to GDARD to this effect.

This document explains the proposed project and the regulatory processes that will have to be complied with, while

providing I&APs with the opportunity to:

Register as stakeholders in the public participation process; and

Make initial comments on and contributions to the proposed project.

This report provides a chronological account of the PPP followed. It also provides a complete record of communication,

advertisements, registration of Interested and Affected Parties (I&AP’s) and subsequent meetings held. Furthermore the

report is also annexed with related documentation to this process.

2.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS

The PPP forms a fundamental part of the Scoping EIA procedure and is one of the most important aspects of the

environmental authorisation process. Its aim is to provide an opportunity for interested and affected parties (I&AP’s) to

obtain clear, accurate and comprehensive information about the proposed development, its alternatives or the decision

and the environmental impacts thereof. In addition, the process provides I&AP’s with the opportunity to indicate their

viewpoints, issues and concerns regarding the proposal, alternatives and / or decisions. Inputs from the public,

interested and affected groups are considered in the planned project development. As a result, a clear recording of

issues raised and comments made is maintained in the register of comments and responses. This register is updated as

and when new comments and concerns are raised.

The process culminates in the undertaking to present the proposed development to registered I&AP’s and to provide

them with the opportunity to comment and raise issues and concerns with regards to the proposed development. These

issues, concerns and comments as raised by the I&AP’s are then recorded and considered

3.0 APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY

The overarching aim of the PPP is not only to adhere to the required legislation, but also to give as many stakeholders

as possible an opportunity to be actively involved in this process. Therefore LEAP’s approach to this process was to

pro-actively identify the relevant I&AP’s, inform them of the proposed development and related procedures, involve them

by affording them ample opportunity to raise issues and concerns about the proposed development and consolidate

those issues within the planning process.

Based on the above approach, LEAP engaged in the PPP using the following methodology in order to ensure that a

complete I&AP communication process was achieved:

Draft a Background Information Document (BID), including factual information and describing the process

including a map of the area affected by the proposed development;

Advertise the project in the prescribed newspapers, put up site notices, identify authorities and adjacent land

owners, and send them a BID (according to the legal requirements);

As I&AP’s respond to the advertisements and notices, register them on a I&AP database;

Communicate relevant information to registered I&AP’s throughout the process, in order for them to respond

and comment on the proposal;

List the issues raised in a Comment and Response Report;

Determine the need for a public meetings and If required, arrange, advertise and hold public meetings, and

record issues raised; and

Once the draft Report has been compiled, put the document out for public comment, and systematically inform

registered I&AP’s of the opportunity to comment.

This report provides a description of the methodology followed and includes detailed appendices as proof of the

procedure followed.

4.0 ADVERTISEMENTS AND PUBLIC AWARENESS

The following procedures were undertaken to inform I&AP’s about the proposed development and also to invite them to

be part of the process.

4.1 Background Information Document (BID) and Map

A detailed BID was drafted that clearly informed potential I&APs of the following:

The background of the project;

What the proposed development will entail;

Where the proposed development is located;

How I&AP’s can become involved in the process;

Contact details of the relevant contact person at LEAP;

A locality map of the proposed development area; and

A registration form for I&AP’s.

A map was also prepared that indicated the positions of the adjacent landowners and properties relative to the

development. This is in order to identify landowners and occupiers of land in a vicinity of 100m from the proposed

development, to register them as affected parties and inform them of the proposed development.

A copy of the BID, as per the EIA process, is attached in Appendix 2 of this report.

4.2 Site Notices

Detailed site notices were prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Regulations and were placed at the

following places:

At strategic and visible places alongside the property on which the proposed development will take place.

A copy of the site notice and proof of placement is attached as Appendix 1 of this report.

4.3 Newspaper Advertisements

Newspaper advertisements were placed in the following newspapers;

The Citizen newspaper on 04 February 2016.

A copy of the abovementioned Newspaper Advertisement (as proof) is attached in Appendix 3 of this report.

4.4 Adjacent Landowners

The legal requirements are very specific that adjacent landowners and occupiers of land adjoining the boundary of the

property where the activity is proposed, should be informed regarding the intentions to submit an application, and should

be given the opportunity to register as I&AP’s and raise issues and concerns on the matter.

The following procedure was followed to identify the landowners and occupiers of adjacent properties:

Relevant I&AP’s surrounding the property were identified;

Available details of the landowners and occupiers were registered in an I&AP database.

A BID document was sent to adjacent landowners and occupiers of adjacent properties in order to inform them of the

intended application and development. The BID was distributed in the following manner:

Notices were sent via e-mail, to landowners and I&AP’s whose e-mail addresses could be obtained through the

above process;

Notices were sent via fax, to landowners and I&AP’s whose fax numbers could be obtained through the above

process;

Notices were hand delivered to those landowners who couldn’t be reached by other means.

Copies of notices to I&APs are attached in Appendix 4 to this report.

4.5 Ward Councillor and Community Organizations/Non-Governmental

Organisations

The Ward Councillor is one of the key community representatives within the area of development. Therefore, he/she

should be informed, and be given an opportunity to provide comments and input into the process. Notifications was sent

to

Ward Councillor, RF Jones (Ward 5), area will be kept informed of the proposed development

A copy of the above-mentioned e-mail is attached in Appendix 4 of this report.

4.6 Local Authority and other State Organs

Several local authority departments such as Engineering Services, Traffic and Planning, National Department of Roads

& Transport were contacted by the various specialists.

Please refer to Appendix 4 for these communications.

5.0 I&AP REGISTRATION AND WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

The procedure to inform the public and I&AP’s regarding the process has been described in detail under the previous

item.

As I&AP’s became aware of the project, they were requested to register as I&AP’s and to submit any initial comments or

issues to LEAP.

The above procedure has been recorded as follows:

The complete Comment and Response Register is appended as Appendix 6 of this report;

I&AP Registration forms and letters with initial comments have been included in Appendix 4 of this report.

The complete I&AP Database is attached as Appendix 9 of this report.

6.0 INFORMATION TO I&AP’S AND MEETINGS

I&AP’s were registered during the initial phases of the project, as described under item 3 and 4 above, and provided with

a BID that described the background of the project. This chapter describes how information was disseminated to the

registered I&AP’s for comment.

As indicated in the notices and background information document that were distributed individual meetings are being

arranged with I&AP’s as required.

To date one individual meeting has been held with I&AP’s who has requested such an individual meeting. The minutes

of the meeting is attached hereto under Appendix 5.

6.1 Written Submissions

During the PPP, I&AP’s were requested to raise their concerns and thoughts regarding the proposed development.

Furthermore, they were also provided with the opportunity to make written submission regarding their issues and

concerns (Email, fax, telephone, or personal contact).

Written submissions received by LEAP have been attached in Appendix 4 of this report. The Draft Scoping report will

be made available from 29 March 2016 until 29 April 2016.

7.0 CONCLUSION

This report describes the process and outcome of the PPP followed for the proposed development Scoping EIA process

up and till May2016. This PPP supports the formal compliance processes for the proposed development.

The public participation process can, from a professional view, be described as having been successful and inclusive.

Prepared by Reviewed by

Jitske van den Heever Dr Gwen Theron - LEAP

May 2016

Signature and Date

APPENDIX 1 Proof of site notices

SITE NOTICES

PHOTO REPORT

Site notices were put up and hand notices were distributed on the 25 January 2016

Figure 1: Distribution of Site Notices and Hand-outs

Figure 2: Photograph of site notice

Figure 3: Site Notice 1 (R550)

Figure 4: Site Notice 2 (On-site)

Figure 5: Site Notice 3 (Corner R550 and Vereeniging Road)

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS/PUBLIEKE DEELNAME PROSES Notice is hereby given of a public participation process in terms of NEMA Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 2014 and in terms of Section 41(4) (b) of the National Water Act, 1998 (Act No 36 of 1998). Application for authorisation will be made in respect of NEMA activities listed in Government Notice No. 982, 983, 984 and 985 of 04 December 2014. An Environmental Impact Assessment (Scoping) process will be followed for this application. The application will be submitted to the Gauteng Department Agriculture and Rural Development (GDARD) for consideration. Description of the proposed development: The Applicant intends to develop a Mixed –use Township Establishment – zoning includes but is not limited to Residential 1, 2 & 3, Business, Open Space Areas, Educational, Institutional, Roads, Reservoir etc., to be known as Klipriver Estate.

Activities GN Reg 983: 9, 10,11, 12, 13, 19, 24, 25, 28, 45, 56

Activities GN Reg 984: 15

Activities GN Reg 985: 2, 4, 12, 14, 18 Application is also made to the Department of Water Affairs for Water use license under Section 21: b) storing of water c) impeding or diverting the flow of water in a watercourse (i) altering the bed, banks. course or characteristics of a watercourse: (f) discharging waste or water containing waste into a water resource through a pipe, canal, sewer, sea outfall or other conduit; (g) disposing of waste in a manner which may detrimentally impact on a water resource; Location: Part of the Farm Driefontein 146 I.R. Applicant: Mr Gerrit Brandow Zotec Developments (Pty) Ltd Any representation on the application can be made to: LEAP Contact Person : Dr Gwen Theron Tel: (012) 344 3582 Fax: 086 606 6130 E-mail: [email protected] or Jitske Botes at [email protected] Individual meetings with I&AP’s will be held upon request, should it be required. In order to register as an interested and / or affected party, please submit, in writing, your name, contact information and interest in the matter or issues to be addressed to the above mentioned consultant within 30 days of publication of this notice (Please register on or before 3 March 2016)

Kennisgewing van ŉ Publieke Deelname Proses word gegee in terme van NEMA Omgewingsimpakassessering 2014 en in terme van Wetsartikel 41(4)(b) van die Nasionale Water Wet (Wet No. 36 van 1998). Aansoek vir goedkeuring sal ingedien word in gevolge gelyste aktiwiteite in die Staatskennisgewing No. R. 982, 983, 984 and 985 of 04 December 2014. ŉ Omgewingsimpakasseserings (scoping) prosedure sal gevolg word vir die aansoek. Die aansoek sal ingedien word by die Gautengse Department van Landbou, en Landelike Ontwikkeling (GDARD) vir oorweging. Beskrywing van die Voorgestelde Projek: Die Applikant is van voorneme om ‘n gemengde gebruik Dorp te stig – die sonering sluit in maar is nie beperk tot Residensieël 1, 2 en 3, Besigheid, Oop Ruimte Areas, Opvoeding, Institusioneel, Paaie, ens, om bekend te staan as Klipriver Estate.

Aktiwiteite GN Reg 983: 9, 10,11, 12, 13, 19, 24, 25, 28, 45, 56

Aktiwiteite GN Reg 984: 15

Aktiwiteite GN Reg 983: 2, 4, 12, 14, 18 Aansoek vir goedkeuring sal ingedien word by Departement van Waterwese vir ‘n watergebruikslisensie onder terme van Wetsartikel 21: b) Stoor van water c) hindernis of herlei van die watervloei in ‘n waterstroom i) verandering aan die bodem, bank, rigting of karaktereienskappe van ‘n waterstroom (f) vrystel van afval of water wat afval bevat binne ‘n waterstroom deur ‘n pyp, kanaal, riool, see uitloop of ander watervoor (g) Ontslae raak van afval op ‘n manier wat ‘n waterstroom nadelig kan beinvloed Ligging: Gedeelte van die Plaas Driefontein 146 I.R Applikant: Mr Gerrit Brandow Zotec Developments (Edms) Bpk Enige navrae oor die aansoek kan gemaak word aan: LEAP Kontak Persoon : Dr Gwen Theron Tel: (012) 344 3582 Faks: 086 606 6130 Epos: [email protected] of Jitske Botes by [email protected] Individuele vergaderings sal met I&AP’s gehou word op versoek, indien dit benodig word. Ten einde te registreer as ŉ belangstellende of belanghebbende persoon,moet u asseblief u naam, kontak besonderhede en besware, of voorstelle rakende die saak skriftelik rig aan die bogemelde konsultant, binne 30 dae vanaf die plasing van hierdie kennisgewing (registreer asseblief voor of op 3 Maart 2016).

mailto:[email protected]


INVITATION TO PARTICIPATE:

EIA (Scoping) as per NEMA

KLIPRIVER ESTATE REGISTRATION SHEET

Accompanying Background Information Document

February 2016

Public Participation Office

LEAP Gwen Theron

P.O.Box 13185, Hatfield, 0028 FAX 086 606 6130

[email protected] &

Jitske Botes [email protected]

Please complete and return to the contact details as provided, by 03 March 2016 to register

Please formally register me as an interested and affected party (I&AP) so that I may receive further information and notifications during the Environmental Impact Assessment (Scoping) process

YES NO

I would like my notifications and documents for comment as follows:

Letter (mail) E-mail Fax On CD Internet

In terms of this Public Participation process I disclose below any direct business, financial, personal or other interest that I may have in the approval or refusal of the application:

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..………………………………………………………………

COMMENTS (please use separate sheets if you wish)

I suggest that the following issues of concern be investigated:

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...

I suggest the following for the public participation process:

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..………………………….

Any other comments:

………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………………………………………………………………………..

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Please register the following people as I&APs for this process:

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………………………………….

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………………………………

TITLE FIRST NAME

INITIALS SURNAME

ORGANISATION

POSTAL ADDRESS

POSTAL CODE

LAND LINE TEL NO CELL NO

FAX NO EMAIL

Signature Date

THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONTRIBUTION


APPENDIX 2 BID


Proposed Klipriver Estate

BACKGROUND INFORMATION DOCUMENT

Introduction The purpose of this BID is to provide information to I&APs about the Proposed Klipriver Estate development on Part of the Farm Driefontein 146 I.R.

The Environmental Impact Assessment Procedure is in process under the December, NEMA 2014 legislation and

a Notice of Intent was lodged with the Gauteng Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (GDARD).

Discussions are being held with GDARD to determine the best approach to the application prior to lodging the

application.

This BID explains the proposed project and the regulatory processes that will have to be complied with, while

providing I&APs with the opportunity to:

Register as stakeholders in the public participation process; and

Make initial comments on and contributions to the proposed project.

Contact person for representation on the application:

LEAP Contact Person: Dr. Gwen Theron Public Participation Assistant: Jitske Botes

Tel: 012 344 3852 Tel: (012) 344 3582

Fax: 086 606 6130 E-mail: [email protected]

P.O. Box 13185 Hatfield, 0028

E-mail:[email protected]

Affected properties

Location: A part of the Farm Driefontein 146 I.R. Extent: Approximately 310 Hectares

Your comment is important

Your comments will ensure that all relevant issues are evaluated in Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). You

are requested to complete the enclosed registration sheet, write a letter, call or e-mail the public participation office in

Pretoria (Jitske Botes). Upon request you will then receive further information about the proposed project and the

EIA process.

2

Figure 1: Location map

What is an EIA? Zotec Developments (Pty) Ltd (The Applicant) to commence with the proposed development, the applicant must conduct an

EIA (scoping) process and submit an EIA Report (EIAR) to the regulatory authorities (GDARD) in support of an application for

environmental authorisation to proceed with the project. An EIA process is a well-defined and regulated process, in terms of

the NEMA, involving public participation and technical studies, to identify issues of concern and to evaluate the environmental

and socio-economic impacts of a proposed project.

EIAs are used by planning authorities to obtain an objective view of the potential environmental and social impacts that

could arise during the construction and operation of the proposed development. This information must provide a sound basis

for decision-making by the authorities. The end product of EIA process is an EIA Report, which must:

Identify the potential impacts of the proposed activities;

Outline the public participation process undertaken; Illustrate the issues, concerns and suggestions raised by

I&APs; and

Outline the environmental management and mitigation measures that must be taken to avoid or reduce negative

impacts and enhance positive impacts.

The activities to be applied for: Indicate the number of the relevant Government Notice:

Activity No (s) (relevant notice): e.g. Listing notices 1, 2 or 3

Describe each listed activity as per the wording in the listing notices:

GN. R 983, 8 December 2014

Listing Notice 1 9

The development of infrastructure exceeding 1000 metres in length for the bulk transportation of water or storm water-

(i). with an internal diameter of 0,36 metres or more; or (ii). with a peak throughput of 120 litres per second or more;

Excluding where- (a). such infrastructure is for bulk transportation of water or storm water or

storm water drainage inside a road reserve; or (b). where such development will occur within an urban area.


Listing Notice 1 10

The development and related operation of infrastructure exceeding 1000 metres in length for the bulk transportation of sewage, effluent, process water, waste water, return water, industrial discharge or slimes

(i). with an internal diameter of 0,36 metres or more; or

3

(ii). with a peak throughput of 120 litres per second or more; Excluding where-

(a). such infrastructure is for bulk transportation of sewage, effluent, process water, waste water, return water, industrial discharge or slimes inside a road reserve; or

(b). where such development will occur within an urban area.


Listing Notice 1 11

The development of facilities or infrastructure for the transmission and distribution of electricity-

(i). outside urban areas or industrial complexes with a capacity of more than 33 but less than 275 kilovolts; or

(ii). inside urban areas or industrial complexes with a capacity of 275 kilovolts or more.


