appendix g: specialist reports · wkc has reviewed two key documents in order to form the opinion,...

APPENDIX G:

Specialist reports

Appendix G-1: Air Quality Assessment Opinion Letter

Tax Registration Number: 100230240200003 www.wkcgroup.com

WKC Group CC Unit 20, San Hall Office Park, Kirsty Close, P.O. Box 971, Ballito, 4420, South Africa |

Andrew Scott

Naturecell South Africa

Date: 15/04/2019

Our Reference: J19060

Subject: Opinion Regarding Section 21 of the Air Quality Act Regulated Emission Sources at the proposed

Naturecell Plant in Wadeville, Gauteng.

1. Introduction

WKC Group CC (WKC) has undertaken a review of the processes associated with the operations of the

proposed Naturecell Cellulosic Fibre Recovery Plant to be developed in Wadeville, Gauteng. This review was

undertaken to provide an opinion as to whether any of the facility processes will trigger a listed activity as set

out in Government Notice No. 8931.

2. Background

WKC has reviewed two key documents in order to form the opinion, namely the actual listing notice

(Government Notice No. 8931) and the associated Section 21 Companion Documents published in 20122 by

the Department of Environmental Affairs. The Section 21 Companion Documents is a reference guide which

illustrates typical processes (and applications) falling within the regulated listed activities as can be expected

to be encountered in the South African context. A summary of the findings for the facility is provided in Section

3.

The process review was supported by information provided by the Client in conjunction with a meeting held

with the Client on 5th November 2018.

3. Review and Opinion

The site, approximately 9,532 m2 in size, is to be situated on ERF 862, Wadeville X50, Gauteng. A summary

of the Section 21 listings that could be applicable to the plant is outlined in the table below, together with a

summary of WKC’s opinion, and potentials actions required by Naturecell.

1 Government Notice No. 893, Gazette No. 37054 List of Activities which result in atmospheric emissions which have or may have a significant detrimental effect on the environment, including health, social conditions, economic conditions, ecological conditions or cultural heritage dated 22 November 2013 2 Section 21 Companion Document Introduction, Section 21 Category 1/8/9 Companion Document @ http://www.saaqis.org.za/Downloads.aspx?type=AQ.


WardKarlson Consulting CC Unit 20, San Hall Office Park, Kirsty Close, P.O. Box 971, Ballito, 4420, South Africa |

Table 3.1: Review and Opinion

Processes Potential Section 21

category

Section 21

Description

Section 21

Application

WKC Opinion Outcome Action

Required

Oven Line Category 1: Combustion

Installations, Subcategory

1.4: Gas Combustion

Installations

Gas combustion

(including gas

turbines burning

natural gas) used

primarily for steam

raising or electricity

generation.

All installations with

design capacity equal to

or greater than 50 MW

heat input per unit,

based on lower calorific

value of the fuel used.

According to the data provided, the heat

input per unit is significantly below the

threshold trigger of 50 MW.

Note, the total thermal input will be below

0.25 MW which is much lower than the 50

MW threshold.

Not

regulated

in terms of

Section 21.

None

Oven Line Category 8: Thermal

Treatment of Hazardous

and General Waste,

Subcategory 8.1: Thermal

Treatment of General and

Hazardous Waste

Facilities where

general and

hazardous waste are

treated by the

application of heat.

All installations treating

10 kg per day of waste.

Section 21 defines thermal treatment as

incineration, co-processing and other high

temperature treatment of hazardous and

general waste. According to the data

provided, the processing of the recycled

fibre is limited to a maximum of 1300C and

no thermal decomposition/reaction of the

cellulose fibre occurs. Thus, this description

does not meet the definition of “thermal

treatment”.

Section 21 Companion Document defines

the applicability of this category to facilities

where general and hazardous waste

including health care waste, crematoria,

veterinary waste, used oil or sludge from the

treatment of used oil is incinerated. This

definition therefore does not meet the

facility’s thermal treatment description.

Not

regulated

in terms of

Section 21.

None

Blend Line Category 9: Pulp and Paper

Manufacturing Activities,

including By-Products

Recovery, Subcategory

9.4: Chlorine Dioxide Plants

Production and use of

chlorine dioxide for

paper production

All installations No chlorine dioxide is used or produced in

the process.

Not

regulated

in terms of

Section 21.

None


WardKarlson Consulting CC Unit 20, San Hall Office Park, Kirsty Close, P.O. Box 971, Ballito, 4420, South Africa |

It should be noted that in each instance the local authority should be consulted to confirm this position, as they

are ultimately responsible for issuing AEL’s.

Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any queries or clarifications.

Kind regards,

Shivani Naidoo

Environmental Consultant

WKC

[email protected]

Appendix G-2: Noise Assessment Opinion Letter



Andrew Scott

Naturecell South Africa

Date: 15/04/2019

Our Reference: J19060

Subject: Opinion Regarding Potential Noise Impacts from the proposed Naturecell Plant in Wadeville,

Gauteng.

1. Introduction

WKC Group CC (WKC) has undertaken a review of the processes associated with the operations of the

proposed Naturecell Cellulosic Fibre Recovery Plant to be developed in Wadeville, Gauteng. This review was

undertaken to provide an opinion as to whether the facility has the potential to result in noise impacts at

potential sensitive receptors in the area in terms of the national regulations and standards.

2. Background

WKC has reviewed two key documents in order to form the opinion, namely the Gauteng Noise Control

Regulations (The Gauteng Provincial Government, 1999) and the referenced SANS 10103:2008 ‘The

measurement and rating of environmental noise with respect to annoyance and to speech communication’

(South African Bureau of Standards (SABS), 2008).

The process review was supported by information provided by the Client in conjunction with a meeting held

with the Client on 5th November 2018.

3. Review and Opinion

The Gauteng Noise Control Regulations (NCR) (The Gauteng Provincial Government, 1999) state that no

person shall make, produce or cause a disturbing noise, or allow it to be made, produced or caused by any

person, animal, machine, device or apparatus or any combination thereof.

The NCR define a "disturbing noise'' as a noise level that causes the ambient noise level to rise above the

designated zone level, or if no zone level has been designated, the typical rating levels 'for ambient noise in.

districts, indicated in Table 2 of SABS 10103 (SANS 10103:2008 ‘The measurement and rating of

environmental noise with respect to annoyance and to speech communication’ (South African Bureau of

Standards (SABS), 2008)). A summary of the relevant noise limits is presented in Table 3.1.



Table 3.1: Noise Limits

The site, approximately 9,532 m2 in size, is to be situated on ERF 862, Wadeville X50, Gauteng. A summary

of the key Project information is outlined in the table below.

Table 3.2: Key Project Information

Type of district

Equivalent continuous rating level (LReq.T) for noise

dBA

Day/night

LR,dn

Daytime

LReq,d

Night-time

LReq,n

Rural districts 45 45 35

Suburban districts with little road traffic 50 50 40

Urban districts 55 55 45

Urban districts with one or more of the following:

workshops; business premises; and main roads 60 60 50

Central business districts 65 65 55

Industrial districts 70 70 60

Parameter Relevant Information

Project Location ERF 862, Wadeville X50, Gauteng

Applicable Noise Control Regulations Gauteng NCR (The Gauteng Provincial Government, 1999)

Noise Limits SANS 10103:2008 The measurement and rating of environmental noise

with respect to annoyance and to speech communication (South African

Bureau of Standards (SABS), 2008)

Potentially Noisy Sources Shredder

Hammermill

Conveyor

Fans

Indoor / Outdoor operation Indoor Operations

Construction Properties Chromadek (0.48mm Galvanised Steel Sheets)

Brick

Industrial Receptors Yes

Receptor classification and assessed Limit Adjacent

Applicable Limit Industrial District:

Day-time noise limit: 70 dB(A)

Night-time noise limit: 60 dB(A)

Sensitive Receptors Yes

Distance to Sensitive Receptors 500 metres

Receptor classification and assessed Limit Urban districts:

Day-time noise limit: 55 dB(A)

Night-time noise limit: 45 dB(A)



Based on the available Project information, a very brief screening calculation was carried out in order to

determine the potential noise levels at industrial and residential receptors in the vicinity of the Project.