Listing Notice 1 12

The development of- (i). canals exceeding 100 square metres in size; (ii). channels exceeding 100 square metres in size; (iii). bridges exceeding 100 square metres in size; (iv). dams, where the dam, including infrastructure and water surface area,

exceeds 100 square metres in size; (v). weirs, where the weir, including infrastructure and water surface area,

exceeds 100 square metres in size; (vi). bulk storm water outlet structures exceeding 100 square metres in size; (vii). marinas exceeding 100 square metres in size; (viii). Jetties exceeding 100 square metres in size; (ix). slipways exceeding 100 square metres in size; (x). buildings exceeding 100 square metres in size; (xi). boardwalks exceeding 100 square metres in size; or (xii). Infrastructure or structures with a physical footprint of 100 square

metres or more; where such development occurs-

(a). within a watercourse; (b). in front of a development setback; or (c). if no development setback exists, within 32 metres of a watercourse,

measured from the edge of a watercourse; - excluding-

(aa) the development of infrastructure or structures within existing ports or harbours that will not increase the development footprint of the port or harbour; (bb) where such development activities are related to the development of a port or harbour, in which case activity 26 in Listing Notice 2 of 2014 applies; (cc) activities listed in activity 14 in Listing Notice 2 of 2014 or activity 14 in Listing Notice3 of 2014, in which case that activity applies; (dd) where such development occurs within an urban area; or (ee) where such development occurs within existing roads or road reserves


Listing Notice 1 13

The development of facilities or infrastructure for the off-stream storage of water, including dams and reservoirs, with a combined capacity of 50000 cubic metres or more, unless such storage falls within the ambit of activity 16 in Listing Notice 2 of 2014.


Listing Notice 1 19

The infilling or depositing of any material of more than 5 cubic metres into, or the dredging, excavation, removal or moving of soil, sand, shells, shell grit, pebbles or rock of more than 5 cubic metres from-

(i). a watercourse; (ii). the seashore; or (iii). (the littoral active zone, an estuary or a distance of 100 metres inland

of the high-water mark of the sea or an estuary, whichever distance is the greater -

But excluding where such infilling, depositing, dredging, excavation, removal or moving-

(a). will occur behind a development setback; (b). is for maintenance purposes undertaken in accordance with a

maintenance management plan; or (c). falls within the ambit of activity 21 in this Notice, in which case that

activity applies.


Listing Notice 1 24

The development of- (i). a road for which an environmental authorisation was obtained for the

route determination in terms of activity 5 in Government Notice 387 of

4

2006 or activity 18 in Government Notice 545 of 2010; or (ii). (a road with a reserve wider than 13,5 meters, or where no reserve

exists where the road is wider than 8 metres; but excluding-

(a). roads which are identified and included in activity 27 in Listing Notice 2 of 2014; or

(b). roads where the entire road falls within an urban area.


Listing Notice 1 25

The development and related operation of facilities or infrastructure for the treatment of effluent, wastewater or sewage with a daily throughput capacity of more than 2000 cubic metres but less than 15000 cubic metres.


Listing Notice 1 28

Residential, mixed, retail, commercial, industrial or institutional developments where such land was used for agriculture or afforestation on or after 01 April 1998 and where such development:

(i). will occur inside an urban area, where the total land to be developed is bigger than 5 hectares; or

(ii). will occur outside an urban area, where the total land to be developed is bigger than 1 hectare;

excluding where such land has already been developed for residential, mixed, retail, commercial, industrial or institutional purposes.


Listing Notice 1 45

The expansion of infrastructure for the bulk transportation of water or storm water where the existing infrastructure-

(i). has an internal diameter of 0,36 metres or more; or (ii). has a peak throughput of 120 litres per second or more; and (a). where the facility or infrastructure is expanded by more than 1000

metres in length; or (b). where the throughput capacity of the facility or infrastructure will be

increased by 10% or more; excluding where such expansion- (aa) relates to transportation of water or storm water within a road reserve; or (bb) will occur within an urban area.


Listing Notice 1 56

The widening of a road by more than 6 metres, or the lengthening of a road by more than 1 kilometre-

(i). where the existing reserve is wider than 13,5 meters; or (ii). where no reserve exists, where the existing road is wider than 8

metres; excluding where widening or lengthening occur inside urban areas.


Listing Notice 2 15

The clearance of an area of 20 hectares or more of indigenous vegetation, excluding where such clearance of indigenous vegetation is required for-

(i). the undertaking of a linear activity; or (ii). maintenance purposes undertaken in accordance with a maintenance

management plan.


Listing Notice 3 2

The development of reservoirs for bulk water supply with a capacity of more than 250 cubic metres. (c) In Gauteng:

i. A protected area identified in terms of NEMPAA, excluding conservancies;

ii. National Protected Area Expansion Strategy Focus Areas; iii. Gauteng Protected Area Expansion Priority Areas; iv. Sites identified as Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBAs) and Ecological

Support Areas (ESAs) in the Gauteng Conservation Plan or in bioregional plans;

v. Sites identified within threatened ecosystems listed in terms of the National Environmental Management Act: Biodiversity Act (Act No. 10 of 2004);

vi. Sensitive areas identified in an environmental management framework adopted by relevant environmental authority;

vii. Sites or areas identified in terms of an International Convention; viii. Sites managed as protected areas by provincial authorities, or declared

as nature reserves in terms of the Nature Conservation Ordinance (Ordinance 12 of 1983) or the National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act (Act No. 57 of 2003);

ix. Sites designated as nature reserves within municipal SDFs; or x. Sites zoned for a conservation or public open space or equivalent

zoning.

5


Listing Notice 3 4

The development of a road wider than 4 metres with a reserve less than 13,5 metres. (c) In Gauteng:

i. A protected area identified in terms of NEMPAA, excluding conservancies;

ii. National Protected Area Expansion Strategy Focus Areas; iii. Gauteng Protected Area Expansion Priority Areas; iv. Sites identified as Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBAs) and Ecological


v. Sites identified within threatened ecosystems listed in terms of the National Environmental Management Act: Biodiversity Act (Act No. 10 of 2004);


vii. Sites identified as high potential agricultural land in terms of Gauteng Agricultural Potential Atlas;

viii. Important Bird and Biodiversity Area (IBA); ix. Sites or areas identified in terms of an International Convention; x. Sites managed as protected areas by provincial authorities, or declared


xi. Sites designated as nature reserves within municipal SDFs; or xii. Sites zoned for a conservation or public open space or equivalent

zoning.


Listing Notice 3 12

The clearance of an area of 300 square metres or more of indigenous vegetation except where such clearance of indigenous vegetation is required for maintenance purposes undertaken in accordance with a maintenance management plan.

a) In Eastern Cape, Free State, Gauteng, Limpopo North West and Western Cape provinces:

i. Within any critically endangered or endangered ecosystem listed in terms of section 52 of the NEMBA or prior to the publication of such a list, within an area that has been identified as critically endangered in the National Spatial Biodiversity Assessment 2004;

ii. Within critical biodiversity areas identified in bioregional plans; iii. Within the littoral active zone or 100 metres inland from high water

mark of the sea or an estuarine functional zone, whichever distance is the greater, excluding where such removal will occur behind the development setback line on erven in urban areas; or

iv. On land, where, at the time of the coming into effect of this Notice or thereafter such land was zoned open space, conservation or had an equivalent zoning.


Listing Notice 3 14

The development of – (i) Canals exceeding 10 square metres in size; (ii) Channels exceeding 10 square metres in size; (iii) Bridges exceeding square metres in size; (iv) Dams, where the dam, including infrastructure and water surface

area exceeds 10 square metres in size; (v) Weirs, where the weir, including infrastructure and water surface

area exceeds 10 square metres in size; (vi) Bulk storm water outlet structures exceeding 10 square metres in

size (vii) Marinas exceeding 10 square metres in size; (viii) Jetties exceeding 10 square metres in size; (ix) Slipways exceeding 10 square metres in size; (x) Buildings exceeding 10 square metres in size (xi) Boardwalks exceeding 10 square metres in size; or (xii) Infrastructure or structures with a physical footprint of 10 square

metres or more Where such development occurs –

(a) Within a watercourse; (b) In front of a development setback; or (c) If no development setback has been adopted, within 32 metres of a

6

watercourse measured from the edge of a watercourse Excluding the development of infrastructure or structures within existing ports or harbours that will not increase the development footprint of the port or harbour

(a) In Gauteng: i. A protected area identified in terms of NEMPAA, excluding

conservancies; ii. National Protected Area Expansion Strategy Focus Areas; iii. Gauteng Protected Area Expansion Priority Areas; iv. Sites identified as Criticial Biodiversity Areas (CBAs) and

Ecological Support Areas (ESAs in the Gauteng Conservation Plan or in bioregional plans.

v. Sites identified within threatened ecosystems listed in terms of the National Environmental Management Act: Biodiversity Act (Act No 10 of 2004)

vi. Sensitive areas identfied in an environmental management framework adopted by relevant environmental authority;

vii. Sites or areas identfied in terms of an International Convention. viii. Sites managed as protected areas by provincial authorities, or

declared as nature reserves in terms of the Nature Conservation Ordinance (Ordiance 12 of 1983) or the National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act (Act No. 57 of 2003)

ix. Sites desiganted as nature reserves within muniicpal SDFs; o x. Sites zoned for conservation or public open space or equivalent

zoning.


Listing Notice 3 18

The widening of a road by more than 4 metres; or the lengthening of a road by more than 1 kilometre.

(c) In Gauteng: i. A protected area identified in terms of NEMPAA, excluding

conservancies; ii. National Protected Area Expansion Strategy Focus Areas; iii. Gauteng Protected Area Expansion Priority Areas; iv. Sites identified as Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBAs) and Ecological


v. Sites identified within threatened ecosystems listed in terms of the National Environmental Management Act: Biodiversity Act (Act No. 10 of 2004)


vii. Sites identified as high potential agricultural land in terms of Gauteng Agricultural Potential Atlas

viii. Sites or areas identified in terms of an International Convention; ix. Important Bird and Biodiversity Area (IBA); x. Sites managed as protected areas by provincial authorities, or declared


xi. Sites designated as nature reserves within municipal SDFs; or xii. Sites zoned for a conservation or public open space or equivalent

zoning.

Public Participation The public participation process during the EIA phase will enable I&APs to influence the course of the technical

investigations and to review the findings of the independent studies that are undertaken. The environmental

consultants will correspond directly with registered I&APs at various stages during the process to keep them

informed of progress in the study and the timing of opportunities to be involved. The steps in the public participation

process are outlined below.

Letters of invitation accompanied by this BID and comment sheet to be distributed to adjacent landowners

within 100m from the area of the proposed development, key individuals and organisations, announcing the

project and inviting their comment

7

Advertisements in Local newspaper (Citizen) announcing the proposed project and providing opportunity to

comment

Site notices to be erected at strategic places along the property in accordance with the requirements of the

EIA Regulations, in order to announce the project

Key stakeholders in the area will be informed by telephone, e-mail or facsimile.

All issues received from stakeholders will be captured in the issues and response report (I&RR) which will be

used to screen and prioritise issues for evaluation

Specialist studies being conducted

The following specialist studies are currently being conducted to provide the necessary detail to GDARD to make

informed decisions regarding the application. Furthermore, the specialist studies provide the I&AP ’s the information

required to gauge the potential impact and to see if the issues that are important to them are addressed.

Traffic Impact Assessment

Services report to include Roads, Water provision, Sewer reticulation and Storm Water

Electricity

Architectural Studies

Town planning Motivational Memorandum

Ecological Assessment Heritage Impact Assessment

List of Acronyms BA Basic Assessment BAR Basic Assessment Report BID Background Information Document EIA An Environmental Impact Assessment as contemplated in terms of the National Environmental

Management Act (Act 1207 of 1998) EIAR Environmental Impact Assessment Report GN Government Notice GDARD Gauteng Department of Agriculture and Rural Development I&AP’s Interested and Affected Parties I&RR issues and response report NEMA National Environmental Management Act (Act 107 of 1998) NWA National Water Act Reg Regulation

Individual meetings with I&AP’s will be held upon request, should it be

required.

Due date for registration is 03 March 2016

8


EIA as per NEMA

KLIPRIVER ESTATE

REGISTRATION SHEET

Accompanying Background Information Document

February 2016

Public Participation Office LEAP

Gwen Theron P.O.Box 13185, Hatfield, 0028

FAX 086 606 6130

[email protected]

& Jitske Botes

[email protected]

Please complete and return to the contact details as provided, by 03 March 2016 to register

Please formally register me as an interested and affected party (I&AP) so that I may receive further information and notifications during the EIA (Scoping) process

YES NO

I would like my notifications and documents for comment as follows:

Letter (mail) E-mail Fax On CD Internet

In terms of this Public Participation process I disclose below any direct business, financial, personal or other interest that I may have in the approval or refusal of the application:

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

COMMENTS (please use separate sheets if you wish)

I suggest that the following issues of concern be investigated:

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...

I suggest the following for the public participation process:

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..………………………….

Any other comments:

……………………………………………………………………..…………………………………………………………………………..

……………………………………..…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Please also register the following people as I&APs for this process:

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………………………………….

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………………………………

TITLE FIRST NAME

INITIALS SURNAME

ORGANISATION

POSTAL ADDRESS

POSTAL CODE

LAND LINE TEL NO CELL NO

FAX NO EMAIL

Signature Date

THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONTRIBUTION


APPENDIX 3 Proof of newspaper advertisements

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS

Notice is hereby given of a public participation process in terms of NEMA Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 2014 and in terms of Section 41(4) (b) of the National Water Act, 1998 (Act No 36 of 1998). Application for authorisation will be made in respect of NEMA activities listed in Government Notice No. 982, 983, 984 and 985 of 04 December 2014. An Environmental Impact Assessment (Scoping) process will be followed for this application. The application will be submitted to the Gauteng Department Agriculture and Rural Development (GDARD) for consideration. Description of the proposed development: The Applicant intends to develop a Mixed –use Township Establishment – zoning includes but is not limited to Residential 1, 2 & 3, Business, Open Space Areas, Educational, Institutional, Roads, Reservoir etc., to be known as Klipriver Estate.

Activities GN Reg 983: 9, 10,11, 12, 13, 19, 24, 25, 28, 45, 56

Activities GN Reg 984: 15

Activities GN Reg 985: 2, 4, 12, 14, 18 Application is also made to the Department of Water Affairs for Water use license under Section 21: b) storing of water c) impeding or diverting the flow of water in a watercourse (i) altering the bed, banks. course or characteristics of a watercourse: (f) discharging waste or water containing waste into a water resource through a pipe, canal, sewer, sea outfall or other conduit; (g) disposing of waste in a manner which may detrimentally impact on a water resource; Location: Part of the Farm Driefontein 146 I.R. Applicant: Mr Gerrit Brandow Zotec Developments (Pty) Ltd Any representation on the application can be made to: LEAP Contact Person : Dr Gwen Theron Tel: (012) 344 3582 Fax: 086 606 6130 E-mail: [email protected] or Jitske Botes at [email protected] Individual meetings with I&AP’s will be held upon request, should it be required. In order to register as an interested and / or affected party, please submit, in writing, your name, contact information and interest in the matter or issues to be addressed to the above mentioned consultant within 30 days of publication of this notice (Please register on or before 3 March 2016)


APPENDIX 4 Communications to and from registered I&APs

�

��

��

��

�� !�"� ��#��$��!��%��!%�� #��$��&'�� !"��"�#��$�

�(�� )�*!%��"�#��$�� !"��"�#��$��!%�� #��$�

��+��)�� #��$��,� +��!� ��#��$�� "�� #��$�

�� ,�� $��&��!%�� #��$�� $�

��! +�!�� $�� &�-�� #��$��+.,�� #��$�

��+.�� $�)��%��)��+��"�#�

�� %��&��"�� #�$��"��"�� #�

�� /0��(��"��0��1��)��%��2��%�'�034�0��5�6�7��,��8 ��/��

��

�� !�"� ��#�� /��!��6��6��

��!��%��!%�� #��

��&'�� !"��"�#��

�(�� )�*!%��"�#��

�� !"��"�#��

��!%�� #��

��+��)�� #��

��,� +��!� ��#��

�� "�� #��

�� ,��

��&��!%�� #��

��

��! +�!��

� ��&�-�� #��

��+.,�� #��

��+.��

)��%��)��+��"�#�

�%��&��"�� #� 7��!��6�96��:�9��

��"��"�� #� /��!��6�96��:��

��

�

��

�

�� !��"#��$�

"%&'��

�

��($��(��)��$��(��(��

��*��$�+,��-�.$��/��0��.$��/�1��!�+%2'�'%'�'&3%1��

��"#��$�"%&'��

�

4��

5��-��

�

�

�

��

�

�

��

�� !��"��#�� $�� $��"��#��%�&�� !�� !�"��#��'� �(�)� $��!�"��#�

�� !�� !�"��#�� $��"��#�� #�� *� �� #��*+�,��"��#�(��$��( ��*��!�"��

��$�� -�!��"�#��!� �-�!��"�� ' �-��!��.��/��(��$��0��$�%�.12�.��3�4�5��,��6��-��7-��

�

��

�

��

�

�� 4$��6��+��-��678�6��1��

��$��$��3%��

�

��$�� $$��(�$��

�

��($��(��)��$��(��(��

��*��$�+,��-�.$��/��0��.$��/�1��!�+%2'�'%'�'&3%1��

��"#��$�"%&'��

�

4��

5��-��

�

�

��

REGISTRATION AS IAP

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT PROCESS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT

OF A MIXED-USE TOWNSHIP ESTABLISHMENT-ZONING INCLUDES BUT NOT

LIMITED TO RESIDENTIAL 1, 2 & 3, BUSINESS, OPEN SPACE AREAS,

EDUCATIONAL, INSTITUTIONAL, ROADS, RESERVOIR ETC TO BE KNOWN AS

KLIPLRIVER ESTATE ON PART OF THE FARM DRIEFONTEIN 146 IR

First Name/s: GAIL

Last Name: ANDREWS

Title: (Dr./ Miss/ Mr./ Mrs./ Prof. etc)

MRS

If representing an entity (i.e. company or organisation), name of entity:

RAND WATER

If representing an entity, position within entity (i.e. CEO, Chairperson, Secretary, Councillor, etc):

MANAGER ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS

Postal Address: P.O. BOX 1127JOHANNESBURG2000

Physical Address

E-mail Address: [email protected]

Phone Number: (011) 724-9360

Cell Phone Number:

Fax: (011) 900-1208

Comments:

ALL TRAVERSING ALONG AND OVER RAND WATER PIPELINES. POSSIBLE LEAKS FROM OTHER SERVICES THAT COULD CAUSE GROUND STABILITY TO CHANGE. PLEASE KEEP US INFORMED REGARDING THE ABOVE ASPECTS.

�

��

��

��

��

�� !"��#��$��%��&��

�

�

��

��

��

�� !��

�� "��#�$��%��

�

&��&��

�

'��(�'�� #�� $�� #�)��(��##�� $��*��

��(��$��#��"��#�$��%�� *��#� ��$��#�� $��

��$�� (� ��

�

+��*��(��#��$��(��$�� (��*��

,��-��$�� $��(��*�� #��

��

�

��$�� !�� .�� *�� !�(�� /��0��#��

��*�� *��((� ��

�

1�� ((� ��

�

+�� *��(� ��$�� *��#� ��(��

��*��#��'�� #��%�!��(��

�� 2��$��*-� ��*��

+�� *�� *��#��*��*��

��(��3� �� *��*�!��$��

�

��!��(��$� ��

�

��%��3��

�

%�� 4��*�� 0��

5��6��78�8��9�.��/�

�

��1��:�)�;;�9�7�

"�*��!��

��7��

�

�

�

�

�

<��(��:�� !:��#��

�

�

��

��

��

�� !� ��"�##��$��%��&��

�� $"�� '�(��

�� ) �*��!��+��

�� %�,) �*��!��+��*# '-./��$�� 0) �*��!��+��%��%��

��#�*# '-./��$�� 0) �*��!��+��*# '��%�,) �*��!��+��1��#

2��%��02�*��*#

��

�

��

��

��

�

��

�

��

�� !"�#��$!%&��

�

��

' � ��

�

�

��

�

��

��

��

��

�� !��"��#�$�� !��"��

�� %&�' � ��!��&��

�� ()*+' � ��!��&�� ,-#()*+' � ��!��,�� ,-

��

�

��

��

�

��

�

��

�

��

! ��

�

��"�� #��$�� %�� &��

��'(�)� ��*'+,�'-$'.��)�

�� %��

�� /0$��

�

�

��

��

��

�� !"��#��$��%��&��

�

�

��

�� %��#��$�� %��&��

��1�� )� ��-��*'+,�-$-'��)�

�� %��

��

�

2�� 2 �1��

�

�

�� 3��

��

��

�

0��

!�� 1��

��

�

1�� 4�� 5�� 6��

��

�

7��

�

0��

��

�� 8��

0��

�� 9��

�

1��

�

1��9��

�

��$�� %��:� �%�� 6��

;��$�'<*�*=.�.-->�41��5�

��7��?�3�(('>'=�

��

*'=-�

�

�

�

�

�

@�� ?�� ?� ��+'��

�

�

��

��

��

�� !"�#��

�� $%�� & '��

�� ()�*�� +��,��+*��#��

�� -.*/0 ��)��1#&-.*/0 ��1��1#

��

�

��

��

�

��

�

��

�

��

! ��

��

��" ��#�� $��%�� &�� '��

��()�*�� (+,-�,,%(.��/�

��01�� 0�2�� &�� 34� ��&��

�� *5%�"��*� ��" ��,6-�

�

�

�

��

��7��8�$��%� ��8&�� 9�'��

��/��*�� ((��(+,-�.%+:��/�

�� &��

�� "��*� ��" ��,6-�

�

�

;��

�

�

��

��

�

�

�

��

#�� *<7�=#��#�/>�7��7<?�� *<7�=#��#�/>�7��7<?��

� �� #�� 8� ��

��

��

�� *<7�=#��#�/>�7��7<?��

�� @� �� *<7�=#��#�/>�7��7<?�� @� ��

��@� �� @� ��

�

�

�

�

��

��

��

�� !""#�$�� %

�� &'��

�� (!��)�"*�� %��"+ ��!��

�� ,-*.+ ��!��"/0,-*.+ ��"��"/

��

!""#�$�� %

&'��

$��1!""#2!�3 (��"��.�4.��4��

��

�

��

��

�

��

�

��

�

��

! ��

�

��"�� #��$�� %�� &��

��'(�)� ��*'+,�'-$'.��)�

�� %��

�� /0$�)�1��2��

�

�

�

��

��

�� !�� "#��$�%��&��' ��'��'��%�(��'��&��)��

�

�

�

��

��3�� 4�!5�#��$��3�� %��&��

��6�� )� ��-��*'+,�7$-8��)�

��6�� 4�� %�� 5�9�� %�� :�

�

��;��3�� ;�9� �%�� <�:�

�� )�1��2��

�

2��

�

�� =�� >��

��

�

��

��

�

��?,�� @��)��/��

+��A��@��B��

�C�?�1�+��B�� +(7.�

��

��

B�� 6��

6�� D*.�+,�(*'�-,'8

/�1 D*.�++�E**�-(.7

)�� D*.��

�F�� %��

��

�

�

NOTICE: Please note that this eMail, and the contents thereof, is subject to the standard Sasol eMail legal notice which may be found at: http://www.sasol.com/legalnoticesIf you cannot access the legal notice through the URL attached and you wish to receive a copy thereof please send an eMail to [email protected]

�

��

��

��

�� !��"�#�� $��

�� $%�� "�� & !�� "��

�� ' ��(��#��#��#�� "��)*+, �

�� *+,)' ��(��#-&*+,)' ��#��#-

��

�

��

� ��

�

� �� !�� "��

��#��$��

�

�� %��&��!��'�� (��

�

� ��

�

��

)&�� *��

�

��

�

��

��

��

�� !��

�� "��#�� !�$�� "��#��

�� %&�%��'(��)��*+��,��"&��- ��./ �"��#��&��

�0��0��1��0��'%

�� 2'1*/ �"��#��&��"�0!2'1*/ �"��#��"�0

��

�

��

��

�

��

�

��

�

��

! ��

�

��"�� #��$�� %�� &��

��'(�)� ��*'+,�'-$'.��)�

�� %��

�� /0$�1�� $�)�2��34��5��6��

7 ��+8,��1�

�

�

�

��

��

�� !�"�� #�� $�%��&��'( ��)�� *�+ ��,�� -��*��.��+ ��%��/�� /��0��/��1��

$#�

�

Dear Sir/Madam Rand Water is hereby registering as IAP for the above-mentioned project. Kindly forward confirmation of registration as IAP to Natalie Koneight at [email protected] Attached is Rand Water’s Wayleaves, for your information. Rand Water would like to ensure that the development as per the BID have planned adequately for their sewerage removal off site. Please provide Rand Water with: 1. The detail about the facility that will receive the sewerage. 2. An agreement that the identified sewerage facility is aware of the development and that they have the capacity to accept the sewerage from the site without overloading the facility.

�

3. Will there be any discharges other than the sewerage system that will increase storm water entering the environment. If so, has the development considered retention and stilling ponds to slow down high peak flows. If the sewerage facility cannot accept the additional load into their facility then this will have a negative impact on the environment and the pollution load into the river systems.

�� !��

��

�� :� �� 3�!� �� 3;7�

�� '++�<*8�(-,,�

�� ='++>�(''3*+'?�

�� % �� @�

��

��

��

�

��

��

��

� �� !��

�� "#�� !��$�%!��&� �� !��

�� '��(�� )��*��)�(�!��!��

�� *��#��

�� *��""�+

��

�

��

��

�

�

�

�

�

�� !"#��$%�#�&#"'�� !"#��$%�#�&#"'��

�� (� � ��)��

� �� *��

�� *�� *� ��*��*��

��!"#��$%�#�&#"'�� *��*�

�� + �� !"#��$%�#�&#"'�� + ��

��+ �� + ��

�

�

�

��

�� !��" #$�

��%&�� '�(�� ")��*�� +��*��, ��

�

& ��*�

�

�

�� ,��

��,�� (� ��

�

�� *�� (� ��

�

��

�

,��*�

-��

��

��.��&�� /�� 0�� 1�� 2��

��3�!��456�550�7��$�

��89��8�:(��1�� ;<��1��

��!=0�.�� !��.�� 5>6�

�

�

�

��

��# �)�/�� 0�� )1� �� ?�2��

��$ ��*�!��*��456�704@��$�

�� 1��

��.�� !��.�� 5>6�

�

�

��&��

�

��

�� *��

�

�

�

�

�� !"#��$%�#�&#"'�� !"#��$%�#�&#"'��

�� (� � ��)��

� �� *��

�� *�� *� ��*��*��

��!"#��$%�#�&#"'�� *��*�

�� + �� !"#��$%�#�&#"'�� + ��

��+ �� + ��

�

�

�

�

��

��

��

�� !�� "#�� #!$!%&&'�(�� #!

�� !")�� !$!*�� !

�� + ��%��,��-��)��.��)�'%/0%��1234- ��5�6��#��"

��

�

��

�

�� !"�#$��%��

�

��&��'��#��(��)��)��'*+�

'��%��&��

�

��)��)��

�

&��

,(��

�

��

�

��

��

��

� !�� "#$ %��

�� &� '(��

�� ")��*��+�� ,��+�*��-� ��.�

�� ,��#�

�� ,��/

��

��

�� !��"�� #�

$� ��%��

�

�

�

��&��"�'��(��")�� #��#*�+��

�� ,��-��./��(0/�1,�

��!)��!��#��#*��

��#��)��!��#��#*�2�3�� )��!��#��#*��

� ��&4(�5�!��6��5��/0��

�

��

�

1�� !� �� !�� #�� 7��

�� #�� 4��

�

�

�

�

�

�

�� 68&47��,$4&�%&891�� 68&47��,$4&�%&891��

�� #�� 3��!��#��!�� "��

�� !�� #��!��!�� #��

��

��#��68&47��,$4&�%&891�� !��

��:��#��68&47��,$4&�%&891�� :��

��:�� :�� #�

�

�

�

��

�� !�� "�#$�

��%&�� '�(� �� ")��*�� +��*��,��

�

%��

�

��!�� 1�� ;��!��

4 ��;��!�� 3�� #�

�

�� !��3�� #�

�

�� !�� !��#�

�

;��

< ��

��

��5��%��'��(��#��)�� #��+��

��-�6��./��//(��,�

��=>�� =�?3�� )�� #��@2�� )�� #��

� ��6A(�5�!��6��5��/0��

�

�

�

�

��

��&��"�'��(��")�� #��#*�+��

��,��6��./��(.B��,�

��#��)�� #��

� ��5�!��6��5��/0��

�

�

��%��

�

1�� !�� !��

�� !��!��#�

�

�

�

��

�� 68&47��,$4&�%&891�� 68&47��,$4&�%&891��

�� #�� 3��!��#��!�� "��

�� !�� #��!��!�� #��

��

��#��68&47��,$4&�%&891�� !��

��:��#��68&47��,$4&�%&891�� :��

��:�� :�� #�

�

�

�

�

��

��

��

�� !�� "#$

�� %� &'��( �& )��'��&��&� ��'*&��

�� "+��,��*�� -��*�,��.� ��/�

�� -��#�

�� -��0

��

��

�

�

�

�� !��

��"�#��$%"�&%'(�)�*+�,#�

��-��

�� .��/��-��0��/� �� ')(�

�

1 �

�

,�� 2��

3��

�

�

��

�

3� �� 2�� 04�.53��36#�.��7�48,� ��-��-� ��04�.53��36#�.��7�48,��

�� 3�� 2��-� � �� -��

�� 6�� "�-�� 6��

�� - �� "��2�� "��-�"��"�� 2��

�� 04�.53��36#�.��7�48,�� 2�� "�� "�

��- ��9�� 04�.53��36#�.��7�48,� �� 2�� -�� 9��

��9�� 9��

�

�

�

��

��

��!��"�#$%��

��&��'(�� ")��*�� +� �*��,��-��

�

16��"��&&�� 2��"��

3��2��-��-��:��

;��(��+�-��-��

��7��

�

�

�

�� !��

��3��"�#��&<"�&%'(�&�)'�,#�

��-��

��-�� =�� -��

�� .��/��-��0��/� �� ')(�

�

1 �

�

,�� 2��-�� 2�� -��&&��-� ��6� ��5��

�� 6�� 3��.��

�

�

�

�

�

.