The calculation was carried out based on the assumed simultaneous operation of the noisiest equipment using

an equivalent noise level based on SoundPLAN library noise levels. The resulting operational noise level at

each locations of interest was determined based on building transmission loss data and the inverse square

law of noise attenuation over distance which translates to approximately 6 dB reduction in noise for each

doubling of distance from the noise source.

A summary of the calculation data is provided in Table 3.3.

Table 3.3: Summary of Calculation Data

Sources LP Overall

Lp Spectrum

Reference 63 Hz

125 Hz

250 Hz

500 Hz

1000 Hz

2000 Hz

4000 Hz

8000 Hz

Fans 85.0 52.5 70.1 79.1 78.5 76.7 77.9 75.2 71.6

SoundPLAN Library (C.M. Harris - Acoustical Measurements and Noise Control)

Conveyor 89.2 64.8 71.9 73.4 79.8 86.0 83.2 79.0 69.9

SoundPLAN Library (BS5228 C10.22 Feed hopper conveyor drive unit)

Shredder 95.0 62.0 72.0 79.0 85.0 88.0 89.0 89.0 87.0 SoundPLAN Library (No reference)

Mill 103.0 70.0 80.0 87.0 93.0 96.0 97.0 97.0 95.0

SoundPLAN Library (Guideline: Noise Emission from Industrial Facilities VDI2571)

Total Internal Sound Pressure Level

104.1 72.0 82.9 90.4 94.6 97.3 98.1 97.9 95.8

Attenuation Calculation

Wall Reduction Index (galvanized steel sheet)

- 3 8 14 20 23 26 27 35 Engineering Noise Control

Transmission Façade (m2)

- 560 560 560 560 560 560 560 560 SDP Plan DN 244 - 0000

External Lp @ 1m 76.2 63.0 68.9 70.4 68.6 68.3 66.1 64.9 54.8

External Lp @ 15m

69.7 56.4 62.3 63.9 62.0 61.7 59.5 58.3 48.3

External Lp @ 500m

41.7 28.5 34.4 35.9 34.1 33.8 31.6 30.4 20.3

Based on the conservative high-level screening calculation of the proposed Project, potential noise levels at

both the potential sensitive receptors and nearby industrial receptors are anticipated to be below the relevant

noise limits in terms of the NCRs and SANS limits.

It should be noted that the potential increase in noise associated with an increase in road traffic has not been

considered in this screening calculation. Guidance on impact assessment of traffic noise is provided within the

IEMA Guidance Note No. 1 ‘Guidelines for the Environmental Assessment of Road Traffic’ (Institute of

Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA)), which recommends assessment where general traffic

flows will increase by more than 30%, and where specifically sensitive areas experience traffic flow increases

of 10% or more. Therefore, if traffic flow increases are anticipated to be lower then 10% of the existing traffic

flows in the area, the increase in noise associated with traffic can be considered negligible.



In the context of the existing industrial area, the baseline noise levels are anticipated to be relatively high from

the existing industry and is likely to mask the contribution of the proposed facility. It is WKC’s opinion that the

facility may not require a detailed noise modelling study.

It should be noted that the local authority should be consulted to confirm this position.

Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any queries or clarifications.

Kind regards,

Ashley Meyer

Environmental Consultant

WKC

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Appendix G-3: Traffic Impact Assessment (part of GAUT: 002/17-18/E2053)

Wadeville Extension 51

Traffic Impact Assessment

Growthpoint Properties

30 June 2017

Revision: 00

Reference: 113628

Project 000000 File Wadeville Ext 51 TIA_Final.docx Date Revision Rev

Document control record

Document prepared by:

Aurecon South Africa (Pty) Ltd

Reg No 1977/003711/07

Aurecon Centre Lynnwood Bridge Office Park 4 Daventry Street Lynnwood Manor 0081

PO Box 74381 Lynnwood Ridge 0040 South Africa

T

F

E

W

+27 12 427 2000

+27 86 556 0521

[email protected]

aurecongroup.com

A person using Aurecon documents or data accepts the risk of:

a) Using the documents or data in electronic form without requesting and checking them for accuracy against the original hard copy version.

b) Using the documents or data for any purpose not agreed to in writing by Aurecon.

Document control

Report title Wadeville Extension 51 TIA Report

Document ID R001 Project number 113628

File path PW_Filepath

Client Client

Client contact Growthpoint Properties Client reference Reference

Rev Date Revision details/status Author Reviewer Verifier (if required)

Approver

00 09 June 2017 1st Draft Nothando Khumalo

Vera Mpofu Werner Heyns

01 22 June 2017 Final Nothando Khumalo

Vera Mpofu Werner Heyns

Current revision Final

Approval

Author signature Approver signature

Name Author Name Approver

Title Title

Project 000000 File Wadeville Ext 51 TIA_Final.docx 30 June 2017 Revision Rev Page i

Contents 1 Introduction 1

1.1 Background 1

1.2 Scope of this report 1

2 Approach and Methodology 4

2.1 Approach 4

2.2 Methodology 5

3 Existing Conditions 6

3.1 Development site 6

3.2 Existing road network 6

3.3 Existing public transport and Non-motorised 7

4 Trip generation Distribution and Assignment 10

5 Intersection Capacity Analysis 15

5.1 Assessment criteria 15

5.2 Analysis results 15

6 Access Strategy 28

6.1 Site access 28

6.2 Site access capacity analysis 28

6.3 Queuing analysis 29

7 Public Transport and Non-motorised Transport (NMT) 29

8 Conclusion and Recommendation 30

Appendices

Appendix A

SIDRA Results and signal settings

Appendix B

Drawings

Figures

Figure 1 Locality Plan 2

Figure 2 Aerial View 3

Figure 3 2017 AM Baseline traffic 8

Figure 4 2017 PM Baseline traffic 9

Figure 5 2017 AM Development traffic distribution 11

Figure 6 2017 PM Development traffic distribution 12

Project 000000 File Wadeville Ext 51 TIA_Final.docx 30 June 2017 Revision Rev Page ii

Figure 7 2017 AM Development traffic 13

Figure 8 2017 PM Development traffic 14

Figure 9 2022 AM Background traffic without development traffic 17

Figure 10 2022 PM Background traffic without development traffic 18

Figure 11 AM latent traffic 20

Figure 12 PM latent traffic 21

Figure 13 2022 AM Background with latent traffic 22

Figure 14 2022 PM Background with latent traffic 23

Figure 15 2022 AM Background with latent and development traffic 25

Figure 16 2022 PM Background with latent and development traffic 26

Tables

Table 1: Trip generation 10

Table 2: LOS performance criteria 15

Table 3: 2017 Background Traffic Analysis Results 16

Table 4: 2022 Background Traffic Analysis Results 19

Table 5: 2022 Background Traffic plus Latent Traffic 24

Table 6: 2022 Background Traffic plus Latent and Development Traffic 27

Table 7: 2022 Background Traffic plus Latent and Development Traffic and Mitigation Measures 28

Table 8: 2022 Access and Chaperon Road Analysis Results 28

Table 9: Queuing Analysis 29

Project Project No File Wadeville Ext 51 TIA_Final.docx 30 June 2017 Revision 0 Page 1

1.1 Background Aurecon (Pty) Ltd was appointed by Growthpoint Properties to undertake a Traffic Impact Assessment

(TIA) in support of a township establishment application on the Remaining Extent of Portion 267 and

Portion 273 of the Farm Klippoortjie NO.110-I.R. (proposed Wadeville Extension (Ext.) 51). The

proposed development is an industrial park and the site will be zoned as “industrial 1” with the

following rights:

Height: Maximum 3 storeys;

Coverage: Maximum 60%; and

Floor Area Ratio (FAR): 0.6.

The site is approximately 23,788m² in size. It is vacant at present and located along Chaperon Road, on the southwestern periphery of the Wadeville industrial area in Germiston. Figures 1 and Figure 2 overleaf show the location of the site.

The proposed development on Ext 51 is planned as part of an industrial park together with a proposed development on Ext 50 located to the immediate east of Ext 51. As such, the two properties are proposed to share an existing access currently serving Ext. 50 off Chaperon Road. Consequently, Growthpoint is proposing to notarially tie the two properties. It should be noted that a TIA study for Ext 50 was conducted by GOBA Consulting Engineers in 2011 and was approved by Ekurhuleni Department of Roads and Storm water in the same year.

As part of the preparation and development of the TIA, Aurecon engaged Ekurhuleni Department of

Roads and Storm to agree the scope and methodology and extent of the study.

1.2 Scope of this report

This TIA report provides a detailed traffic engineering and transport assessment associated with the application. The scope of this study includes the following:

Description of surrounding road network and existing traffic conditions of critical intersections that potentially could be impacted by this development proposal;

Impact assessment of the development traffic on the surrounding road network and recommendations on required road upgrades to mitigate traffic impact;

Assessment of site access from the surrounding road network and recommendation on access configuration / geometry to meet development accessibility needs; and

Assessment of existing public transport provision and non-motorised transport (NMT) activity in the vicinity of the site and recommendations on appropriate facilities to accommodate the development generated public transport and NMT demand.

.

1 Introduction

c


Figure 1 Locality Plan

c


Figure 2 Aerial View


2.1 Approach An initial scoping meeting was held with Ekurhuleni Municipality on the 26 April 2017 to agree in

principle the study process and approach. The outcome points of the meeting are discussed in the

sections below:

2.1.1 Study area

The study area includes proposed Ext 50 and Ext 51, Wadeville as well as the immediate adjacent

road network. The area identified is based on the transportation infrastructure expected to be affected

by the development. The study area includes the following intersections:

Lamp Road and Osborn Road;

Lamp Road, Snapper Street and Chaperon Road;

Lamp Road and Steenbras Road; and

Lamp Road and Lantern Road.

2.1.2 Trip generation and trip distribution

Development traffic was generated using the TMH 17 South African Trip Data Manual (September

2013) published by COTO. Trip distribution was undertaken by assigning development traffic in

relation to turning proportions at each intersection.

2.1.3 Latent traffic

Apart from the proposed Ext 50, Ekurhuleni Municipality did not indicate any other future

developments that have been approved to be implemented during this study horizon. Therefore, for

the purposes of this study, only the trips expected to be generated by the proposed Ext. 50

development were taken into account as latent Traffic.

2.1.4 Assessment years

For the purpose of analysis, the following assessment years and scenarios have been analysed to

provide a basis for comparison and to develop a good understanding of the likely transport impact of

the development proposal. In accordance with the guidelines for traffic impact studies, a 5-year design

horizon was used, i.e. 2022.The following scenarios have been assessed:

2017, Background AM and PM peak;

2022, Background AM and PM peak;

2022, Background AM and PM peak with latent traffic; and

2022, Background AM and PM peak with latent traffic and development traffic.

2.1.5 Traffic Growth Rate

Traffic growth rates are used for the estimation of future background traffic. These growth rates are

applied to existing traffic counts. The growth rate depends on the expected growth in the area in which

the development is located as well as the degree to which approved but not yet exercised

developments in the area are taken into account in a traffic impact assessment.

Spatially, the site is situated in an industrial built up area with limited green and brown field sites for

future development. On this basis it is expected that that the study area has a below average potential

to yield large scale new developments contributing significantly to new traffic. Both the SA Trip Rate

2 Approach and Methodology


Manuel as well as TMH 17 recommends that the growth rate should be adjusted according to

circumstances and the degree to which latent and other rights have been taken into account or is

available in the impact assessment study area.

Therefore, given the existing spatial disposition of the study area and the absence of latent rights

associated traffic, it was agreed with the Municipality during our conversations that a background

traffic growth rate of 2% per year be applied.

2.1.6 Capacity analysis

SIDRA intersection software was used for capacity analysis and the intersection performance

measurements are defined in accordance with the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM2010)

2.2 Methodology The following methodology was applied:

A site investigation was undertaken to observe current traffic flow operations and to confirm the current geometric layouts, and traffic signal settings of the identified critical intersections in the study area;

Manual classified traffic counts were performed at each of the identified intersections within the study area. The counts were undertaken on a normal weekday morning and afternoon peak periods on Thursday the 4th of April 2017 so as to ascertain the existing traffic flow patterns (2017 base year traffic volumes);

The expected peak hour trip generation of proposed Ext 51 was determined based on the planned development’s land-usage and extent. The distribution of the trips was established;

Operational capacity analyses were performed at each critical intersections and planned for scenarios discussed earlier in this report;

Practical and feasible road improvements were recommended so as to ensure acceptable operating conditions at each of the intersections and accesses within the study area;

Queuing analysis was undertaken for the development’s access to ensure adequate access operations and stacking requirements; and

The planned development’s public transport and Non-Motorised Transport (NMT) requirements were assessed and recommendations made on facilities that will be required for these demands.


3 Existing Conditions

3.1 Development site

The site is located along the southwestern peripherals of Wadeville industrial node in Germiston. The site is currently vacant and does not have a direct access from any of the surrounding public roads. Consistent with an industrial area, the site is surrounded by industrial land uses to the north and south; and vacant land to the east and west which are also zoned as ‘Industrial 1’.

3.2 Existing road network

The site is well connected to the wider road network as the roads in the immediate vicinity of the site provide a link to N17 freeway, a national route that extends from Johannesburg to Ngwenya near the Swaziland boarder. In the regional area, the N17 connects Wadeville to important commercial and residential nodes of Johannesburg, Boksburg and Springs, among others. The road network that is likely to be affected by the development traffic is discussed below.

3.2.1 Chaperone Road

Chaperone Road is a local access road. It is a two-

way road with one lane in each direction.

3.2.2 Snapper Road

Snapper Road is a local collector/ distributor street

that runs in an east west direction from Lantern

Road to Hering Road thereafter in a north south

direction to Lamp Road. It is a two-way road with

one lane in each direction.

3.2.3 Lamp Road

Lamp Road is a Class 4 collector street that extends

in an east-west direction from. It is a two-way road

with one lane in each direction.


3.2.4 Osborn Road

Osborn Road currently functions as a Class 3 road.

In the future it will form part of the K123 and is

expected to function as a Class 2 road

subsequently. It runs in a north-south direction with

one lane in each direction and extends at major

intersections to include separate right and/or left

turning lanes.

3.2.5 Existing traffic volumes

Traffic Counting Solutions (TCS) undertook manual unclassified counts on Thursday, 4 May 2017 during AM peak (06h00 to 09h00) and PM peak hours (15h00 to 18h00). The peak hour traffic data is provided in Figures 3 and 4 for the AM and PM peak respectively. Traffic counts were conducted at the following intersections:

Lamp Road and Osborn Road;

Lamp Road, Snapper Street and Chaperon Road;

Lamp Road and Steenbras Road; and

Lamp Road and Lantern Road.