��3� �� 2�� 04�.53��36#�.��7�48,� ��-��-� ��04�.53��36#�.��7�48,��

�� 3�� 2��-� � �� -��

�� 6�� "�-�� 6��

�� - �� "��2�� "��-�"��"�� 2��

�� 04�.53��36#�.��7�48,�� 2�� "�� "�

��- ��9�� 04�.53��36#�.��7�48,� �� 2�� -�� 9��

��9�� 9��

�

�

�

��/(��'��0��

��-��-.� ��!��"�#$�

��%�&��'(�� ")��*�� +� �*��,��-��

�

7��"�

�

6�� 2�� 6��,�� -��-��>� -� ��

.��>� -� �� -��

�

��"�-�� 2�� 2�� -��

�

6�� 2�� 2�� 2��-��

�

> ��"�

?��

��

��/��7��3�� !��

��&<�0�2��&%'(�''�&+��#�

��@A ��@�B� ��C=��

�� 0��/��-��0��/� �� ')(�

-

�

�

�

��

�� !��

��#��"�0�2��&&"�&%'(�+�%D��#�

��

�� /��-��0��/� �� ')(�

�

�

1 �7��

�

,�� 2��6�� -��

��-�"��2��-��-��

�

�

�

��

3� �� 2�� 04�.53��36#�.��7�48,� ��-��-� ��04�.53��36#�.��7�48,��

�� 3�� 2��-� � �� -��

�� 6�� "�-�� 6��

�� - �� "��2�� "��-�"��"�� 2��

�� 04�.53��36#�.��7�48,�� 2�� "�� "�

��- ��9�� 04�.53��36#�.��7�48,� �� 2�� -�� 9��

��9�� 9��

�

�

�

�

��

��

��

�� !��"#��

�� $#��%��&��'��%��#� �� %�(��

�� )��*�"� �!�(��+��(�*�#��#��,�

��

�

�

��

�� !!� ��!�"�#$��%&$#��#�'(�� "�#$��%&$#��#�'(�� !��

�� !�� !�� )� � ��*��*��+��

��!� ��*��!��*�� *�� ,�� !�� !��

�� !� ��,�� !�� ,� ��,��,��

�� "�#$��%&$#��#�'(� �� !� �� !��!��,�*��,�

�� -�� !�� "�#$��%&$#��#�'(�� !�� !�� !� ��-��!��

��-�� !� ��!�� -��

�

�

�

��

��

��!��"#$��%&��'(��)��'%*��(��' ��'��(�' ��

� ��"+��,��- ��,��.��/��

�

.��)�� *��

&��

�

�

�

�

�� #��+�/�� 0��+1!�� 2�3��

��.��,�%�� 4,��456�7089�(%�

�� 1��*�� 2��

��#$0�:�*�� "��:��!�� 576�

�

��

�

(�� !�� !�� !� ��

�+�!��

�

�

�� !!� ��!�"�#$��%&$#��#�'(�� "�#$��%&$#��#�'(�� !��

�� !�� !�� )� � ��*��*��+��

��!� ��*��!��*�� *�� ,�� !�� !��

�� !� ��,�� !�� ,� ��,��,��

�� "�#$��%&$#��#�'(� �� !� �� !��!��,�*��,�

�� -�� !�� "�#$��%&$#��#�'(�� !�� !�� !� ��-��!��

��-�� !� ��!�� -��

�

�

�

�� 0�� 0��

��!��"#$*��

��1��'(�� "+��,��- ��,��.��/��

�

�� ,� ��,��

��!�� ;��

<�� 6� ��9�� *� �� !��+ ��

�

&��

�

�

�

�� #��+�/�� 0��+1!�� 2�3��

��,�%�� =,��456��075�(%�

��*1��*�� 2��

�� 1��*�� 2�>�)� ��1��*�� 2��

��#$0�:�*�� "��:��!�� 576�

�

��

�

(�� !�� *�� !�� *��

�� $��!��!�� !��

�

�

�

�

�

��

�� !!� ��!�"�#$��%&$#��#�'(�� "�#$��%&$#��#�'(�� !��

�� !�� !�� )� � ��*��*��+��

��!� ��*��!��*�� *�� ,�� !�� !��

�� !� ��,�� !�� ,� ��,��,��

�� "�#$��%&$#��#�'(� �� !� �� !��!��,�*��,�

�� -�� !�� "�#$��%&$#��#�'(�� !�� !�� !� ��-��!��

��-�� !� ��!�� -��

�

�

�

��2(��' ��3��

��/�� /��

/

��!��"#$�

�� *�1��'(�� "+��,��- ��,��.��/��

�

��,�

�

�� !�� *�� !!� ��(�� ?��*��

$� � ��?��*�� )� ��

�

� � �� ,��!�� !�� *�� )� ��

�

�!��!�� *��*��

�

?��,�

@��

��

��:��/�� 0�� 1 �� 3��

��=�"��456�550�9��%�

��AB� ��A�C)� ��1 �� D>��1 ��

��".0�:�*�� "��:��!�� 576�

�

�

�

��

�� #��+�/�� 0��+1!�� 2�3��

��%��,�"��,��456�904E��%�

�� 1 ��

��:�*�� "��:��!�� 576�

�

�

��

�

(�� *�� !�� *��

�� ,��*�� !��*��

�

�

�

�

�� !!� ��!�"�#$��%&$#��#�'(�� "�#$��%&$#��#�'(�� !��

�� !�� !�� )� � ��*��*��+��

��!� ��*��!��*�� *�� ,�� !�� !��

�� !� ��,�� !�� ,� ��,��,��

�� "�#$��%&$#��#�'(� �� !� �� !��!��,�*��,�

�� -�� !�� "�#$��%&$#��#�'(�� !�� !�� !� ��-��!��

��-�� !� ��!�� -��

�

�

�

�

��

��

��

�� !��"��#�� $�� $��"��#��%�& � !��!�"��#�

�'�� (�) $��!�"��#�� !��!�"��#�� $��"��#�

�� #�� *� �� #��*+,��"��#�

(��$��(��*��!�"�

�� $��-��!��"�#��!��-��!��"�

�� '��-��!��.��/��(��$��0��$�%�.12�.��3�4�5��,��6��-��7�-��

�� *(��-��-��4�'��-��!��- ,#�5��,��6��-��7�-��4�'��-��!��

.��0��- ,

��

�� !��"�� 7�� 4�848��9�8:�&�

�� $�� $��"��

��%�& � !��!�"��

�'�� (�) $��!�"��

�� !��!�"��

�� $��"��

��

�� *� ��

��*+,��"��

(��$��(��*��!�"�

�$��-��!��"� 7�� 4�84��

��!��-��!��"� 7�� 4�848��9�8:�&�

��

�

��

�

�� !��"��#��$��"%&�"��'��

��!��!��()��

�

��!��!!��*�!��

�

��*!��*��+��!��*��*��

��,��!�#-��$�.!��/��0��.!��/�'��1�#)23�3)3�34()'��

��56��!�5)43��

�

��

7��$��

�

�

�

��

�

��

��

��

�� !��"�#��"$��"�%��#�&��$��"�%��

�� '��(��&$�

�� )��*�+�%��,-�� .� /0��1��$��)��$%��2(��3��)��

��+��$��+�%�4��+��5��*�

��

�

� ��

��

!��"��#�� $�$�� $��

��"�� %�� &'�

�(��

�

��"�� )��

��"��

��

�

!�� )�� $�$��*��

(��$��)��$ �� $��

��"�� %�� #�(��"��

%�� #�

(�� "��

+�(��"�� % (��

�� %��$��,��

��-�%(.� ��

&��/�� 0�1�� #��

2��(�� "��

��0�1�%(.� ��

3��!��"��0��1�� $�#��

4��/��$ �� $��$��)��

5�� $�� $��"��

6��(��"�� $��"��$��

�� $��"�� $�� "�� "��

� �� $��"�� $��$��"��

��"��$��$�� " ��$�� $��"��

�� $�� "��

��

�

(��$�� 7��$��

��"��%�� (��

� ��

�

�

8��"��

�

��

��

��9&61::16&31'23;,4<�

/�9&616:13:4143;5�

�

�

��

��

�� !�� "#��!�� $�� %��"!��

� ��&��'�(��)*��+��,�-+./��0�#��!��&�� !��1% ��2��&��3��(��!�(��4��(��'��

�

+��

�

(�� "�� "��"��

��)�� "��

�

� ��:<<=��$�� "��$��

��$��"��$�� $��

�

/��$�� $�� $��

��$ �� $��$��

�

>�� $��

�

!�� $�� "��!?(.@�� 8��%��$� ��

�� 8��%��

�

8��"��

��

�

�� +#��5��6��

�� ,��!�� "#��!��

��$�� %��"!��

� ��&��'�(��)*��+��,�-+./��0�#��!��&�� !��1% ��2��&��3��(��!�(��4��(��'��

��7�"!�

�

A��"��

�

B��$��"��!� ��$�� )��7��

��

�

(�� !��"��$ �� $�

��

�

� �� )�� $��$��)��

� ��$��C��$�� "��D��

�

� �� !��

��C��$��D��

�

(��$��)��$ �� $��

��"��!�� %�� #�(��"��

%�� #�

�

.��"��

�

(�� "��

+�(��"�� %!(��

8

�

8��"��

�

��

��

��9&61::16&31'23;,4<�

/�9&616:13:4143;5�

�

��

�� 9�:;�

��!�� "#��!�� $�� %��"!��

� ��&��'�(��)*��+��,�-+./��0�#��!��&�� !��1% ��2��&��3��(��!�(��4��(��'��

�

+��

�

.��$�� )��$��"��E��

��

�

��)�� )��$��$ ��

�

.��$�� $��"*�

:�� %��$��,��

��

&��/�� 0�

2��(�� "��

��0�

3��-��"��0�

4��/��$ �� $��$��)��

5�� $�� $��"��

6��(��"�� $��"��$��

�� $��"�� $�� "�� "��

� �� $��"�� $��$��"�� !��

��"��$��$�� " ��$��!�� $��"��

�� $�� "��

��

�

�

8��"��

�

��

��

��9&61::16&31'23;,4<�

/�9&616:13:4143;5�

�

��$�� %��"!��

�� 9�8��!��

�� '�(��)*��+��,�-+./��0�#��!��&�� !��1% ��2��&��3��(��!�(��4��(��

��'��

�

+��

�

/��$�� $��

�

�

��"��

�

�� E��

�� 8��" ��

�� -��1�E��1/��

�� <::�6&3�'255�

�� C<::D�'<<1&:<;�

�� " F��$��G�

��

�

��$�� %��"!��

��9�,��5!��<��!�� <�

�� &��"��'�3��,�-+./��0�#��!��&�� !��1% ��2��&��3��(��!�(��4��(��

��'��

�

Good Day, Can you please provide Rand Water with the following:

1. The shapefiles for the infrastructure proposed as well as road connections/access roads. 2. Coordinates of the development; 3. A layout plan for the development including development footprint; 4. Specialist studies being undertaken; 5. Confirmation as to whether wayleaves will be required, from Rand Water 6. The detail about the facility that will receive the sewerage. 7. An agreement that the identified sewerage facility is aware of the development and that

they have the capacity to accept the sewerage from the site without overloading the facility. Will there be any discharges other than the sewerage system that will increase storm water entering the environment. If so, has the development considered retention and stilling ponds to slow down high peak flows. If the sewerage facility cannot accept the additional load into their facility then this will have a negative impact on the environment and the pollution load into the river systems.

�

�� E��

�� 8��" ��

�� -��1�E��1/��

�� <::�6&3�'255�

�� C<::D�'<<1&:<;�

�� " F��$��G�

:

��

�

��$�!�� !��

��,��5!��8��$�� %��"!� �=�� +�#��

��"#��!�� 2��5��6� �� 2��5��6�� &��"��'�3��,�-+./��0�#��!��&�� !��1% ��2��&��3��(��!�(��4��(��

��'��

�

+��

�

!�� "��!��(��.��$�� "�� 8��

%��8��

�

(�� $��"��"��

�

!��$��

�

8��"��

E ��

�

�� H��*��F��I��

��<'�A�� &<:5�<2*<4�.A�

�� F��

��B�*��"��!(.*�A�7��1��$� ��%�� J8��%��.��

��:35�!��

�

�

�

��$�� %��"!�� "!��+#��5��6��

��,��5!��;��,��"#��!��

� ��"��'�3��,�-+./��0�#��!��&�� !��1% ��2��&��3��(��!�(��4��(��'��

�

Dear Sir/Madam Rand Water is hereby registering as IAP for the above-mentioned project. Kindly forward confirmation of registration as IAP to Natalie Koneight at [email protected] Attached is Rand Water’s Wayleaves, for your information.

�

Rand Water would like to ensure that the development as per the BID have planned adequately for their sewerage removal off site. Please provide Rand Water with: 1. The detail about the facility that will receive the sewerage. 2. An agreement that the identified sewerage facility is aware of the development and that they have the capacity to accept the sewerage from the site without overloading the facility. 3. Will there be any discharges other than the sewerage system that will increase storm water entering the environment. If so, has the development considered retention and stilling ponds to slow down high peak flows. If the sewerage facility cannot accept the additional load into their facility then this will have a negative impact on the environment and the pollution load into the river systems.

�� E��

�� 8��" ��

�� -��1�E��1/��

�� <::�6&3�'255�

�� C<::D�'<<1&:<;�

�� " F��$��G�

��

�

��

��

��

��

��

;

��

��

�

��

��

��

�� !��"��#�� "��$%��#��

�� &��'��$#��

�� (��)�*�� +,��-��.�-/0��1�%��#��(��# ��2'��3��(��

��*��#��*�� 4��*��5��)�

��

�� !��

��#�� -��/�5/��

�$%��#��

�&��'��$#��

��

�

��

��

�

��

�� !��

�

"��

��

�

# ��

�

$� �� $%&'�� (��)��

��(��)��

�

(��

*��!��

�

��

��

��!"�� !��#�$��!�� !��#�%��"�� !��&� ��'��%"��

� ��(��)�*��+,�� -��./��0��"��(�� "��1' ��2��(��3��*��"��*��4��*��5��)��

��6�%"�

�

+��*��!��

�

,�� -�$�� .��

��

�

�� /$0��

��1��

�

�� -� �� -��

��-��-�� !�-��2� ��3��

�

�

�� $��-��

��2 �� -�� 3��

�

�� -��

��/$0�� )�� 4��

)�� 4�

�

&�� 1��

�

�� -��

�0�0��)$��1��

�

(��

�

��

��

��5678��87698:;9<=>��

"�56787�89�>8>9<?�

�

��

�� 7�89�

��!"�� !��#�$��!�� !��#�%��"�� !��&� ��'��%"��

� ��(��)�*��+,�� -��./��0��"��(�� "��1' ��2��(��3��*��"��*��4��*��5��)��

�

��0��-�

�

&�� -�� @��

��

�

��1�� 1��

�

&��1�� A�

��)�� =� ��

��

6��"��B�

;��

�� B�

9��C�� !�B�

>��"�� -��1��

?��

7��

�� 1��

�� $��-��

�� !�� $��

��

��

�

�

(��

�

��

��

��5678��87698:;9<=>��

"�56787�89�>8>9<?�

;

�

��&� ��'��%"��

�� 7�;��!"�� !��

��

� ��)�*��+,�� -��./��0��"��(�� "��1' ��2��(��3��*��"��*��4��*��5��)��

�

��0��-�

�

"��

�

��

�

�� @��

�� (��

�� C� ��8�@��8"0�

�� 769�:;??�

�� 2��3�:��86��<�

�� !��E�� F�

��

�

��&� ��'��%"��

��7� ��"��

��<�!"�� !��<��

� ��(��%��)�3�� -��./��0��"��(�� "��1' ��2��(��3��*��"��*��4��*��5��)��

�

Good Day, Can you please provide Rand Water with the following:

1. The shapefiles for the infrastructure proposed as well as road connections/access roads. 2. Coordinates of the development; 3. A layout plan for the development including development footprint; 4. Specialist studies being undertaken; 5. Confirmation as to whether wayleaves will be required, from Rand Water 6. The detail about the facility that will receive the sewerage. 7. An agreement that the identified sewerage facility is aware of the development and that

they have the capacity to accept the sewerage from the site without overloading the facility. Will there be any discharges other than the sewerage system that will increase storm water entering the environment. If so, has the development considered retention and stilling ponds to slow down high peak flows. If the sewerage facility cannot accept the additional

5

load into their facility then this will have a negative impact on the environment and the pollution load into the river systems.

�

�� @��

�� (��

�� C� ��8�@��8"0�

�� 769�:;??�

�� 2��3�:��86��<�

�� !��E�� F�

��

�

��&!"�� !"�� !��

��5� ��"��;��&� ��'��%"�#�=� ��

��%��"�� 2��#�$��!�� 2��

� ��(��%��)�3�� -��./��0��"��(�� "��1' ��2��(��3��*��"��*��4��*��5��)��

�

��-�

�

$� ��$�� &�� (��

)��(��

�

�� -�� !��

�

$��

�

(��-�

@!��

�

�� *��!��G��A��!�E��!��H��

��:�+�� 6��?��;A�>�&+�

��!��E��!��

��,1A��$&A�+�.��8I�� )��J(��)��&��

0��9?�$��

�

�

�

��&� ��'��%"�� !��%"��

�� "��9�� %��"�� !��#�>��!�� !��

8

� ��%��)�3�� -��./��0��"��(�� "��1' ��2��(��3��*��"��*��4��*��5��

)��

�

Dear Sir/Madam Rand Water is hereby registering as IAP for the above-mentioned project. Kindly forward confirmation of registration as IAP to Natalie Koneight at [email protected] Attached is Rand Water’s Wayleaves, for your information. Rand Water would like to ensure that the development as per the BID have planned adequately for their sewerage removal off site. Please provide Rand Water with: 1. The detail about the facility that will receive the sewerage. 2. An agreement that the identified sewerage facility is aware of the development and that they have the capacity to accept the sewerage from the site without overloading the facility. 3. Will there be any discharges other than the sewerage system that will increase storm water entering the environment. If so, has the development considered retention and stilling ponds to slow down high peak flows. If the sewerage facility cannot accept the additional load into their facility then this will have a negative impact on the environment and the pollution load into the river systems.

�� @��

�� (��

�� C� ��8�@��8"0�

�� 769�:;??�

�� 2��3�:��86��<�

�� !�� #�� E�

��

�

��

��

��

�

��

��

��

��

�

��

��

��

�� !��"�#�$%��&�� '��#��(��)�'�� $(��"��(#�

��(�� (#��&��)��&�(� ��'��#�*�$�� +��#�

��)�� $(��(#�� +��#�� ,�&��-��#�

+��+�� "��#��"�� +�%��$��#�$�+&�+ $(��(#�

��+�� #��$��$� ��"�(��#��+ (��(��"��$��#�

��++�� #��$�� (%�+��#�+�)$�'� $(��(#�

,��.+�+��)� $(��(#��$ ��'��#�(��).�%�� $(��(#�

��"��&�� '�)�(��(#�$�� $��(

�� /0��1��'��*��2��+��"��%��3��%�.�*45�*��6�7�8��9��$��

�� :��);��<��;�-<=<��)�

�� /��%��

�� /��$$�)

�

�

��

�

��

�

�

�

�� !��"#$ ��%�� !��"#$ ��%��

�� &� � ��'��'��(��

�� '��"��'��'�� )�� "��

�� )�� )��)��)��

�� !��"#$ ��%�� )�'��)�

� �� *�� !��"#$ ��%�� *��

��*�� *��

�

�

�

�

��

��

�� !��"�#�� $�� $��"�#��%&�� !�� !�"�#�'� �(�)� $��!�"�#�� !�� !�"�#�� $��"�#�*��(��"�#��+��* �� "�#��!��"�#�

��+��#��%�� $��"�#�� #� �*� �� #��%�,��"�#��-�*.#��*.��#�(��$��( ��*��!�"��

��$��%�� !��"�#��!� ��!��"��

� ��-/��' ��!��/��0��(��$��1��$�&�/23�/��4�5�6��+��7��-��

�

��"+��,��

�

��'��

�

-�� .�� !�� (�� /0 ��

/123��

�

!��'�� .�� !�� )��'��

�� 4��5&� ��6��'��7��*��'6��'��7�8��(�5193�313�32:18��

�� /0 ��/123��

�

;��

��

�

�

��

�

�

��

��8��%��9��:�� !��"�:#�:�� $�� $��"�:#�:�%&�� !�� !�"�:#�:'� �(�)� $��!�"�:#�

:�� !�� !�"�:#�:��%�� $��"�:#�:�� :#�: �*� �� :#�

:��*.�+��"�:#�(��$��( ��*��!�"��$��%�� !��"�#��!� ��!��"��

� ��' ��!��/��0��(��$��1��$�&�/23�/��4�5�6��+��7��-��

�

��"+��,��

�

��'��

�

��.�� !�� ;��'�� 5 �� <�� 8��

�'��'�� :1��

�

� �� .�� !��

�

!��'�� .�� !�� )��'��

�� 4��5&� ��6��'��7��*��'6��'��7�8��(�5193�313�32:18��

�� /0 ��/123��

�

;��

,

��

�

�

��

�

��

��

��

� !��"� ��#��$�%&��'�� #��

�� "��%��$�� (��$�)��'��* %+��+$�

�,�� -��

�� .��#��/��0��(��"��&��1��&�2�/34�/��5�6�7��8��%��

�� )��&��

�� )��%%�,

��

�

�

��

�� !��"�� !��"��

�� #��$�� $��%��&��

�� $�� $��$�� '��

�� '�� '��'��'��(��

��%�� !��"�� '�$��'�

� �� )�� !��"�� )��

� �)�� )��

�

�

�

�

��

��

��

� ��!� ��"��#�$%��&�� "��

�� '��'��$��(#��'��'�(��)) $(��(

�� *��+��"��*��,��-��!��%��.��%�/�*01�*��2�3�4��5��$��

�� 6��%��

�� 6��$$�'

�

��

�

�� !��"#�!��!�$�� !��"#�!��!�$��

�� %�� &��&��'��

��&�� &��&�� (��

�� (�� (��(��(�� )��

�� !��"#�!��!�$�� (�&��(�

�� *�� !��"#�!��!�$�� *��

��*�� *��

�

�

�

��

��

�� !�"#��$�� %��"�� %!�%��&�� %!�%'��$��(�")��)%!�%�*�� +� �� %�

� ��,�� -��.��&��#��/��#�0�-12�-��3�4�5��6��7�� "��

�

��

�

�

�

�� !��"#�!��!�$�� !��"#�!��!�$��

�� %�� &��&��'��

��&�� &��&�� (��

�� (�� (��(��(�� )��

�� !��"#�!��!�$�� (�&��(�

�� *�� !��"#�!��!�$�� *��

��*�� *��

�

�

�

�

��

��

��

�� !�� "#$!%�!&� '(�!%�� )��%��)��'��)�� %�

�*'��+�)��%�,��+-.�)�'��%��/��'�+�)��%�

�'��)�� %��#��-��%��0�+#� ��)��%�

�� %� �+�� 0��+%��(��)�� %�

�� +��+%��)+#�)��'�'��+%��/��1��%�

��#$��'��'��+%�-��'��-�� # ��

��

�� "2��,��2' � ��3 �-��(��'�� *�245�2' � �6�7�8��0 �9��"��

�� :��#�

�� :��)

��

��

��

��

�

�

�

�� !��"�� #��$�%��

�� &��'(��')*+�*",'�-.�

��/��01��#��23��#��4��$�3��#��$�3��#��4��4�$�3�

��#��4�$�3��1��#��4��4�$�3��#��$�3�� #��$�3��#� ��$�3�

��#��4��$�3��#��3��#��$�3��#��3�

�� #��3��#1��5*+��$�3�� #��3��#�� 4�$��

��#��&�4��$�3��4#��&�4��$��

� ��6"��&��4��6��7��689�6��:��;��&��&��

�

<��

�

-��&��4��&��

�

�

�

�� =9�6;��>.�6��9?-��&��&��=9�6;��>.�6��9?-��

�� 1��&��4��4�� &��

��4�� >�� 4��4��&��>��

��&�� &��

��=9�6;��>.�6��9?-�� 4��

��&��@��=9�6;��>.�6��9?-�� &��@��

��@�� @��

�

�

�

��

�� !��"�#�� $�� $��"�#��%&�� !�� !�"�#�'� �(�)� $��!�"�#�

�� !�� !�"�#�� $��"�#�*��(��"�#��+��* �� "�#��!��"�#��+��#��%�� $��"�#�� #� �*� �� #�

��%�,��"�#��-�*.#��*.��#�(��$��( ��*��!�"��

��$��%�� !��"�#��!� ��!��"�� -/��' ��!��/��0��(��$��1��$�&�/23�/��4�5�6��+��7��-��

�

��>A�-B��

�

��4��

�

<��&��&��;��&��&�� &��'C��&��

')*+��

�

;�� 4��;��&��&��&��&��4��

��&��71��#��&�4��$��@��4#��&�4��$�:�� 7)(+�+)+�+*5):��

��'C��&��')*+��

�

��

/��

�

�

,

��

�

�

�� 8��%��9��

��:�� !��"�:#�:�� $�� $��"�:#�:�%&�� !�� !�"�:#�:'� �(�)� $��!�"�:#�

:�� !�� !�"�:#�:��%�� $��"�:#�:�� :#�: �*� �� :#�:��*.�+��"�:#�(��$��( ��*��!�"��

��$��%�� !��"�#��!� ��!��"�� ' ��!��/��0��(��$��1��$�&�/23�/��4�5�6��+��7��-��

�

��>A�-B��

�

��4��

�

��;��&��&��&��&��&��4��6��7��689�6��:��

�4��4��&��5)��

�

��&��;��&��&��- ��-��&��&��

�

;�� 4��;��&��&��&��&��4��

��&��71��#��&�4��$��@��4#��&�4��$�:�� 7)(+�+)+�+*5):��

��'C��&��')*+��

�

��

/��

�

�

��

�

��

��

�� !