3.3 Existing public transport and Non-motorised

The site is served by public transport which includes bus and taxi services operating along Osborn Road.

During a site visit on 4 May 2017, few pedestrians were observed walking in the vicinity of the site. It should be noted that the site visit was conducted during the off-peak hours when pedestrian activity is usually low.


2017 Background Traffic (AM)

7

10 56

21

12 8

112

41

9 8

629 11 329 386

12 244

35 6

905 831 5 969

53

21

49

103 4

1 2 3

250

01

123

359

109

7

10 24

31

9 8

12 7

11 9

74

174

2

5 9

85 7

02

4

1

6

125

146

8

1 2 3

5

9 8 7

10 51

61

85

108

47

74

12 37

03

88 11

7

10 15

18

9 8

64

27

38 11

1 2 3

97

121

122

116

12

7 63

5

18 5

04

5 6

76

127

Fig: 3

80

97

189

31

8

37

12

96

41 2 3

19

9 11 9

12

10

4

1 2 3

9 8

9

05

7

113628 Job Ref No:

6

9 9 5 9

SITE

02

01Osborn Rd

04

Lam

pR

d

Snapper Rd

Steenbras Rd

Lantern Rd

03

Galjoen Rd

05

Chaperone Rd

Sit

e A

ccess

7

10 7

10 1 11

7 22

9 8

778 11 729 924

12 42

01

29 4

1 2 3

6

626 410 5 439

206

184

270

70

390

72

101 11 4 4 11

10 96 10

9 60 1

9 8 7

4

12

4

9 8 7

02 05

1

12 5

6

12 2 5 8 8

6

4

8 5 8

1

173

3

1 2 3 1 2 3

5 4

149

85

177

70

9 8 7

10 70

21

64

12 45

03

115 11

1 2 3

120

62

41

79

7

10 7

6 93 9

109

102

108

9 8

33 11 10 25

12 16

04

41


16 41 2 3

6

33 7 54 6 20 5 77

Job Ref No:113628

2017 Background Traffic (PM) Fig: 4

67

125

SITE

02

01Osborn Rd

04

Lam

pR

d

Snapper Rd

Steenbras Rd

Lantern Rd

03

Galjoen Rd

05

Chaperone Rd

Sit

e A

ccess


4.1 Trip generation

The TMH 17 South African Trip Data Manual (September 2013) recommends a trip generation rate of 0.8 trips per 100m² Gross leasable Are (GLA) during both the AM and PM per 100m² GLA for industrial developments. By applying the FAR of 0.6 to 23,788m2 (site size) the developable bulk equates to 13,162m2 to which the trips rates are applied. Table 1 illustrates the number of vehicle trips expected to be generated by the proposed development.

Table 1: Trip generation

Peak Hour

Size(m²) FAR GLA(m²) Trip rate

(Vehicles/ 100m²)

Direction Split

(%)

Trips

(Vehicles)

Total trips

In Out In Out

AM Peak

23,788 0.6 14,272 0.8 70 30 76 32 108

PM Peak

23,788 0.6 14,272 0.8 25 75 28 78 108

Table 1 shows the proposed retail development will generate approximately 108 vehicle trips during both the AM and PM peak hour. These volumes have been used for the purposes of intersection capacity and network capacity analysis.

4.2 Trip distribution and assignment

For the purposes of intersection capacity analysis development traffic was distributed onto the road network. The trip distribution was derived by considering the type of development, the surrounding road network as well as the existing traffic flow patterns at intersections. The distribution is shown on Figure 5 and Figure 6 and development traffic on Figures 7 and 8.

4 Trip generation Distribution and Assignment

Job Ref No:

##

##

## ##

49% ## 10%

## 49%

01

##

## ## ##

##

45% ## 12%

45%

10%

55%

61%

33%

37%

12%

18% ## 18% 76% 76% ##

##

## ##

37%

## ## ## ## ##

22%

## 76%

02 05

##

24% 24% ## 78%

33% ##

78%

##

## 24%

21%

78%

22%

##

## ## ## ## ## ##

21% ##

100%

21%

21%

21%

21%

100%

24%

## ## ##

##

21%

21%

##

03

##

21%

21%

21%

## ##

## ## ##

21%

##

##

## 21%

21%


#### ## ##

##

21% ##

22%

24%

113628

Development Traffic Distribution (AM) Fig: 5

04

21% ##

SITE

02

01Osborn Rd

04

La

mp

Rd

Snapper Rd

Steenbras Rd

Lantern Rd

03

Galjoen Rd

05

Chaperone Rd

Sit

e A

ccess

##

##

## ##

45% ## 12%

## 45%

01

10% ##

## ## ##

##

48% ## 10%

48%

12%

24%

36%

33%

60%

55%

22%

24% ## 24% 78% 78% ##

## ##

33%

## ## ##

24%

## 78%

## ## ##

02 05

36%

##

##

19% 19% ## 76% 76%

##

22% ##

## 22%

21%

76%

24%

## ## ## ## ## ##

21% ##

100%

21%

19%

21%

21%

100%

## ## ##

##

19%

##

03

##

## ## ##

21%

21%

##

## 21%

19%

19%

21%

19%

## ##

21% ##

##

04


#### ## ##

##

19% ##

113628

Development Traffic Distribution (PM) Fig: 6

Job Ref No:

SITE

02

01Osborn Rd

04

La

mp

Rd

Snapper Rd

Steenbras Rd

Lantern Rd

03

Galjoen Rd

05

Chaperone Rd

Sit

e A

ccess

7

10

9 8

37 11 3

12 37

01

9 4

1 2 3

6

14 5 9

14 3

7

11

28

18

46

19

14 11 14 57 57 11

10 10

28

9 8 7

7

12 57

9 8 7

02 05

11

12

6

8 8 5 25 25

6

19 4

5 19

16

25 7

1 2 3 1 2 3

7 476

16 7

16 7 32

9 8 7

10

7

12

03

11

1 2 3

16

16

7

10 16

7

7

16 7

9 8

16 11

12

04


41 2 3

6

7 5

113628

Development traffic (AM) Fig: 7

Job Ref No:

SITE

02

01Osborn Rd

04

La

mp

Rd

Snapper Rd

Steenbras Rd

Lantern Rd

03

Galjoen Rd

05

Chaperone Rd

Sit

e A

ccess

7

10

9 8

13 11 10

12 13

01

3 4

1 2 3

6

38 5 3

38

9.6

19

29 9

48

15

6

7 11 7 22 22 11

10 10

9

9 8 7

19

12 22

9 8 7

02 05

29

12

6

15 15 5 61 61

6

6 4

5 6

6 61

19

1 2 3 1 2 3

17 428

6 15

6 17

80

9 8 7

10

15

12

03

11

1 2 3

66

7

10 6

15

15

6 15

9 8

6 11

12

04


41 2 3

6

15 5

113628

Development traffic (PM) Fig: 8

Job Ref No:

SITE

02

01Osborn Rd

04

La

mp

Rd

Snapper Rd

Steenbras Rd

Lantern Rd

03

Galjoen Rd

05

Chaperone Rd

Sit

e A

ccess


5 Intersection Capacity Analysis

Intersection capacity analysis of the intersections included in the study area were carried out using SIDRA Intersection software. The purpose of the analysis was to determine the Levels of Service (LOS), volume/capacity ratio (v/c) and delays that may occur at intersections with the introduction of the development. Assessment criteria

The performance criteria to determine the level of service (LOS) is provided in Table 2 below. The LOS, delay and volume / capacity (v/c) have been defined in accordance with the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 2000).