�� "�#$��#��$� ��%�#

�� !�&��'��#��(�)��*

�� +*�� ,#�#�

�� ,#�#��-

�� +��*�.�

�� +��

�

��

��

��

��

��

�

��

��!��

��

"�#�$#"�%&'&�

�

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((�

��)��*��+�� )��,��-�.��

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((�

�

��

�

�

� � � � � � � � ��

��

��

� ��!��

��"#�

�

$%�&��!�#$�$�

�

'��!��(��

)*�'��+��,��

-��

$$)#�

�

��&��.��

��

��

��

��

�

/ !�� %��0��#$$1.� �� !�� !�!��!��

��'�� 2� ��3��!��!��0�� !��0��

�� !��3��

�

�� !��"##��$%�

�3�3 �!��0� ��4 ��5!��*$��#$�$6�� 7��

!��3�&�� 7�� !�� !��

8""� �� !�� !� 9�!�� 0��:3� ��

�0� �� !��0��0�� !��7��

�� .� �! �!� �� !�� -(�� ; �� !� �� 3� �! �� !�� 0��

�� !��'�� 2� ��3�

�3#3 &� �� !�� !�� 0�� 0�� !��

�� .�!�� !�� !��

��

!��! <==��3��3��3>�=��=�� 3!�� !�� ;�

��!��2� ��3� -�� .�!�� !��8""��!��#<��,��

��&��

�

�

�� 0�� !�� '�� !��(� �� 0�� !��

�� !��0�� 3�/��!��

�� !�� !��0��!��8""��0��0�� 0� ��

!�� 3�

�

�3*3 / !� �� !�� '�� .� �� ;� � �� !�� 0��

�� !��?��2�� .��!��!��@��.��

!�� !�� !�� !��0�� 0��

7�� 3��

�3A3 �!�� ! �� >�� !��B

>� �� !�� '�� 3� �! �� !��

0��!��0�� !�� 0�� 3�

�

&� '�"$��$( !�(#) *$%�$"�$+��*"�"#(*�,( -(!($.� �/�%0%$ (� -(!($.�"1� /2"(�(�3�*"##0�($(�%� �/�

-0%(��%%4��) 3��5��

#3�3 �� *�'��0��!�� '��!�� C �!��

2�� 0�� 3�3� �� !�� 3� -�� 7� �.�

�� !��0�� ! �!��

��!� �� 0�� 3� -� � �!� �� ! �� 0�� !�� !�� !�� ! �!� ��B��

�� !�� .��! �!�� B��

��3� -� �� !�� C��.� �� !��

�� 0��3��! �!�� .�� 0��0�� .��

�� 0�� 3� �! �� !�� !�� ! �!��

�� ! �!� �� !�� .� �� !��

�� .� � �� .� ! �� !��

�� !� ��0� �� .� �� !�� !�� 8""�

! �!��=�� 3��

#3#3 -� �� A��!��'�� !��!��98""��; ��

� �:��!�� 0�� !�� 3��#<��,��

��!��!��9�; � ��8"":�� !��!�� 5��A%B-26��

#� �!�� 3� �� !�� ! �� #A� ��.� -� ��

�� 0D�� !�� ! �� #3�/�� !��

�� 0�� !��!�� .� ��!� �� !�� !�� !��!� !��

2��/�� ?�� .�� !�� 2%1� �� 2%%$.� �� !��

�� 0��3��!��

�� !��!��8""��0��!��

��!�� E�!��0�� !��-�� 3��

��6��

�

�

#3*3 -�� !��!�� .��7�� !��

� �� !�� !��

��!��-�� 3�

�

6� 7�$! �/� �/�8("/(,��%($.�#) *$%�

*3�3 ��%<�� '�� !��!��

��5 � ��6�� !�! �!�0 �� 5�� .�

�� 0��6� �� ! �!� !�� 3� � �!�� !��

�� !��0 �� !��0��

� �� 0�� !� �� 0��!�0 ��0�� !��

�� 0�� !�� 3� �� !�� !�

�� 0�� !��!�� 3� '��!� �� 0��

��0��!�� 3� -�� .�!�� !��

� �� !�� 0�� 0 �� .��! �!� !�� !��

��0 �� 3��

*3#3 �!��!�� !��!��0��

�� !�� .��!��!�0 �� .��

��0�� !��-�� 3��

*3*3 �� ! �!�� !�� 0�� B��

�� !��!��!�� !��3�/��7��

!�� !�� !�� 0�� !��

�� .� ��!� �� !�� !� ��3� -�� !�� D�� !��

�� .� !��.� �� 0�� ! �!�� .� �� =��

! �� .�!�� ! ��0��D��3��

*3A3 4� ��#��!��!�� 0��!�� #��!��

�� 0��!�� 9��0��!�� !��

�� ! �!� �� :3� �� 0�� 0�� !��

��!��0��!�� !�� !�� !��

�� 3��

�

�� "%("��#) *$%��0�(�3� �/��1$��"�%$�0*$("��

A3�3 '�� 13$�� !�� '�� 2� �� B�� !�� 0��

� �� 3�/�� !�� !��

��0��B�� .�� !�� .�0��3�

-� �� .� �� !��

�� !��0�� 3��! �� !�� !��

��

�

�

��=� �� 0�� B�� !�� !�� 0�� 0��

��0�� !��!�� 0��&��!�#$�$3��

�

9� ��#", !�"1��!(��3�$ $("��

%3�3 �!�� 1� �� !�� 0�� '�� 13$�

�� !�� 7� ��!��

!�� 3�/�� 7�� !��!��

�! �!�� 0�� !��

� �� ! �!� �� 0�� !� �� 3� �� !��

!�� 0�� 0�� 3��

%3#3 �� 0�� !�� ;�� B��

�� 0��!�� !��

!�� 3�

%3*3 �!�� B��

��!�! �� !��

� �.��! �!��0�� !��-�� 3��

�

�� "*( !�#) *$%�

)3�3 ��.�!�� !�� !�� ! �� 3��! ��

�� !��'�� 2� ��!�� C�� 3�� ! �!�

�� !��B0� �� !��!�� !��

-(��3��

�

-� ��!��!��'�� 2� ��0�� !��0��B��

��!��!�� !��-�� 3��

�

�� ! ��0�� 3��

�

F��' ��.�

��

Date: 28th April 2016

Leap Enviro

Dr Gwen Theron

Subject: Klipriver Estate (proposed Gateway ECO Estate)

This proposed development, Gateway ECO Estate, seems in principal to be no

different to the proposed development of Seaton Thomson & Associates:

Gaut 002/09 10/N0467 of January 2010.

Our, Ekala Guest Farm objections are thus the same as they were to the proposal of

2010. This document is attached and must form the basis of our current

objections. Even though is detailed for the previous proposed project. I have

attached the same letter with reference to this recent development.

Each and every clause of this attached document of 2010 is still relevant and must be

regarded as the same objection to your proposal and process.

In some details, actual specifics are different, however are equally problematic and

unacceptable. This includes but not limited to roads, people currently living on

the property concerned, our functioning as a Guest Farm focusing on the

foreign tourist and wetland & biodiversity impacts.

Additional reports such as those supplied by the CSIR – dated 7th March 2010 to the

earlier Seaton Thomson & Associates proposal are also still applicable to the

Gateway ECO Estate as it would have been to the 2010 proposal.

I wish to be kept informed through all process as an I&AP.

All notifications and documents to be supplied via e-mail:

[email protected]

All issues as raised by me, Janet Davis and the CSIR’s 2010 report must form part of

the required public participation process.

Janet Davis

�

��

��

��

�� !"� #$�!

�� %&��

�� '((�� #�)��* �+��,�� -"�� )��#��.*/�'((�� #� �)��* �+��

,�� -"�� )��#��.*

�

�

�

��

�� !�"�#"�$%�

��&��&��

��'(��)�'(��&��

� ��

�

$��*��+��(��,��*��

��&��*�-��.��/�� 0��

1��2�3� �24�5!6��*�7��

�

��8��'��9��8��&��1��(��:;,�:��

��9��8��;-<=��+��6��%�� -��.��

�

$��<��<.�$��

7��>�&��

:��1��?��

�

Virus-free. www.avast.com

�

��

��

��

�� !� ��"!��

�� #�� $�� %��&��% ��%��&�'($)!��'&�'*��+��!'&�

��! "��%��#�%��&�',��!'

�� *-��.��%��-! ��/ ��!�, ��)�-01�-! �2�3�4�5 �6��#�*��

Dear Jitske. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Scoping Report and the Public Participation Report.

Please find below our comments and suggestions for your consideration.

1. Consultant objectivity and independence

1.1. The information provided by the independent consultant appears to be biased and lack objectivity.

1.2. The initial scoping report contains a number of statements directly supporting the proposed development, whilst being dismissive and presumptive of potential factors that could result in the project proposal receiving a negative ROD, without providing any factual support for these points of view.

1.3. The wording in several of the evaluations is a motivation for the project development and cannot be considered as an objective assessment of potential impacts.

1.4. Statements to support this conclusion are as follows:

1) 5.1 Demand Alternative: "adjacent to the Sybrand van Niekerk Freeway (R59)" Bullet 2: "To develop the land as an infill component to the establishing of a much needed residential development, linking the site to surrounding activities and accessible infrastructure ..”Response: Both of these statements are misleading as the site is not adjacent to the freeway and is located in an isolated area well away from any other forms of development and infrastructure.

2) To a large extent, events have overrun the option of retaining the land as vacant since the land has been recognised as being suitable for housing and commercial. Response: The land is located outside the urban development boundary and is therefore not been identified by the authorities for such uses. It is suggested that this statement is motivated by the project proponents and their identification of this land as a speculative purchase. The motivation of referring to events that have overrun the option is subjective and misleading.

3) 5.5.1 Bullet 3: “If not developed … the owner will not be able to maintain the property. This will lead the site to fall into disrepair and the protection and appropriate management of potential conservation areas will be neglected.” 5.5.1 paragraph 3: … “the site will eventually degenerate if left unmanaged …” Response: Large tracts of land in Highveld grassland areas are inherently stable, and do not require continuous maintenance. Only when land is sub-divided and development increases or the area is heavily utilised for anthropogenic purposes, does it require substantial monetary intervention to maintain. The land is unlikely to degenerate if the land owners follow very basic

�

principals in due diligence. The duty of care of the property is the responsibility of the owner. The project proponent, Zotec Developments are professional property consultants and developers and surely had with full knowledge of the risks and liabilities the acquisition of the property entailed. To use the risk to the property as a justification for development is unjustifiable.

4) 5.5.1. Bullet 4: Illegal squatters and vagrants may move through and inhabit the site: Response: It is equally possible that vagrants and squatters will not occupy the land. The probability of squatters occupying the land increases with the development of the area and will likely lead to other, adjacent areas being more susceptible to illegal occupation. If the ‘illegal occupation’ argument is given merit, it would imply that no tract of land in South Africa is safe from illegal occupation and all land therefore free to develop.

5) 5.5.2 Bullet 4” “The financial requirement that is necessary to revive the land’s agricultural use is rising every year and it is becoming more difficult to make a living farming lands.” Response: This statement is ludicrous and cannot be substantiated. It states categorically that farming in South Africa is not commercially viable. Farming might be challenging, but nearly any piece of land can be farmed profitably with the right techniques and approach.

6) 6.2.1 “The surrounding land use is primarily dominated by high density development” Response: This is clearly not true. The nearest high density development is four kilometres east. The area is surrounded by undeveloped land in all areas directly bordering the site and agricultural land and smallholdings for approximately 20 kilometres to the south and west.

7) 6.3.5. “Agricultural potential will not be assessed … mostly moderate agricultural potential...The property is not a viable farming unit” Response: The agricultural potential should be assessed because it has at least moderate potential. The consultant is being dismissive and presumptive about the agricultural potential of the area and the current need for small scale agricultural developments to help address food security and unemployment.

8) 6.3.7 Bullet 4, sub-bullet 1: “The overall significance of the pertinent ecological impacts is expected to be low”. Response: This is an incredibly dangerous comment to make, given that no ecological assessment of the site has yet been made.

2. Fragmentation

2.1. A critical consideration not identified in the scoping report is the ecological and habitat impacts on the surrounding areas, including biodiversity corridors, habitat fragmentation and the ‘edge’ effect causing disturbance well beyond the footprint of the proposed development. The proposed developments will effectively cut-off undeveloped areas to the north-east from the surrounding landscape.

2.2. Considerable negative impacts are also likely due to the increased human presence in the area and will likely lead to increased veld fires, illegal dumping, illegal land occupation (squatters and vagrants), crime and many more. These cumulative impacts must be identified and assessed.

3. Urban Development Boundary

3.1. The proposed site is outside the Midvaal Urban Development Boundary and "leapfrogs" into an open and isolated area. This is totally unacceptable and must not be allowed to occur by the provincial and municipal authorities.

�

3.2. Provincial and municipal environmental and developmental priorities are focused on densification and containment of urban development within the Urban Development Boundary. This is primarily to protect agricultural and natural resources and opportunities which have been identified by GDARD as important and ecological support areas. This has been captured in the Gauteng Environmental Management Framework and the Midvaal Spatial Development Framework.

3.3. Furthermore, the containment of urban development and infrastructural expansion is aimed at reducing the costs of management and maintenance of infrastructure and ensuring optimal use of existing developed areas and associated engineering and social infrastructure.

3.4. If this development is permitted, essential engineering services will have to be provided. Extension of these networks of services infrastructure is the "thin edge of the wedge" which will open up opportunities for other developments to quickly follow and therefore have a major cumulative environmental impact on the area.

3.5. Even if this development is allowed as a "one off" it will be impossible in the future to prevent future urban development and expansion into the area with such a strong precedent having been already set.

3.6. It must be noted that there are currently no other similar high density developments west of the R59, south of the Klipriver and east of the R82. This area comprises approximately 40,000 hectares of smallholdings and farms, with a high potential for conservation, habitat preservation and low impact development. With the rapid expansion of urban development it represents one of a very few wildlife sanctuary areas left around the urban areas in Gauteng.

3.7. The integrity of the Urban Development Boundary must be protected in this region.

4. Key stakeholders.

4.1. In the light of the heritage resources that exist on the site, the Jacksons Drift Khoisan Development Association must be recognised as key stakeholders and be fully participative in the assessment and design processes.

4.2. The Association is aware of the archaeological heritage resources in the area and have indicated a desire to see these resources suitably protected and used for social, cultural and educational purposes.

4.3. In this regard, contact should be made with Chief Adam Mathysen - 079 209 2602 [email protected].

5. Biodiversity Stewardship Programme

5.1. If development on the site is permitted in any form or manner, an essential component of the Environmental Management plan must be a requirement to undertake and follow the requirements of the Biodiversity Stewardship program to ensure sustainable management of the natural resources and biodiversity.

5.2. Suitable institutional structures and financial arrangements must be brought into landowner agreements and associations to provide sustainable resources and management for

�

environmentally sensitive and important areas in and around the development. The possibility of establishing a Conservancy could also be considered and evaluated.

5.3. In addition, environmental, town planning, urban design, engineering and architectural conditions and requirements should be incorporated to optimise the protection, promotion and enhancement of the value of the natural assets. This can be done through various interventions relating to green building, green infrastructure and construction standards as well as sustainable living requirements.

6. Visual Impact

6.1. Due to the location of the proposed development and its visibility and potential visual impact on the range of hills it is essential that a visual impact study is undertaken by a suitably qualified specialist.