Table 2: LOS performance criteria

Level of Service Content

Roundabouts Stop and Give Way/ Yield Signs

Traffic Signals

Measure – Control delay (sec/veh) Measure – Degree of Saturation (v/c)

A d ≤ 10 d ≤ 10 v/c ≤ 0.60

B 10 < d ≤ 20 10 < d ≤ 15 0.60 < v/c ≤ 0.70

C 20 < d ≤ 35 15 < d ≤ 25 0.70 < v/c ≤ 0.90

D 35 < d ≤ 55 25 < d ≤ 35 0.90 < v/c ≤ 0.95

E 55 < d ≤ 80 35 < d ≤ 50 0.95 < v/c ≤ 1.00

F d > 80 d ≥ 50 v/c ≥ 1.00

The capacity analysis in this traffic impact assessment is set to use the average control delay as the LOS measure for priority controlled intersections (including roundabouts), whereas for signalised intersections v/c is used as LOS. LOS A to F are used, with LOS A indicating the best operating conditions and LOS F the worst. The LOS A to D was taken as acceptable for the purpose of this traffic impact assessment. As industry standard dictates, the volume / capacity (v/c) for signalised intersections should not exceed 0.95.

5.1 Analysis results

The following traffic scenarios were analysed:

Existing situation – 2017 AM peak and PM peak;

2022 Background traffic without development traffic;

2022 Background traffic without development traffic plus latent traffic; and

2022 Background traffic with development traffic plus latent traffic.

SIDRA outputs are in appendix A.

It should be noted that Aurecon requested for signal settings for Lamp Road and Osbon Road from Ekurhuleni’s consultant without success. The signal setting used for analysis were obtained from observations on the site visit and are attached in Appendix A.


5.1.1 Base scenario 2017

Table 3: 2017 Background Traffic Analysis Results In

ters

ecti

on

Inte

rsecti

on

Ty

pe

Approach

AM PM

V/C Delay

(sec)

LOS V/C Delay

(sec)

LOS

Lam

p R

d a

nd

Osborn

Rd

Sig

nalis

ed

Lamp Rd WB 0.256 20.9 C 0.547 16.9

B

Osborn Rd NB 1.448 235.4 F 0.559 13.9 B

Lamp Rd EB 0.126 20.7 C 0.03 19.7 B

Osborn Rd SB 3.149 402.8 F 0.983 46.8 D

Overall 3.149 275.2 F 0.983 30.4 C

Lam

p R

d a

nd

Snapper

Rd/

Chapero

n R

d

Sto

p

(Tw

o-W

ay)

Lamp Rd WB 0.094 1 A 0.14 0.1 A

Chaperon Rd NB 0.022 10.5 B 0.012 9.3 A

Lamp Rd EB 0.254 2.1 A 0.058 1.1 A

Snapper Rd SB 0.067 10.2 B 0.147 9.6 A

Overall 0.254 2.7 A 0.147 3.2 A

Lam

p R

d

and

Ste

enbra

s

Rd

Sto

p

(All_

Way)

Lamp Rd NB 0.325 14.9 B 0.304 14.4 B

Lamp Rd SB 0.292 12.1 B 0.184 12 B

Steenbras Rd SB 0.357 19.7 C 0.322 15.5 C

Overall 0.357 14.9 B 0.322 14.1 B

Lam

p R

d a

nd

Lante

rn R

d

Sto

p

(All_

Way)

Lamp Rd NB 0.169 11.7 B 0.207 15.5 C

Lantern Rd WB 0.1 18.4 C 0.34 22.1 C

Lamp Rd SB 0.144 12.3 B 0.31 16.2 C

Lantern Rd EB 0.133 20.1 C 0.176 21.6 C

Overall 0.169 13.7 B 0.34 18.2 C

All intersections operate at acceptable level of service (LOS) during both the AM and PM peak except for Lamp Road/ Osborn Road which is operating at LOS F during the AM peak. The intersection performs better during the PM peak at LOS C.

5.1.2 2022 Background traffic without development traffic

In this scenario a traffic growth rate of 2% per annum was applied to base year traffic. Traffic

distribution is shown in Figure 9 and Figure 10, Appendix A, for AM and PM distributions respectively.

7

10 62

23

13 9

124

45

9 8

694 11 363 426

12 269

01

39

114 4

1 2 3

6

999 917 5 ###

59

23

54

120

276

136

396

34 11 10 10 11

10 26 10

82

192

2

9 8 7

10

12

10

9 8 7

02 05

12 8

6

88 1 5 10 10

6

4

10 5 10

6 94 8

1 2 3 1 2 3

9 4

138

161

107

209

9 8 7

10 56

67

94

12 41

03

97 11

1 2 3

134

119

52

82

7

10 17

8 70

30

135

128

107

9 8

42 11 20 71

12 6

04

6


9 41 2 3

6

41

13

106

21 20 5 34

Job Ref No:113628

2022 Background Traffic (AM) Fig: 9

140

84

SITE

02

01Osborn Rd

04

Lam

pR

d

Snapper Rd

Steenbras Rd

Lantern Rd

03

Galjoen Rd

05

Chaperone Rd

Sit

e A

ccess

7

10 8

11 1 12

8 24

9 8

859 11 805 ###

12 46

01

32 4

1 2 3

6

691 453 5 485

227

203

298

77

431

79

112 11 4 4 11

10 106 10

10

66 1

9 8 7

4

12

4

9 8 7

02 05

1

12 6

6

13 2 5 9 9

6

4

9 5 9

1

191

3

1 2 3 1 2 3

6 4

165

94

195

77

9 8 7

10 77

23

71

12 50

03

127 11

1 2 3

132

68

45

87

7

10 8

7

103

10

120

113

119

9 8

36 11 11 28

12 18

04

45


18 41 2 3

6

36 8 60 7 22 5 85

Job Ref No:113628

2022 Background Traffic (PM) Fig: 10

74

138

SITE

02

01Osborn Rd

04

Lam

pR

d

Snapper Rd

Steenbras Rd

Lantern Rd

03

Galjoen Rd

05

Chaperone Rd

Sit

e A

ccess


Table 4: 2022 Background Traffic Analysis Results

Inte

rsecti

o

n

Inte

rsecti

o

n T

yp

e

Approach

AM PM

V/C Delay

(sec)

LOS V/C Delay

(sec)

LOS

Lam

p R

d a

nd

Osborn

Rd

Sig

nalis

ed

Lamp Rd WB 0.282 21.1 C 0.636 17.7 B

Osborn Rd NB 1.6 301.6 F 0.618 14.5 B

Lamp Rd EB 0.138 20.8 C 0.033 21.2 C

Osborn Rd SB 3.472 459.1 F 1.084 81.5 F

Overall 3.472 331.7 F 1.084 47.3 D

Lam

p R

d a

nd

Snapper

Rd/

Chapero

n R

d

Sto

p

(Tw

o-W

ay)

Lamp Rd WB 0.106 1 A 0.154 0.1 A

Chaperon Rd NB 0.025 10.8 B 0.014 9.3 A

Lamp Rd EB 0.282 2.2 A 0.064 1.1 A

Snapper Rd SB 0.079 10.7 B 0.169 9.8 A

Overall 0.282 2.8 A 0.169 3.3 A

Lam

p R

d

and

Ste

enbra

s

Rd

Sto

p

(All_

Way)

Lamp Rd NB 0.36 15.3 C 0.335 14.8 B

Lamp Rd SB 0.323 12.4 B 0.204 12.2 B

Steenbras Rd EB 0.393 20.5 C 0.356 15.9 C

Overall 0.393 15.4 C 0.356 14.5 B

Lam

p R

d a

nd

Lante

rn R

d

Sto

p

(All_

Way)

Lamp Rd NB 0.188 11.9 B 0.23 15.8 C

Lantern Rd WB 0.112 18.6 C 0.377 23.1 C

Lamp Rd SB 0.162 12.4 B 0.344 16.6 C

Lantern Rd EB 0.151 20.4 C 0.197 22 C

Overall 0.188 13.9 B 0.377 18.8 C

All intersections are expected to operate at acceptable Levels of Service except for Lamp Road / Osborn Road which is expected to continue operating at LOS F during the AM peak. All intersections will experience slight delays of not more than 5 seconds whereas Lamp Road/ Osborn Road delays will increase by about 60 seconds. This result indicates that the intersection is failing in 2022 before latent or development traffic has been added to the intersection.

5.1.3 2022 Background traffic with latent traffic

In this scenario, latent traffic (i.e. expected to be generated by Ext. 50 development) was added to the

2022 background traffic. It is expected that Ext. 50 will generate about 387 trips during both the AM

and PM peak. Traffic distribution for the latent traffic is shown on Figure 11 and Figure 12 for AM and

PM distributions respectively. And the traffic distribution for 2022 Background traffic with latent traffic is

shown on Figure 13 and Figure 14 for the AM and PM peak respectively The following road upgrade

recommended in the TIA and addendum report for Ext. 50 were also included in the analysis:

Introduction of a 20m slip lane on the Lamp Road western approach.

7

10

9 8

141 11 11

12 141

01

34 4

1 2 3

6

47 5 34

47

11

23

35

104

58

175

70

52 11 52 217 217 11

10 10

104

9 8 7

23

12 217

9 8 7

02 05

35

12

6

25 25 5 82 82

6

70 4

5 70

61

82

23

1 2 3 1 2 3

22 4287

61

22

61

22

105

9 8 7

10

22

12

03

11

1 2 3

61

61

7

10 61

22

22

61

22

9 8

61 11

12

04


41 2 3

6

22 5

113628

Latent traffic (AM) Fig: ####

Job Ref No:

SITE

02

01Osborn Rd

04

La

mp

Rd

Snapper Rd

Steenbras Rd

Lantern Rd

03

Galjoen Rd

05

Chaperone Rd

Sit

e A

ccess

7

10

9 8

47 11 34

12 47

01

11 4

1 2 3

6

141 5 11

141

34

70

104

35

175

58

23

25 11 25 82 82 11

10 10

35

9 8 7

70

12 82

9 8 7

02 05

104

12

6

55 55 5 220 220

6

23 4

5 23

22

220

70

1 2 3 1 2 3

61 4105

22

56

22

61

290

9 8 7

10

56

12

03

11

1 2 3

22

22

7

10 22

56

56

22

56

9 8

22 11

12

04


41 2 3

6

56 5

113628

Latent traffic (PM) Fig: 12

Job Ref No:

SITE

02

01Osborn Rd

04

La

mp

Rd

Snapper Rd

Steenbras Rd

Lantern Rd

03

Galjoen Rd

05

Chaperone Rd

Sit

e A

ccess

7

10 62

23

13 9

124

45

9 8

835 11 363 437

12 410

01

39

148 4

1 2 3

6

1046 917 5 1104

106

23

65

33

155

380

194

571

70

86 11 52 227 227 11

10 26 10

82

192

107

9 8 7

33

12 217

10

9 8 7

02 05

35

12 8

6

113 26 5 92 92

6

70 4

10 5 80

6 94

69

82

23

1 2 3 1 2 3

31 4287

199

183

168

231

105

9 8 7

10 56

67

116

12 41

03

97 11

1 2 3

195

119

52

143

7

10 78

30

70

30

157

189

129

9 8

103 11 20 71

12 6

04

6


9 41 2 3

6

63

13

106

21 20 5 34

Job Ref No:113628

2022 Background with latent traffic (AM) Fig: 13

140

84

SITE

02

01Osborn Rd

04

Lam

pR

d

Snapper Rd

Steenbras Rd

Lantern Rd

03

Galjoen Rd

05

Chaperone Rd

Sit

e A

ccess

7

10 8

11 1 12

8 24

9 8

906 11 805 1054

12 93

01

43 4

1 2 3

6

832 453 5 496

368

237

74

403

112

606

137

23

137 11 25 86 86 11

10 106 10

10

66

36

9 8 7

74

12 82

4

9 8 7

02 05

106

12 6

6

68 57 5 229 229

6

23 4

9 5 32

1

191

25

220

70

1 2 3 1 2 3

67 4105

187

150

217

138

290

9 8 7

10 77

23

127

12 50

03

127 11

1 2 3

154

68

45

109

7

10 30

63

103

10

176

135

175

9 8

58 11 11 28

12 18

04

45


18 41 2 3

6

92 8 60 7 22 5 85

Job Ref No:113628

2022 Background with latent traffic (PM) Fig: 14

74

138

SITE

02

01Osborn Rd

04

Lam

pR

d

Snapper Rd

Steenbras Rd

Lantern Rd

03

Galjoen Rd

05

Chaperone Rd

Sit

e A

ccess


Table 5: 2022 Background Traffic plus Latent Traffic In

ters

ecti

o

n

Inte

rsecti

o

n T

yp

e

Approach

AM PM

V/C Delay

(sec)

LOS V/C Delay

(sec)

LOS

Lam

p R

d

/Osbon R

d

Sig

nalis

ed

Lamp Rd WB 0.317 20.5 C 0.798 19.3 B

Osborn Rd NB 1.653 325.4 F 0.633 14.8 B

Lamp Rd EB 0.138 20.8 C 0.033 21.5 C

Osborn Rd SB 5.292 981.6 F 1.145 102.5 F

Overall 5.292 543.5 F 1.145 54.7 D

Lam

p R

d

/Snapper

Rd/

Chapero

n R

d

Sto

p

(Tw

o-W

ay)

Lamp Rd WB 0.220 4.9 A 0.177 0.8 A

Chaperon Rd NB 0.464 21.4 C 0.573 15.7 C

Lamp Rd EB 0.385 3.3 A 0.093 2.6 A

Snapper Rd SB 0.410 20 C 0.229 10.3 B

Overall 0.464 8 A 0.573 7.9 A

Lam

p R

d

and

Ste

enbra

s

Rd

Sto

p

(All_

Way)

Lamp Rd NB 0.476 16.2 C 0.353 14.2 B

Lamp Rd SB 0.367 12.9 B 0.302 12.5 B

Steenbras Rd EB 0.433 23 C 0.406 18.2 C

Overall 0.476 16.3 C 0.406 14.8 B

Lam

p R

d a

nd

Lante

rn R

d

Sto

p

(All_

Way)

Lamp Rd NB 0.198 12.3 B 0.247 16.7 C

Lantern Rd WB 0.082 14.9 B 0.362 22 C

Lamp Rd SB 0.186 12.3 B 0.43 16.3 C

Lantern Rd EB 0.292 19.9 C 0.417 34.9 D

Overall 0.292 14.4 B 0.430 20.4 C

In this scenario, again, all intersection are expected to operate at acceptable LOS with the exception

of Lamp Road / Osborn Road intersection which will continue operating at LOS F during the AM peak

given the introduction of latent traffic to the road network. The intersection is significantly over

capacity, with a v/c ratio of 5.292 and a delay of 543.5 seconds.