6.2. The study should provide mitigating measures and guidance that, if the development takes place, various urban design and architectural measures can be incorporated to minimise the visual impact.

7. Agricultural Impact and Potential

7.1. The Klip River Valley region used to be recognised as the "food basket" of Johannesburg.

7.2. Investigations must be undertaken to establish the agricultural potential of the land that is identified for development. GDARD has indicated the presence of low to moderate valued agricultural land in this area. The potential social and economic value particularly to address the high levels of unemployment and food insecurity in the area should be established and the impact of the proposed development established.

7.3. An assessment of the impact of the proposed development on existing agricultural activities in this region and their potential must also be undertaken.

7.4. The study should also assess the impact of the development on the potential for providing opportunities for local communities to establish small-scale farming activities, including dry cropping, tunnels and other methods of farming, and the potential economic and social benefits that would arise from job creation and ensuring food security.

7.5. With reference to Table 2 in the Draft Scoping Report, the area of application for the Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act is incorrect. Arising from the agricultural assessment and if appropriate an application may be required.

8. Public Participation

8.1. The publication of advertisements only in the Citizen may fulfil legal requirements but is not openly encouraging participation from local communities.

8.2. Advertisements and notices should also be placed in local newspapers and use other appropriate social media platforms to encourage participation and engagement, not to avoid it.

�

8.3. The local councillor, Clr Rob Jones, is a male not a female as noted by the consultant.

We trust that you will find the contribution to be of value. Should you have any difficulties or queries regarding the submission please contact the writer.Please acknowledge receipt of this submission. ��

��

�

��

��

�� !�

��"��#��$��%��&�'((�)*)�"#%�

+��, ��,��,-��

��. ��,��,-��

��/��01)��'!23�1)4�4414�

�

�

�

��

�� !�"��#�$�%��&�!��'$��(&��!"�� "�#�$�)��*�+�!'� �"�#�$��!"�� "�#�$�

,��)�� $�� $��!�-�!��$��-.�/��#�$�

*��'��*�� -�� "�#�� '��0��"��#�$��"��0��"��#��

� ��)��0��"��1��2��*��'��%��'�(�134�1��5�6�7��/�8��0�� 9�0��

�

5�� 67#8��

�

9��$��,��

�

9��:��$�� 5�� %��!��

��$��$��$�3'�� ,��

�

��$��:��$��#��#��,��

�

�� :��$��;��$$��

��&��<�� .��,��,-��/��.��,��,-�!��$��'2=�='=�=*3'!��

��$��1(��$��1'*=,�

�

��

>��

�

�

�

�

�

��

��

�

��

��

��

�� !��

�� !"��

�� # ��$��%��&��"��'��"�($)*$��+

�� ,��-��!.��/# ��$��'��0-123& ��2��/

# ��0-

��

�� !��

�!"��

'"��4�� .��0��/�5/��6�572�

��

�

��

��

��

�

�� !��"�� #��

�

�� $��% ��#� ��

�

%�� #��$��% ��#��

��#��&��'��(�)�� *��+��)�� *�,��-�'./0�0.0�012.,��

��34��3.10��

�

��#��

5��

��

�

��

��

��

�� !"��"��##��!$!%� ��"�&��'��!$!'%"��"�'(�� (!$

!��(��)��'(�� (!$! ��' �'�� (��!$!��"�(��*(��'��!$

!��""��!$!��'�#��(&�"��!$!"#)'��'(�� (!$

!+��"�"��)��'(�� (!$!��'��!$!(��)��&�� '(�� (!$

!��"��!$!�)��#��,#��!

�� !'&�� !$!-��.��!

�� / ��0��1��"��&��2��&��0340��56��#��%7#" ��

8�%��(��'

�� / ��3�� 6��#��%(��'�� )��)%

��

�

��

�

�� !"#��

�

��$��%��%��$��$��

��&��'��

�

��

�

(��

)%��

�

��

�

��

��

��

�� !�"��!#!��$�� %��!#!�&%��"��!#

!��'��$& ��(��!#!��%��!#!��$��'��$!#

!��%��()��!#!�� %$�� $!#!�($&�( �� $!#

!��*��!#!��&+�'��!#!%��&+��%��$!#

!�(��(�$� �,,�%$�� $!

�� !%)�� !#!-��.��!

�� / ��0��1��"��)��2��)��0340��56��&��'7&" ��

8�'��$��%

�� / ��3�� 6��&��'$��%�� (��('

��

�

��

�

�� !"#��

�

��$��%��%��$��$��

��&��'��

�

��

�

(��

)%��

�

��

�

��

��

��

�� ! �� " #�� $%�&�'�!(�� ( "

� ��)��$)��*��!��( " �)��)�(� �&&�!(�� ( "

��(��)��!(�� ( " ��)�� (�� " +$!��,�� "

��)��$�!(�� ( " ��*��,�� " ��-��.�� "

!��)��/��)/�� " ��(�)�� !�� " 0� �(,�1�)/��!�� "

�-��(�)�� !�� " ��)/��

�� !/�� " 2��1��

�� 0 ��+��3��,��/��4��/��+56+��78��$��*9$, ��

:�*��(��!

�� 0 ��5�� 8��$��*(��!�� )�.��)*

��

�

��

�

�� !"#��

�

��$��%��%��$��$��

��&��'��

�

��

�

(��

)%��

�

��

APPENDIX 5 Minutes of any public and or stakeholder meetings

1 | P a g e

MINUTES: MINUTES OF THE PROPOSED KLIPRIVER CENTRAL DEVELOPMENT THAT WAS HELD ON SATURDAY 26 APRIL 2016 AT PLOT 121 ALEWYNSPOORT, EIKENHOF AT 12H30

Present Representing Postal address Tel/Cell Fax E-mail Dr Gwen Theron (GT)

LEAP P.O Box 13185 Hatfield, 0028

083 302 2116 086 606 6130 [email protected]

Eddy & Tina Lear

Resident P.O Box 990405 082 257 7334 [email protected]

Jenny Brandt Resident P. O Box 1074 081 753 8770 [email protected] Nico Brandt Resident Mulbarton 083 376 1153 [email protected] Anet Roux Resident P.O. Box 187 071 869 8063 [email protected] Gieljam Roux Resident Eikenhof 1872 073 549 8063 [email protected] Tim de Villiers Resident P.O. Box

145703, Bracken Road

082 926 2191 [email protected]

Adrian de Melo

Resident P.O. Box 781 Eikenhof


Eugene Becker

Resident P.O. Box 5816, Meyersdal


Corrie Pieterse

Resident P.O. Box 990251


2 | P a g e

No Discussion A Agenda

1. This public information meeting was an open discussion between GT and I&AP’s. B. General discussion

2. GT explained that the project involves two different applications. GT explained that the first application is an Environmental Impact Assessment for a mixed use residential Township. GT explained that the second application is a Basic Assessment for the road connections required to service the proposed estate. GT Explained that this will not be an affordable housing project.

C. Questions and feedback 3. Questions by I&AP’s at meeting Feedback from Professional Team

4. I&AP: Request that correspondence be done with

the former Ward councillor Malcolm Heck and the current Ward Councillor Rob Jones.

GT responded that she will get her offices to contact the Ward Councillors. Since the meeting GT has confirmed that Councillor Rob Jones has been contacted with regards to the proposed developments.

5. I&AP: We are concerned that this development does not fit into the Spatial Development Framework.

GT responded that the Town planner will be contacted to provide the SDF and the motivation for the development in this area. GT responded that her office will request the latest copy of the SDF and it will be provided to I&AP’s in the Draft EIA

6. I&AP: We are concerned with the dumping and would like the municipality to assist in the problem.

Noted. The document is also provided to the Municipality for comment, and they will thus be notified.

7. I&AP: The land for the proposed development is seasonal grazing land. There are many farmers that graze on that land. We would like to see the agreement between the farmers and the developer.

GT responded that she will request the developer to provide the agreements and arrangements between the land owner and farmers.

8. I&AP: We would like you to note that veld fires are a major problem and that we spend lots of time fighting these fires.

Noted. The Applicant will be made aware of the required collaboration between all land owners in the area.

9. I&AP: We would like to see how animals move from the ridge areas down to the valley areas.

GT responded that animal movement patterns will be investigated and included in Draft EIA.

10. I&AP: Security is a major concern for us. Noted. The EMP will address the security during the construction phase and the development will have their own security which will contribute to the security on the area.

11. I&AP: We will not support option 1 of the proposed road, however we will support option 2.

GT responded that this will be communicated with the traffic engineer.

12. IA&P: We request that road to mall of the south be upgraded

Noted. All road upgrades will be completed according to the requirements of the Municipal and Provincial Road infrastructure plans and as contained in the traffic impact assessment.

3 | P a g e

If the road upgrades that are recommended not match the requirements of the local residents, they must work through the Ward Councillor to get the message to the Municipal decision makers.

13. I&AP: Can you provide us with a larger road plan of the area.

A Master plan will be provided in a separate email.

14. I&AP: The area to the north of the proposed development is part of a horse riding area. We request that there be no link road towards that area.

GT responded that this will be communicated with the traffic engineer. Noted. All road upgrades will be completed according to the requirements of the Municipal and Provincial Road infrastructure plans and as contained in the traffic impact assessment. If the road upgrades that are recommended not match the requirements of the local residents, they must work through the Ward Councillor to get the message to the Municipal decision makers.

Closure GT thanked I&AP’s for the meeting

APPENDIX 6 Comments and Responses Report

REGISTER OF COMMENTS

INTERESTED AND AFFECTED PARTIES (I&AP’s)

EIA (Scoping) – Klipriver Estate

NAME DATE RECEIVED

COMMENT RESPONSE

1. Tina & Eddy Lear

03/03/2016 1. As residents of Alewynspoort which is in very close proximity to the farms that application have been made for development as Kliprivier Estate, ‎we are concerned about the impact this development will have on the immediate environment and sources of water as indicated in the notice.

2. We are honeybee farmers and preservation of the surrounding environment is crucial for the honeybees. ‎Not just the hives we have on our farm but the wild swarms in the area too. They depend on natural water sources.

3. There are livestock owners (local black farmers that do not own land‎) in the area that graze the open areas that are unable to communicate with you in this regard that will also be affected.

4. Other concerns are increased noise and traffic. 5. We are also concerned about the fact that having

industry so close by has already set a precedent for illegal industry that has already begun and is operating in Alewynspoort and Eikenhof area which is agricultural land. Residents have objected but nothing has changed.

6. We understand that studies will be done and restrictions will be implemented but the biggest concern is the monitoring thereof. Laws can be easily ignored and broken over time.

Noted. 1. Potable water will be drawn from the municipal sources and sewer

treatment will be done with a series of package treatment plants. 2. The natural water sources will not be disturbed. A large area of wetlands

will be retained. 3. The land under investigation is privately owned and the land owners

have contracts with specific black farmers whose cattle graze on their land. These farmers will be given notice to move theier cattle to other parts of the farms for grazing.

4. Note. A full traffic report I being completed for the development. 5. The development will not contain industrial uses. It will be focussed on a

conventional residential neighbourhood. 6. All available studies will be provided to the I&Aps and ample time for

review will be given.

2. Gail Andrews Rand Water – Manager

03/03/2016 All traversing along and over rand water pipelines. Possible leaks from other services that could cause ground stability to change. Please keep us informed regarding the

Noted. The pipe line and the servitude will be protected. If the rand Water has specific requirements or specifications that must be considered and adhered to it can be provided to the engineers and it will be

NAME DATE RECEIVED

COMMENT RESPONSE

Environmental Assessments

above affects included in the designs of the general electricity, water, sewer and storm water infrastructures.

3. Natalie Koneight

Randwater Rand Water would like to ensure that the development as per the BID have planned adequately for their sewerage removal off site. Please provide Rand Water with:

(a). The detail about the facility that will receive the sewerage.

(b). An agreement that the identified sewerage facility is aware of the development and that they have the capacity to accept the sewerage from the site without overloading the facility.

Will there be any discharges other than the sewerage system that will increase storm water entering the environment. If so, has the development considered retention and stilling ponds to slow down high peak flows. If the sewerage facility cannot accept the additional load into their facility then this will have a negative impact on the environment and the pollution load into the river systems.

Noted. The sewer will be treated in sewer treatment package plants to be sized and designed according to the manufacturing specifications. The sewer facilities are being designed and various options are currently reviewed. When the detail is available it will be provided. Noted. Such agreement can only be provided once the plant has been designed and commissioned. The Sewer and Storm water systems will meet Municipal minimum requirements .

4. Eddy Lear 03/03/2016 I have an interest in this development as I live in the area. Could I request more information such as maps etc. as I am not comfortable with it.

The BID was provided. The specialists are still busy with their designs and studies and these will be provided once with the Draft EIA for review.

5. Robyn San Environmental Assessor Rand Water

08/04/2016 Thank you for the response. Unfortunately, until you have the information available in terms of proposed locations and alternatives for all aspects of the project, Rand Water is unable to provide proper comment on the BID and Scoping report? and as to how we shall be impacted. Rand Water will not only be impacted by the infrastructure being proposed but the cumulative impact of the project. Especially by the deadline date of the 29th April. I do not believe undertaking the public participation process at this point is then correct in terms of requirements, as insufficient information is being provided to the public in order

The BID was provided. The specialists are still busy with their designs and studies and these will be provided once with the Draft EIA for review. A separate meeting will be held with Rand Water to determine their specific requirements to be addressed. The process must commence at some point and by registering persons and entities early, the I&APS can decide to which level they wish to participate. There are two applications One for the development with infrastructure and one for the GAUTRANS

NAME DATE RECEIVED

COMMENT RESPONSE

to make informed decisions. This process should be restarted once more information is available. Secondly the other queries I from the mail below were: Additionally we require clarification as to whether the project has been divided into two applications, and reasoning i.e. one BID application for the Estate and the second for the road connections? A scoping report for the Estate has been received but not for the roads? Additionally please provide the current status of the project process, i.e. has the scoping report been accepted by GDARD and go ahead provided for the EIA. What is the status for all applications. The shapefiles for the Estate and all associated infrastructure proposed as well as road connections/access roads. – EAP has indicated these are not available

1. Coordinates of the development; - are these not available ?

2. A layout plan for the development including development footprint and associated all associated infrastructure; - EAP has indicated these are not available

3. Specialist studies being undertaken and completed; - is this not known?

4. Confirmation as to whether wayleaves will be required, from Rand Water

5. The detail about the facility that will receive the sewerage.

6. An agreement that the identified sewerage facility is aware of the development and that they have the capacity to accept the sewerage from the site without overloading the facility. Will there be any discharges other than the sewerage system that will increase storm water entering the environment. If so, has the development considered retention and stilling ponds to slow down high peak flows. If the sewerage facility cannot accept the additional load into their facility, then this will have a negative impact on the environment and the pollution load into the river

road network. The road application is a Basic Assessment and not an eiA> You will receive a drat BA when the reports are ready to submit for review. 1. The shape files and co-ordinates are not available since it is very early

in the process and the layout must first be checked against the ecologically significant areas are indicated by the specialists. Once the designs and in a reasonable state, the boundary of the property and the co-ordinates will be provided.

2. Noted – see item 1 above. 3. Studies are currently being completed, the brief and reason for the

studies are indicated in this report. 4. Wayleasves will be required for the works that warrant such - as

standard practice. 5. Details are not available yet. 6. The sewage treatment will happen on site until the bulk services can be

provided. 7. Noted.

NAME DATE RECEIVED

COMMENT RESPONSE

systems. 7. As from our view point the project is one as one

cannot exist without the other, therefore all details should be covered under one application and scoping report. Else it puts the Authorities under pressure to approve the second phase application if the first has already been accepted.

6. Robyn San Environmental Assessor Rand Water

13/04/2016 1. The information provided in the BID and scoping report is insufficient to confirm whether and how Rand Water maybe impacted.

2. We require the footprint for all aspects of the project, i.e. the proposed estate, reservoir, treatment works, roads (new and those to be upgrade).

3. The maps provided do not detail all these aspects. If shape files are unavailable, please provide coordinates of all the above (centre and corner points as well as start, middle and end points for all linear activities).

4. We require clarification as to whether the project has

been divided into two applications, and reasoning i.e. one BID application for the Estate and the second for the road connections? A scoping report for the Estate has been received but not for the roads?

5. Please confirm Rand Water is registered for all applications related to the above mentioned project

6. Please provide the current status of the project process, ie has the scoping report been accepted by GDARD and go ahead provided for the EIA. What is the status for all applications?

1. The NEMA process requires, in term of the process to provide I&APs a BID and a scoping repot – You will get a copy of the draft EIA as soon as we have all the specialist reports which include those indicated in the Scoping. If you think something else need to be addressed, please let us know.

2. The site plan is still being prepared, since it has to respond to the environmental characteristics of the land. It is thus not possible to give you a layout before the studies has been done – previous layouts will change since this is a new application. The reservoir will be located on tip of the ridge and the sewer treatment facilities – in various positions to receive the various phases of the project. The idea is to locate them in a manner that the bulk lines can link to the municipal system in the future.

3. These are not available at this time. 4. The road will be an application for Gautrans. Since they will be the

owner of the road reserve, the applicant do not want to transfer it it them afterwards, when the approval can be granted to them right from the start. The Roads only require a Basic Assessment – you will receive a draft copy when it is available.

5. You are registered. 6. The scoping report is still in review form and when it is an approved

by GDARD we will commence with the Draft EIA.

7. Thys Arlow Director: Development, Planning and Housing Midvaal Local Municipality

15 April 2016

Kindly note that the application can be supported in principle, note that a land development application must be submitted to the Midvaal Local Municipality for the proposed development. We will appreciate continuous participation throughout this process.

Noted.