5.1.4 2022 Background traffic with latent traffic and development traffic

In this scenario, latent traffic and proposed development traffic was added to the 2022 background

traffic. Traffic distribution is shown on Figure 15 and Figure 16 for AM and PM distributions

respectively.

7

10 62

23

13 9

124

45

9 8

873 11 363 440

12 448

01

39

157 4

1 2 3

6

1061 917 5 1113

120

23

68

40

166

408

211

618

88

100 11 66 285 285 11

10 26 10

82

192

134

9 8 7

40

12 275

10

9 8 7

02 05

45

12 8

6

121 34 5 117 117

6

88 4

10 5 98

6 94

85

107

30

1 2 3 1 2 3

38 4363

215

190

184

237

137

9 8 7

10 56

67

123

12 41

03

97 11

1 2 3

211

119

52

159

7

10 94

36

70

30

163

205

136

9 8

119 11 20 71

12 6

04

6


9 41 2 3

6

70

13

106

21 20 5 34

Job Ref No:113628

2022 Background with latent and development traffic (AM) Fig: 15

140

84

SITE

02

01Osborn Rd

04

Lam

pR

d

Snapper Rd

Steenbras Rd

Lantern Rd

03

Galjoen Rd

05

Chaperone Rd

Sit

e A

ccess

7

10 8

11 1 12

8 24

9 8

919 11 805 1064

12 106

01

46 4

1 2 3

6

871 453 5 498

407

247

93

431

121

654

153

29

143 11 32 108 108 11

10 106 10

10

66

45

9 8 7

93

12 104

4

9 8 7

02 05

134

12 6

6

83 72 5 290 290

6

29 4

9 5 38

1

191

31

281

89

1 2 3 1 2 3

83 4133

192

165

223

155

370

9 8 7

10 77

23

142

12 50

03

127 11

1 2 3

160

68

45

115

7

10 36

78

103

10

192

140

190

9 8

64 11 11 28

12 18

04

45


18 41 2 3

6

108 8 60 7 22 5 85

Job Ref No:113628

2022 Background with latent and development traffic (PM) Fig: 16

74

138

SITE

02

01Osborn Rd

04

Lam

pR

d

Snapper Rd

Steenbras Rd

Lantern Rd

03

Galjoen Rd

05

Chaperone Rd

Sit

e A

ccess


Table 6: 2022 Background Traffic plus Latent and Development Traffic

Inte

rsecti

on

Inte

rsecti

on

Ty

pe

Approach

AM PM

V/C Delay

(sec)

LOS V/C Delay

(sec)

LOS

Lam

p R

d a

nd

Osborn

Rd

Sig

nalis

ed

Lamp Rd WB 0.326 20.5 C 0.837 11.4 B

Osborn Rd NB 1.667 331.7 F 0.637 14.9 B

Lamp Rd EB 0.138 20.8 C 0.035 21.8 C

Osborn Rd SB 5.783 1139 F 1.162 108 F

Overall 5.783 610.5 F 1.162 57.4 E

Lam

p R

d a

nd

Snapper

Rd/

Chapero

n R

d

Sto

p

(Tw

o-W

ay)

Lamp Rd WB 0.26 5.9 A 0.183 1 A

Chaperon Rd NB 0.666 28.8 D 0.744 20 C

Lamp Rd EB 0.411 3.5 A 0.101 2.8 A

Snapper Rd SB 0.571 26.2 D 0.249 10.5 B

Overall 0.666 10.5 B 0.744 10.1 B

Lam

p R

d a

nd

Ste

enbra

s R

d

Sto

p

(All_

Way)

Lamp Rd NB 0.505 16.6 C 0.361 14.1 B

Lamp Rd SB 0.381 13 B 0.327 12.7 B

Steenbras Rd EB 0.443 23.7 C 0.418 18.8 C

Overall 0.505 16.6 C 0418 14.9 B

Lam

p R

d a

nd

Lante

rn R

d

Sto

p

(All_

Way)

Lamp Rd NB 0.202 12.4 B 0.249 16.8 C

Lantern Rd WB 0.079 14.7 B 0.364 22.2 C

Lamp Rd SB 0.195 12.3 B 0.453 16.4 C

Lantern Rd EB 0.325 20 C 0.491 40.8 E

Overall 0.325 14.7 B 0.491 21.5 C

With development traffic added to the road network in 2022, all intersections will appropriate within

acceptable LOS apart from Lamp Road / Osborn Road. The Lamp Road / Osborn Road intersection is

expected to operate at LOS F during the AM and LOS E during the PM peak.

Comparing Table 5 to Table 6 is seen that the overall LOS at the Lamp Road / Osborn Road

deteriorates from 5.292 in the AM to 5.783 and deteriorates from 1.145 to 1.162 in the AM peak hour.

These results show that the development traffic does have a noticeable impact on operation of Lamp

Road / Osborn Road.

To mitigate the development impact it is recommend that the intersection be upgraded. The following

road upgrades are therefore proposed at the Lamp Road / Osborn Road intersection (See Drawing

0001, Appendix B):

Signal optimisation

60m slip lane in the northbound direction on Osborn Road

extension of existing right-turning lane, from 60m to 90m the eastbound direction of Osborn Road

Table 7 below shows the result of the mitigation measures.


Table 7: 2022 Background Traffic plus Latent and Development Traffic and Mitigation Measures In

ters

ecti

on

Inte

rsecti

on

Ty

pe

Approach

AM PM

V/C Delay

(sec)

LOS V/C Delay

(sec)

LOS

Lam

p R

d a

nd

Osborn

Rd

Sig

nalis

ed

Lamp Rd WB 1.159 73.1 E 0.669 15.6 B

Osborn Rd NB 1.363 176.6 F 0.595 11.8 B

Lamp Rd EB 0.469 42.5 D 0.033 17 B

Osborn Rd SB 1.35 104.4 F 1.097 78 E

Overall 1.363 136 F 1.097 42.1 D

The analysis shows that overall operation of the junction remains at LOS F, however it was possible to

mitigate the development impact by comparing Table 7 to 5. The intersection VC for the AM is

predicted at 1.363 during the AM peak hour and 1.097 during the PM peak hour. The analysis

therefore demonstrates that with the above upgrades to Lamp Road / Osborn Road it is possible to

mitigate the development traffic impacts to a nil detriment situation.

6 Access Strategy

6.1 Site access

Ext. 51 currently does not have access from the surrounding public roads. Since Ext 51 will be part of an industrial park with the development on Ext 50, the two sites are planned to share an existing access currently serving Ext. 50. The site is currently served by three vehicle accesses which will be retained to serve the proposed development. The existing access is off Chaperon Road and has one lane in each direction which extend to two lanes to service the two inbound and two outbound lanes at the access gate.

6.2 Site access capacity analysis

The site access was assessed using SIDRA Intersection software to understand whether the access will operate effectively the development is operational and whether sufficient capacity exist. The results of the analysis have been summarised in Table 8 below.

Table 8: 2022 Access and Chaperon Road Analysis Results

Inte

rsecti

on

Inte

rsecti

on

Ty

pe

Approach

AM PM

V/C Delay

(sec)

LOS V/C Delay

(sec)

LOS

Chapero

ne

and

Site

Access

Sto

p

(Tw

o-W

ay) Site Access SE-B 0.233 9.1 A 0.425 8.1 A

Chaperone WB 0.334 5.3 A 0.096 4.6 A

Chaperone EB 0.108 5.9 A 0.035 5 A

Overall 0.334 6.4 A 0.425 7.1 A

The analysis shows that overall the intersection will operate at a good LOS A.