NAME DATE RECEIVED

COMMENT RESPONSE

8. Leslie Hoy, Manager, Environmental Management Services

26/04/2016 1. Rand Water requests a meeting with the project proponents (Zotec Developments (Pty) Ltd for the proposed Klipriver Estate and Gautrans for the proposed road connections) and the appointed Environmental Assessment Practitioner in order to clarify the project scope, location and extent of the development and the proximity to Rand Water’s infrastructure. This must be concluded prior to submission of final documentation.

2. Rand Water further requests to be actively involved in both projects, and require access to all project documents for review and comment.

3. The above mentioned projects impact on Rand Water’s A and B pipelines, properties, servitudes and access roads. The B pipelines are major pipelines; these pipelines are already under severe stress and supply a substantial portion of Gauteng’s water supply. The pipelines are listed on Rand Water’s critical asset list. Due to the importance of these pipelines (A and B) Rand Water cannot permit any building over or in close proximity (100m) to the pipelines and associated infrastructure nor allow for any undue risk.

4. Should the project proceed, the following is to be complied with: a. There is a 100m building and tree restriction

either side of the centreline of Rand Water’s pipelines or associated infrastructure, which must be adhered to for this and in all future developments. These rights are registered by means of Notarial Deeds of Servitude. Rand Water must receive an application for construction near their services upon which Rand Water will comment accordingly.

b. Rand Water’s infrastructure must be acknowledged at all times and may not be tampered or interfered with.

c. Natural ground level (topography) must be maintained within Rand Water’s servitude area

1. Noted. A meeting will be arranged by the developer. 2. Noted. See above. 3. Noted. Care will be taken to accommodate the requirements form

Rand Water. 4. The restrictive requirements from Rand Water will be discussed at the

Client meeting with RW. 5. Clarification will be provided after between the Client and RW.

NAME DATE RECEIVED

COMMENT RESPONSE

and 100m buffer. d. Storm water associated with the development

cannot be directed over or within proximity to Rand Water’s infrastructure.

e. Rand Water shall at all times retain unobstructed access to and egress from its services.

f. Rand Water shall not be liable for the death of or injury of any person or for the loss of or damage to any property whether as a result of the encroachment or of the use of the area where Rand Water has its services, by the applicant his/her agent contractors employees successors in title and assigns.

g. The applicant indemnifies Rand Water against loss, claims or damages including claims pertaining to interference with Rand Water’s infrastructure and service delivery or otherwise. The applicant’s attention is drawn to section 82 of the Water Services Act, 1997, which stipulates that no person may unlawfully and intentionally or negligently interfere with any water services work, intentionally obstruct any person exercising or attempting to exercise any right of entry and inspection of property under section 81; fail or refuse to give information or give false or misleading information when required to give information in terms of this Act. Any person who contravenes subsection (1) is guilty of an offence and liable, on conviction to a fine or imprisonment or both such fine and imprisonment.

h. No construction work may be executed closer than the 100m from any Rand Water infrastructure.

i. No squatting to be permitted in the Rand Water servitude.

j. No tree shall be planted within the servitude area and within the 100m building buffer unless authorised in by Rand Water.

k. The effective management and handling of waste

NAME DATE RECEIVED

COMMENT RESPONSE

is of crucial importance. No dumping shall be permitted with the Rand Water Servitudes. All unwanted waste must be disposed of at a registered waste disposal site.

l. Any relocation of the Rand Water’s infrastructure and services due to this development will be for the account of the developer. The Developer will also be responsible for obtaining the requisite alternative route and all related legislative requirements. Rand Water does not relieve the applicant from obtaining the necessary statutory, land owner or municipal approvals.

5. Rand Water in addition to the above requests for clarification on the following points: a. The two proposed projects are interlinked and the

success of the one is reliant on the other. Thus the project from Rand Water’s perspective is one. Thus the roads and connections and the proposed estate should be assessed as one application by the public and the Authorities. Please clarify why the two have been separated and what are the implications for each project should the approvals for one of them not being received?

b. The current method of application does not provide the Authorities and IAP’s with opportunity to assess the project as a whole and the cumulative impacts.

c. The BID provided for both projects does not provide any detail for the projects. The BID provides insufficient information. With regards to the proposed road BID, the map is not clear, the length and connection points of the roads is not provided, roads to be upgraded and new roads to be built are not differentiated. The start and end points coordinates is not provided. The concern for Rand Water is that if this information is not known or available at this point of the project then specialist studies cannot be undertaken and will

NAME DATE RECEIVED

COMMENT RESPONSE

not be accurate. The EAP informed Rand Water that these details are not yet available (email received 12 April 2016).

d. Rand Water queried with the EAP on 8 April 2016 and again on 12 April 2016, the adequacy and quality of the information provided in the bid and scoping reports and due to the lack of basic information, Rand Water further queried whether the public participation process as prescribed by NEMA was being correctly followed. The EAP responded by email on 12 April 2016 stating that NEMA required the EAP to provide a BID and Scoping Report.. Rand Water is questioning whether the Scoping Reports provides sufficient information to the public with regards to the project scope, alternatives considered, and baseline receiving environment.

e. Are the services in the area of the proposed project including the roads upgrades / new roads and connections known? These must be provided to RW with these details.

f. Do the proposed roads align with Gautrans approved 5 year plan? Please provide the locations, width and type of roads and connection points.

g. Rand Water currently accesses its operational sites via several private farm roads through the Rand Water Farm, please confirm how Rand Water’s access shall be impacted and mitigated, from an operation and security perspective and environmental aspect.

h. The information provided indicates that Rand Water’s farm property will be subdivided. This will have an impact on the future value and use of the land. Additionally Rand Water has a legal obligation to retain and maintain portions of its farm as per legal agreements for environmental offsetting. The applicant is to advise Rand Water as to how its legal agreements will still be fulfilled,

NAME DATE RECEIVED

COMMENT RESPONSE

should the property be developed and divided by several new roads.

i. How will the subdivision of the land by these roads impact on the property value for Rand Water?

j. As indicated in email communications with the EAP, the EAP is applying on behalf of Gautrans, as the roads will be owned and managed by Gautrans. Thus please clarify why the application is being submitted at a provincial level and not a national level with the Department of Environmental Affairs?

k. What properties including servitudes are being impacted by the project inclusive of the roads upgrades / new roads and connection? Please provide RW with these details.

l. What alternative sites in terms of access road options and geographical location of the site have been considered? Please provide RW with these details.

m. The documentation provided states that the sewerage will feed into local lmunicipal waste streams. Has the WWTW been identified? Has the WWTW confirmed capacity to receive the waste from the proposed estate? Please provide RW with these details.

n. Please provide Rand Water with the current proposed layout for the estate and all associated infrastructure, i.e. school, clinic, reservoir etc.

o. Please provide Rand Water with shape files for all the above sites and infrastructure.

p. Who will provide water supply for the proposed development and have discussions already commenced?

q. What is the site location for the 50000 reservoir? r. Will borehole water be utilised during construction

and during the operation phase? s. The site is home to vulnerable and near

threatened bird species, please advise how the

NAME DATE RECEIVED

COMMENT RESPONSE

impact of the development will be mitigated t. Is the project considering any energy efficiency /

green technologies during the construction and operational phases?

u. Please confirm the new roads to be built and the roads to be upgraded, this is not clear in the report provided.

v. The vegetation in the area is considered endangered and includes a number of protected species such as the Cussonia panniculata; Erythrina zeyherii and Aloe greatheadii, the mitigation measures incorporated in the report are not adequate. How will biodiversity at the estate be reintroduced and increased?

w. Specialist study queries:

Agricultural potential (inclusive of grazing potential) – the site is is currently zoned for agricultural use and covers more than 300Ha? Why has a study has been commissioned, in the report it is stated that the site is small and thus the loss is not expected to be great and therefore no assessment required?.

Heritage impact assessment, has a second phase heritage assessment been commissioned following the confirmation of the graves and heritage buildings?

Social impact assessment, is this being undertaken?

Ridge impact assessment, the projects footprint covers a portion of a ridge, what is the potential impact to the ridge and how is this proposed to be mitigated?

Storm water management plan (SWMP) please provide a copy. The SWMP must address issues of increased runoff

NAME DATE RECEIVED

COMMENT RESPONSE

into nearby water bodies and the issue of possible pollution and then also the how the existing RW infrastructure and services will be protected.

Geotech has this been commissioned as yet. Please confirm the number of test pits required and the locality of these, and which access roads will be utilised to undertake the geotechnical assessment. No drilling/test pits can be undertaken without prior consent from Rand Water in terms of its infrastructure and buffer zones.

Traffic impact assessment – have this study taken into consideration Rand Water’s farm road and the access it provides for operation purposes? As well as the increased traffic onto the R59.

Wetland assessment should be extended to include an aquatic assessment of surface and ground water supplies including all drainage lines, as one of the potential impacts listed is ground water pollution and then also address the issue of boreholes. Further water for construction and dust suppression, what is the source of supply? This development is proposed in a water stressed catchment.

Is blasting expected to occur on site; If yes, a blasting impact assessment must be undertaken with specific focus on Rand Water’s infrastructure and resultant and potential impact. The prot and results must be reviewed and approved by Rand Water, further prior to any blasting taking place, Rand Water must be duly informed and the method statements approved.

NAME DATE RECEIVED

COMMENT RESPONSE

A visual impact assessment needs to be conducted to address the proposed change in sense of place and change in landscape.

A dolomitic study is required for the project area.

x. Potable water supply, please confirm whether Midvaal has confirmed capacity to supply for the future demand of the estate;

y. Is the development proposed to be a phased development? Please provide these estimates with the timelines, this will impact the overall services delivery of the area.

z. What is the expected population density of the development? Please provide these estimates with the timelines, this will impact the overall service delivery of the area.

aa. Will the developer connect to municipal pipelines to dispose of its sewerage?

bb. The reports state that sewerage will be treated at a number of treatment works within the Estate, to what level will the waste be treated?

cc. Will any waste water be disposed of into the environment? Treated or otherwise?

dd. The reports do not talk to waste management during construction and operation. Do the surrounding sites have capacity to receive additional waste especially during operation?

ee. In relation to the proposed reservoir, where will the overflow be directed?

ff. Mitigation measures stated in the report are not adequate nor are these site specific enough, these need to include specialist recommendations, specifically in terms of biodiversity and water specially since the project involves ecologically sensitive areas.

gg. Has the installation of power lines underground been considered?

Rand Water has received insufficient information to determine

NAME DATE RECEIVED

COMMENT RESPONSE

the cumulative impact and risk to its infrastructure and operations and therefore cannot support the approval of the applications and thus objects to both developments.

9. Janet Davis representing Ekala Guest Farm

28/04/2016 This proposed development, Gateway ECO Estate, seems in principal to be no different to the proposed development of Seaton Thomson & Associates: Gaut 002/09 10/N0467 of January 2010. Our, Ekala Guest Farm objections are thus the same as they were to the proposal of 2010. This document is attached and must form the basis of our current objections. Even though is detailed for the previous proposed project. I have attached the same letter with reference to this recent development. Each and every clause of this attached document of 2010 is still relevant and must be regarded as the same objection to your proposal and process. In some details, actual specifics are different, however are equally problematic and unacceptable. This includes but not limited to roads, people currently living on the property concerned, our functioning as a Guest Farm focusing on the foreign tourist and wetland & biodiversity impacts. Additional reports such as those supplied by the CSIR – dated 7th March 2010 to the earlier Seaton Thomson & Associates proposal are also still applicable to the Gateway ECO Estate as it would have been to the 2010 proposal. All issues as raised by me, Janet Davis and the CSIR’s 2010 report must form part of the required public participation process.

It is not very different from the original application. Please note that the previous comments – if still valid – must be provided again. This is a new process and the information provided to Seaton Thomson must be forwarded again to this office for consideration and inclusion in the process please.

10. Janet Davis representing Ekala Guest Farm

05 March 2010 – comment made in respect of application by Seaton

With reference to your notice dated 5 February 2009, please find herewith the comments on the Draft Scoping Report. The comment has been structured to provide general comment on the above mentioned development as well as specific comments on the document.

1. General Comments

Much Appreciated. See below for feedback.

1. The current alignment of the K77 is being investigated for an alternative. The idea is to get written comment to ensure that the feedback from the I&Aps are clearly motivated and can be systematically answered. All comments received from the I&Aps are included into the Scoping report. If there are issued that has to be

NAME DATE RECEIVED

COMMENT RESPONSE

Thomson & Associates in 2010 (referred to above)

1.1. The Public Open Day (held 30 January 2010) was poorly presented and no questions from the attendees were clearly answered. My simple question regarding the placement of the K77 road on the locality plan was rudely answered with “what is your problem”. Future public participation events should be better structured with a formal question and answer session, which allows for the I&AP to fully explain their concerns. This should be documented and included in the Scoping Report.

1.2. Maps that were viewed at the open day were said to be available online once the draft scoping document was released, however the service maps demonstrating the locality of pipes and pump stations as well as electrical and sewage infrastructure was not listed under the downloads on http://www.seaton.co.za/downloads/driefontein.html or in the Appendix of the Report. In addition, the placement of the K77 on the Plan 2: Draft Layout Plan was stated by the representatives of Seaton Thomson & Associates to be incorrect since the coordinates had not yet been received from Gauteng Department of Transport. We ask that an accurate map showing the bounds of the K77 route be released to be public as well as the proposed service maps.

1.3. With regard to the Draft Scoping Document, large sections of text appear to have been copied and pasted from other Blue Rose Development documents, such as The Valleys, and thus the legitimacy of the document for the above mentioned development needs to be questioned.

1.4. The area proposed for this development is zoned as agricultural and no mention of the rezoning process is provided in the Draft Scoping Document. This as well as clarity on the boundary of the urban edge in relation to the proposed development needs to be provided.

2. Potential impacts to the economic viability and

addressed it is fed through to the specialist consultants for their input and answers. Maps that are produced as part of his application will be made available. The traffic engineers are currently investigating the alternative positions for the alignment. Several alignments are assessed to find the most viable and least impact. A new Scoping report prepared under this application and do not contain the referenced to other irrelevant projects. The town planning process under the latest township establishment legislation is being followed.

2. Noted.

NAME DATE RECEIVED

COMMENT RESPONSE

sustainability of adjoining communities and business” (page 48)

2.1. Ekala Guest Farm is rated 3 Star by the Tourism Grading Council of South Africa and Highly Recommended by A.A. Travel and attracts international tourists to the area. Its tranquil, secluded and secure countryside accommodation away from the busy city centre is highly sought after by tourists. In light of this we believe that the area has high Eco-Tourism potential with all its wildlife and natural open spaces, which are an essential green-lung of Gauteng. In addition to the Guest House, we run a successful organic sheep farm and organic vegetable garden. A high density development, as described by Alternative 1, will negatively impact our tourism business. This is due firstly to the impact on the highly sensitive and scenic environment which attracts tourists to the area, secondly to the increase in air, noise and traffic pollution, thirdly to the increase in criminal activities normally associated with urbanisation, and lastly due to the construction of the K77 highway/arterial.

2.2. It is stated on page 14 of the Draft Scoping Document that the “K77 road reserve exists on site” and that it will be constructed as part of the development. Plan 2: Draft Layout Plan clearly shows the “existing K77” cutting through our property (81 145-IR) and a minimum of 2 other farms in Alewynspoort. As the owner of this property for 24 years, I formally register our objection to the construction of this road as presented in Plan 2. We insist that alternatives be thoroughly investigated, such as the construction of the road though the Rand Water Board Property, would link the R59 to R550, and presented to the affected properties in order for a transparent decision to be made. There is no mention of a task to determine the route of the K77 road to be constructed and the alternatives or its impacts on the surrounding communities; these need to be included in the EIA

The noted. However, preliminary discussions with the municipality by the development shows that the development is supported by the municipality as a residential development with ancillary uses such as schools and small convenience commercial. The town planning report is being prepared and will clarify the municipal position. With regard to the K77, the alternative alignment is currently under investigation by the traffic engineer. The request for an economic assessment will be provided to the developer for consideration.

NAME DATE RECEIVED

COMMENT RESPONSE

process. 2.3. In light of the two aforementioned impacts, we request

a full economic evaluation on the impact of the development on the surrounding communities particularly Alewynspoort as part of the EIA process.

3. Wetland and Biodiversity Impacts 3.1. Plan 5: Preliminary Environmental Sensitivity

demonstrates that the proposed development is located (in part) on a wetland and in an area with high biological sensitivity (vegetation, fauna and invertebrates) and high heritage significance. The construction of houses and associated infrastructural development will reduce the local biodiversity and the number of species present by reducing their suitable habitat and by reducing the goods and services provided by the ecosystem. Communities in the area as well as agriculture rely on such goods and services provided by a healthy ecosystem. Such activities will be negatively affected by the loss of ecosystem function. In addition, the presence of humans increases will the number of invasive bird and plant species, which have a negative impact on the local biodiversity.

3.2. There are numerous other proposed developments in the area and these cannot be seen in isolation and the cumulative environmental impacts, such as habitat fragmentation, needed to be investigated as part of the EIA process.

3.3. All areas designated as highly sensitive should firstly be avoided and designated as no-go areas and secondly protected throughout the development phase. We request an outline of the methodology that will be employed to protect these sensitive areas during construction, such as the demarcation with poles. If the majority of the proposed development site is, however, considered to be highly sensitive, ecologically and/or historically, the application to develop this area needs be rejected.

3.4. On page 12 of the document the site is described as

3. The studies are being updated and the sensitive areas will be retained as open scape. All development was once a functional ecological system.

Other comments are noted.

The other proposed development will be considered as part of the overall assessments.

Comments on the process of evaluation are noted.

The ecological assessment will be provided in its full text and the I&APs will thus have an opportunity to review the actual documents, rather than summaries.

NAME DATE RECEIVED

COMMENT RESPONSE

degraded whereas on page 21 the site is described as having “a number of areas that are of conservation concern and therefore carry high sensitivity”. Contradictions created by making a general statement about the state of the land obscure the reality of the potential impacts on the site and ultimately the decisions made.

4. Erosion Impacts During and After Construction 4.1. Section 9.0 of the Draft Scoping Report considers

additional storm-water discharge to be important environmental impact. We ask that a full assessment of the potential erosion created by surface run-off during construction, especially on the ridge areas, be conducted. In addition, a review and recommendations of erosion mitigation measures for the construction phase must be provided. This is as the erosion on the surrounding farms and sand/dirt road caused by run-off from the Eye of Africa had been considerable and problematic during the last heavy rains and February and March 2010.

5. Removal of Alien Vegetation 5.1. The removal alien vegetation is mentioned on page

19 of the document but Section 9.0 does not include a program to determine the actions required to remove the vegetation or the future control of alien vegetation. We request a full assessment of the methodology which will be employed to remove and control the targeted alien species as well as a clear indication of which trees will be removed as well as their location. An indication of how they will be disposed of also needs to be provided.

5.2. A review must also be conducted to determine the extent of surface run-off water containing alien seeds as well as mitigation measures to combat the spread of the seeds to the surrounding areas.

5.3. The removal of vegetation is known to increase surface run-off especially on a slope and as such this is an additional factor influencing the magnitude and rate of surface erosion on site, which needs to be

4. An integrated storm water management system will be considered. Erosion methods will be described in the EMP.

5. The ARC provides tried and tested methods of alien removal. Trying to develop alternatives to these are futile it will thus be recommended that the ARC methods be used.

NAME DATE RECEIVED

COMMENT RESPONSE

investigated during the EIA process. 6. Social Impacts 6.1. Currently, there are people who live on the land

proposed for this development. This is not mentioned in the Draft Scoping Report or the planned Heritage Assessment. A plan which considers the well-being and rights of these family’s needs to detailed and provided to the I&AP.

It is recommended that the Draft Scoping Report be revised to address the above-mentioned issues and that they form part of the EIA process.

6. The people living on the land legally will be addressed by the existing

land owner. Any informal settlers will be asked to vacate and if not possible an eviction procedures will be completed. The farmers, wo graze their cattle on the land have a legal agreement with the land owner, they will be requires to move their cattle to other parts of the farms that will not be developed.

11. Andrew Barker 28 April 2016

1. Consultant objectivity and independence 1.1. The information provided by the independent

consultant appears to be biased and lack objectivity.

1.2. The initial scoping report contains a number of statements directly supporting the proposed development, whilst being dismissive and presumptive of potential factors that could result in the project proposal receiving a negative ROD, without providing any factual support for these points of view.

1.3. The wording in several of the evaluations is a

motivation for the project development and cannot be considered as an objective assessment of potential impacts.

1.4. Statements to support this conclusion are as follows:

1) 5.1 Demand Alternative: "adjacent to the Sybrand

van Niekerk Freeway (R59)" Bullet 2: "To develop the land as an infill component to the establishing of a much needed residential development, linking the site to surrounding activities and accessible infrastructure ..” Response: Both of these statements are

Noted. These comments do not relate to the Scoping report. The scoping report does not make any statements with regard to the development The scoping report provides a summary of the issues and the methods according to which the studies will be conducted and the aspects the specialist studies will address. These comments are standard comments received from this I&AP many times over on projects in the region. It is thus not possible to respond to them in any meaningful manner. The rest of the comments will be addressed by the specialist studies. In preliminary discussions, the developer had determined that the municipality support the development in this part of the region. The studies that are to be completed now under the scoping phase will determine if such a development is in fact viable.

NAME DATE RECEIVED

COMMENT RESPONSE

misleading as the site is not adjacent to the freeway and is located in an isolated area well away from any other forms of development and infrastructure.

2) To a large extent, events have overrun the option of retaining the land as vacant since the land has been recognised as being suitable for housing and commercial. Response: The land is located outside the urban development boundary and is therefore not been identified by the authorities for such uses. It is suggested that this statement is motivated by the project proponents and their identification of this land as a speculative purchase. The motivation of referring to events that have overrun the option is subjective and misleading.

3) 5.5.1 Bullet 3: “If not developed … the owner will not be able to maintain the property. This will lead the site to fall into disrepair and the protection and appropriate management of potential conservation areas will be neglected.” 5.5.1 paragraph 3: … “the site will eventually degenerate if left unmanaged …” Response: Large tracts of land in Highveld grassland areas are inherently stable, and do not require continuous maintenance. Only when land is sub-divided and development increases or the area is heavily utilised for anthropogenic purposes, does it require substantial monetary intervention to maintain. The land is unlikely to degenerate if the land owners follow very basic principals in due diligence. The duty of care of the property is the responsibility of the owner. The project proponent, Zotec Developments are professional property consultants and developers and surely had with full knowledge of the risks and liabilities the acquisition of the property entailed. To use the risk to the property as a justification for development is unjustifiable.

See above .

The land owner wish to sell the land, and if the land is not sold, the current land owner has no intention to retain it in its current state, because they simply cannot afford to do so. The result will in fact be a derelict condition if the land owner abandon the farm .

NAME DATE RECEIVED

COMMENT RESPONSE

4) 5.5.1. Bullet 4: Illegal squatters and vagrants may move through and inhabit the site: Response: It is equally possible that vagrants and squatters will not occupy the land. The probability of squatters occupying the land increases with the development of the area and will likely lead to other, adjacent areas being more susceptible to illegal occupation. If the ‘illegal occupation’ argument is given merit, it would imply that no tract of land in South Africa is safe from illegal occupation and all land therefore free to develop.

5) 5.5.2 Bullet 4” “The financial requirement that is necessary to revive the land’s agricultural use is rising every year and it is becoming more difficult to make a living farming lands.” Response: This statement is ludicrous and cannot be substantiated. It states categorically that farming in South Africa is not commercially viable. Farming might be challenging, but nearly any piece of land can be farmed profitably with the right techniques and approach.

6) 6.2.1 “The surrounding land use is primarily dominated by high density development” Response: This is clearly not true. The nearest high density development is four kilometres east. The area is surrounded by undeveloped land in all areas directly bordering the site and agricultural land and smallholdings for approximately 20 kilometres to the south and west.

7) 6.3.5. “Agricultural potential will not be assessed … mostly moderate agricultural potential...The property is not a viable farming unit” Response: The agricultural potential should be assessed because it has at least moderate potential. The consultant is being dismissive and presumptive about the agricultural potential of the area and the current need for small scale

Adjacent land owners indicated that larger and larger numbers of vagrants are seen in the area. If there is a piece of land that is not actively farmed , it is most likely that vagrants could occupy the property. Noted. This statement is incorrect and will be withdrawn.

The current land owner had determined that he cannot farm the land viably. For a I&AP to make statement like this is not considering the years of land ownership and hardship the current land owners face.

NAME DATE RECEIVED

COMMENT RESPONSE

agricultural developments to help address food security and unemployment.

8) 6.3.7 Bullet 4, sub-bullet 1: “The overall significance of the pertinent ecological impacts is expected to be low”. Response: This is an incredibly dangerous comment to make, given that no ecological assessment of the site has yet been made.

2. Fragmentation

2.1. A critical consideration not identified in the scoping report is the ecological and habitat impacts on the surrounding areas, including biodiversity corridors, habitat fragmentation and the ‘edge’ effect causing disturbance well beyond the footprint of the proposed development. The proposed developments will effectively cut-off undeveloped areas to the north-east from the surrounding landscape.

2.2. Considerable negative impacts are also likely due to

the increased human presence in the area and will likely lead to increased veld fires, illegal dumping, illegal land occupation (squatters and vagrants), crime and many more. These cumulative impacts must be identified and assessed.

3. Urban Development Boundary

3.1. The proposed site is outside the Midvaal Urban

Development Boundary and "leapfrogs" into an open and isolated area. This is totally unacceptable and must not be allowed to occur by the provincial and municipal authorities.

3.2. Provincial and municipal environmental and

developmental priorities are focused on densification and containment of urban development within the Urban Development Boundary. This is primarily to protect agricultural and natural resources and

The studies will show what the ecological condition of the property. A ecological scoping exercise of the surrounding area is being conducted to understand the conditions and activities of the area. Noted Noted. The township application will address these concerns and will explain how the development will be included into the municipal structures.

Noted. However the municipality are in dire need of development to increase its rate base.

NAME DATE RECEIVED

COMMENT RESPONSE

opportunities which have been identified by GDARD as important and ecological support areas. This has been captured in the Gauteng Environmental Management Framework and the Midvaal Spatial Development Framework.

3.3. Furthermore, the containment of urban development

and infrastructural expansion is aimed at reducing the costs of management and maintenance of infrastructure and ensuring optimal use of existing developed areas and associated engineering and social infrastructure.

3.4. If this development is permitted, essential

engineering services will have to be provided. Extension of these networks of services infrastructure is the "thin edge of the wedge" which will open up opportunities for other developments to quickly follow and therefore have a major cumulative environmental impact on the area.

3.5. Even if this development is allowed as a "one off" it

will be impossible in the future to prevent future urban development and expansion into the area with such a strong precedent having been already set.

3.6. It must be noted that there are currently no other

similar high density developments west of the R59, south of the Klipriver and east of the R82. This area comprises approximately 40,000 hectares of smallholdings and farms, with a high potential for conservation, habitat preservation and low impact development. With the rapid expansion of urban development it represents one of a very few wildlife sanctuary areas left around the urban areas in Gauteng.

3.7. The integrity of the Urban Development Boundary

must be protected in this region.

The engineering investigation will determine the viability of the development. This is a private development and the expansion of services will be at the cost of the private developer The engineering investigation will determine the viability of the development. This is a private development and the expansion of services will be at the cost of the private developer Noted Noted. The municipality has jurisdiction on the process to allow the development with regard to the need for housing in their jurisdiction. The town planning

NAME DATE RECEIVED

COMMENT RESPONSE

4. Key stakeholders.

4.1. In the light of the heritage resources that exist on the

site, the Jacksons Drift Khoisan Development Association must be recognised as key stakeholders and be fully participative in the assessment and design processes.

4.2. The Association is aware of the archaeological heritage resources in the area and have indicated a desire to see these resources suitably protected and used for social, cultural and educational purposes.

4.3. In this regard, contact should be made with Chief

Adam Mathysen - 079 209 2602 [email protected].

5. Biodiversity Stewardship Programme

5.1. If development on the site is permitted in any form or

manner, an essential component of the Environmental Management plan must be a requirement to undertake and follow the requirements of the Biodiversity Stewardship program to ensure sustainable management of the natural resources and biodiversity.

5.2. Suitable institutional structures and financial

arrangements must be brought into landowner agreements and associations to provide sustainable resources and management for environmentally sensitive and important areas in and around the development. The possibility of establishing a Conservancy could also be considered and evaluated.

5.3. In addition, environmental, town planning, urban

design, engineering and architectural conditions and

report will address the town planning processes.

Noted. A full historical assessment has been completed and will be updated if required. Noted.


NAME DATE RECEIVED

COMMENT RESPONSE

requirements should be incorporated to optimise the protection, promotion and enhancement of the value of the natural assets. This can be done through various interventions relating to green building, green infrastructure and construction standards as well as sustainable living requirements.

6. Visual Impact

6.1. Due to the location of the proposed development and

its visibility and potential visual impact on the range of hills it is essential that a visual impact study is undertaken by a suitably qualified specialist.

6.2. The study should provide mitigating measures and guidance that, if the development takes place, various urban design and architectural measures can be incorporated to minimise the visual impact.

7. Agricultural Impact and Potential

7.1. The Klip River Valley region used to be recognised

as the "food basket" of Johannesburg.

7.2. Investigations must be undertaken to establish the agricultural potential of the land that is identified for development. GDARD has indicated the presence of low to moderate valued agricultural land in this area. The potential social and economic value particularly to address the high levels of unemployment and food insecurity in the area should be established and the impact of the proposed development established.

7.3. An assessment of the impact of the proposed

development on existing agricultural activities in this region and their potential must also be undertaken.

7.4. The study should also assess the impact of the

development on the potential for providing

A visual statement will be completed. Noted. The viability of farming in the area is not considered significant in 2016. A agricultural study will be conducted to determine the current agricultural viability.

NAME DATE RECEIVED

COMMENT RESPONSE

opportunities for local communities to establish small-scale farming activities, including dry cropping, tunnels and other methods of farming, and the potential economic and social benefits that would arise from job creation and ensuring food security.

7.5. With reference to Table 2 in the Draft Scoping

Report, the area of application for the Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act is incorrect. Arising from the agricultural assessment and if appropriate an application may be required.

8. Public Participation

8.1. The publication of advertisements only in the Citizen

may fulfil legal requirements but is not openly encouraging participation from local communities.

8.2. Advertisements and notices should also be placed in local newspapers and use other appropriate social media platforms to encourage participation and engagement, not to avoid it.

8.3. The local councillor, Clr Rob Jones, is a male not a

female as noted by the consultant.

The public participation is not only reliant on the notification in the citizen. Personal meeting are held with residents. The residents are also distributing the notices to their neighbours and workers to participate.

12. I&AP at Individual meeting arranged

23/04/2016 I&AP: Request that correspondence be done with the former Ward councillor Malcolm Heck and the current Ward Councillor Rob Jones.

GT responded that she will get her offices to contact the Ward Councillors. Since the meeting GT has confirmed that Councillor Rob Jones has been contacted with regards to the proposed developments.


23/04/2016 I&AP: We are concerned that this development does not fit into the Spatial Development Framework.

GT responded that the Town planner will be contacted to provide the SDF and the motivation for the development in this area. GT responded that her office will request the latest copy of the SDF and it will be provided to I&AP’s in the Draft EIA


23/04/2016 I&AP: We are concerned with the dumping and would like the municipality to assist in the problem.

Noted. The document is also provided to the Municipality for comment, and they will thus be notified.

15. I&AP at 23/04/2016 I&AP: The land for the proposed development is seasonal GT responded that she will request the developer to provide the agreements

NAME DATE RECEIVED

COMMENT RESPONSE

Individual meeting arranged

grazing land. There are many farmers that graze on that land. We would like to see the agreement between the farmers and the developer.

and arrangements between the land owner and farmers.


23/04/2016 I&AP: We would like you to note that veld fires are a major problem and that we spend lots of time fighting these fires.

Noted. The Applicant will be made aware of the required collaboration between all land owners in the area.


23/04/2016 I&AP: We would like to see how animals move from the ridge areas down to the valley areas.

GT responded that animal movement patterns will be investigated and included in Draft EIA.


23/04/2016 I&AP: Security is a major concern for us. Noted. The EMP will address the security during the construction phase and the development will have their own security which will contribute to the security on the area.


23/04/2016 I&AP: We will not support option 1 of the proposed road, however we will support option 2.

GT responded that this will be communicated with the traffic engineer.


23/04/2016 IA&P: We request that road to mall of the south be upgraded Noted. All road upgrades will be completed according to the requirements of the Municipal and Provincial Road infrastructure plans and as contained in the traffic impact assessment. If the road upgrades that are recommended not match the requirements of the local residents, they must work through the Ward Councillor to get the message to the Municipal decision makers.


23/04/2016 I&AP: Can you provide us with a larger road plan of the area. A Master plan will be provided in a separate email.


23/04/2016 I&AP: The area to the north of the proposed development is part of a horse riding area. We request that there be no link road towards that area.

GT responded that this will be communicated with the traffic engineer. Noted. All road upgrades will be completed according to the requirements of the Municipal and Provincial Road infrastructure plans and as contained in the traffic impact assessment. If the road upgrades that are recommended not match the requirements of the local residents, they must work through the Ward Councillor to get the message to the Municipal decision makers.

APPENDIX 7, 8 & 10 Comments from I&APs on Report or amendments on Report

See Appendix 4

APPENDIX 9 Copy of the I&AP Register

Klipriver Estate IAP DATABASE Name Surname Organisation Tel.no Fax.no Cell. No. E-mail

Client

Gerrit Brandow Central Developments (011) 315 163 083 556 6784 [email protected]

Other consultants

Statuatory Bodies

Gail Andrews Rand Water (011) 724-9360 (011) 900-1208 [email protected] Arlow Midvaal Local Municipality 016 360 7583 073 822 9063 [email protected] Kalembo DWS [email protected] Jones Ward 5 - WC 082 410 5633 [email protected]

Robyn San Rand Water - Environmental Assesor (011) 724 9343 071 415 5486 [email protected]

Registered I & AP's [email protected] Adam Barker KlipRiver Sustainablity Association 083 274 4224 [email protected] Eugene Becker I&AP 084 598 9885 [email protected] Jenny Brandt I&AP 081 753 8770 [email protected] Nico Brandt I&AP 083 376 1153 [email protected] Andrian de Melo I&AP 082 633 2379 adriandemelo99Tim de Villiers I&AP 082 926 2191 [email protected] Koneight Rand Water (011) 724 9366 (011) 900 2108 [email protected]

Tina Lear I&AP 082 257 7334 [email protected] Lear I&AP [email protected] Pieterse I&AP 082 466 8880 [email protected] Roux I&AP (011) 864 7966 [email protected] Roux I&AP 073 549 8063 [email protected]

[email protected]; [email protected]@[email protected]@[email protected]@[email protected]@[email protected]

2016-05-15 I & AP's - Klipriver Estate.xlsx





























Name Surname Organisation Tel.no Fax.no Cell. No. E-mail

[email protected]@zerobowstrings.co.za [email protected]@[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]@[email protected]; [email protected]@[email protected]@[email protected]; [email protected]













03/2016Postal address

25 Mitchell Street, Meyerton

P.O. Box 990251

P.O. Box 1074

P.O Box 990405 Kibler Park 2053

P.O. Box 990251

P.O.Box 187

Eikenhof 1872


Postal address


APPENDIX 11 Other

None

Documents

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION REPORT - biblebeliever.co.zabiblebeliever.co.za/Midvaal2/EIA_for_Midvaal_Area... · PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS/PUBLIEKE DEELNAME PROSES Notice is hereby given