6.3 Queuing analysis

Access queuing analysis was undertaken to assess whether the proposed inbound and outbound lanes will be sufficient to accommodate the likely development traffic and to determine the stacking space required at the development access.

Access will be provided via a barrier / boom operated gate or an automatic ticket card dispenser. A service rate of 450 vph is therefore assumed. A 90th percentile queue length is deemed acceptable to assess the required stacking space. Table 9 summarises the queue analysis.

Table 9: Queuing Analysis

Description Access

Peak Hour Inbound Traffic Volume 367

Average arrival rate at peak(vph) 437

Average service rate (sec/ veh) 8

Average service rate (service / h) 450

Traffic Intensity 0.97

Number of channels ( gates) 2

90th percentile queue length (<n vehicles) 3

Average number of vehicles in the system 1.1

Average Delay (sec) 11.2

The analysis results indicate that there would be a probability of 3 (three) vehicles queuing at the access, i.e. on average 1(one) to 2 (two) vehicles at each access gate. Therefore, a distance of at least 45m should be provided between the Chaperon Road and the existing gate to accommodate the stacking / queuing of two 20m trucks. The current stacking space is about 45.7m which is sufficient.

7 Public Transport and Non-motorised Transport (NMT)

It is expected that the development will generate public transport trips. As previously stated, there are

currently no bus stops or minibus taxi lay-bys in the vicinity of the site however public transport can be

accessed along Osborn Road which is about 450m from the site.

It is anticipated that the development will generate NMT trips which also include public transport user

who need to walk to and from public transport facilities. In order to promote a safe environment for

NMT users the Ext. 50 TIA recommended 2m wide sidewalks along the southern boundary of Lamp

Road from Osborn Road to Snapper Road as well as along the southern boundary of Chaperon Road

from Lamp Road to the site access. This would also be sufficient for the proposed Ext. 51

development as well. It should be noted that much of the southern boundary of Lamp Road is already

paved.


8 Conclusion and Recommendation The objective of this Traffic Impact Assessment was to evaluate the traffic impact of the proposed

industrial development on the Remaining Extent of Portion 267 and Portion 273 of the Farm

Klippoortjie NO.110-I.R. (proposed Wadeville Extension (Ext.) 51) on the operation of the local road

network. The proposed development is an industrial park and the site will be zoned as “industrial 1”

with the following rights:

Height: Maximum 3 storeys;

Coverage: Maximum 60%; and

Floor Area Ratio (FAR): 0.6.

The site is approximately 23,788m² in size. By applying the FAR of 0.6 to 23,788m2 (site size) the developable bulk equates to 14,272m2.

The main findings of the report are:

The development will generate 108 vehicle trips during both the AM peak hour and PM peak hour.

SIDRA analysis has indicated that currently (2017) all intersections assessed operate at acceptable level of service (LOS) during both the AM and PM peak except for Lamp Road / Osborn Road intersection which is operating at LOS F during the AM peak. Similarly, in 2022, all intersections are expected to operate at acceptable LOS with the exception of Lamp Road/Osborn Road intersection which is expected to continue operating at LOS F during the AM peak.

With the latent traffic, all intersections are expected to remain operating at the same LOS except Lamp Road/ Snapper Road / Chaperon Road intersection which is expected experience notable delays and its operation will deteriorate from LOS A to LOS B for both AM and PM peaks.

The proposed development traffic is expected to have minor impact as all intersections will be operating at the same LOS as the previous scenario with additional delays of not more than 5 seconds excluding Lamp Road/Osborn Road intersection which will experience delays of about 60 seconds during the AM peak.

Site access will be taken from Chaperon Road, an existing access currently serving Ext. 50. The entrance has 2 inbound lanes and two outbound lanes. Intersection capacity analysis results have shown that no significant impact is anticipated at the access. In addition queuing analysis results have indicated that the existing access layout and gate layout would be sufficient to accommodate vehicles accessing the site.

Public transport users accessing the proposed development will be able to access current public transport services running along Osborn Road which is about 450m from the site.

No additional footway infrastructure is required given the provisions made by the Ext. 50 development and given the volume of pedestrians accessing the site.

Recommendations:

To mitigate the impact of development traffic at the Lamp Road / Osborn Road intersection it is recommended to:

Signal optimisation

60m slip lane in the westbound direction on Osborn Road

extension of existing right-turning lane, from 60m to 90m the southbound direction of Osborn Road

Provided that the above comments and recommendations are adhered to, the proposed application can be supported from a traffic engineering perspective.


Appendix A SIDRA Results and signal settings

MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: 01 [2017 BG AM Peak]

01_Lamp Rd and Osborn Rd IntersectionSignals - Fixed Time Isolated Cycle Time = 72 seconds (User-Given Phase Times)Variable Sequence Analysis applied. The results are given for the selected output sequence.

Movement Performance - VehiclesDemand Flows 95% Back of QueueMov

ID ODMov

Deg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop. Queued

Effective Stop Rate

AverageSpeed Total HV Vehicles Distance

veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/hSouth: Lamp Rd1 L2 74 6.4 0.119 16.6 LOS B 1.4 10.5 0.64 0.70 46.52 T1 29 6.4 0.256 20.2 LOS C 2.6 19.1 0.84 0.72 43.03 R2 68 6.4 0.256 25.8 LOS C 2.6 19.1 0.84 0.72 41.8Approach 171 6.4 0.256 20.9 LOS C 2.6 19.1 0.76 0.71 43.9East: Osborn4 L2 143 6.4 1.448 248.3 LOS F 140.3 1036.1 1.00 2.53 11.95 T1 1154 6.4 1.448 242.7 LOS F 140.3 1036.1 1.00 2.53 12.06 R2 49 6.4 0.142 23.5 LOS C 1.2 9.0 0.72 0.73 42.1Approach 1346 6.4 1.448 235.4 LOS F 140.3 1036.1 0.99 2.47 12.3North: Lamp Rd7 L2 11 6.4 0.012 8.1 LOS A 0.1 0.6 0.35 0.60 52.28 T1 17 6.4 0.126 20.2 LOS C 1.2 8.8 0.82 0.68 43.29 R2 29 6.4 0.126 25.8 LOS C 1.2 8.8 0.82 0.68 42.2Approach 57 6.4 0.126 20.7 LOS C 1.2 8.8 0.73 0.67 44.1West: Osborn Rd10 L2 78 6.4 0.059 6.5 LOS A 0.3 2.4 0.21 0.60 53.311 T1 457 6.4 0.488 12.9 LOS B 10.7 78.7 0.71 0.62 49.512 R2 339 6.4 3.149 1019.5 LOS F 60.7 448.4 1.00 2.23 3.4Approach 874 6.4 3.149 402.8 LOS F 60.7 448.4 0.78 1.24 7.9All Vehicles 2447 6.4 3.149 275.2 LOS F 140.3 1036.1 0.89 1.87 10.8

Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay (SIDRA). Site LOS Method is specified in the Parameter Settings dialog (Site tab).Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay per movement.Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all vehicle movements.SIDRA Standard Delay Model is used. Control Delay includes Geometric Delay.Gap-Acceptance Capacity: SIDRA Standard (Akçelik M3D).HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation.

Movement Performance - PedestriansAverage Back of QueueMov

ID Description DemandFlow

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop. Queued

Effective Stop RatePedestrian Distance

ped/h sec ped m per pedP1 South Full Crossing 53 1.5 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.29 0.29All Pedestrians 53 1.5 LOS A 0.29 0.29

Level of Service (LOS) Method: SIDRA Pedestrian LOS Method (Based on Average Delay)Pedestrian movement LOS values are based on average delay per pedestrian movement.Intersection LOS value for Pedestrians is based on average delay for all pedestrian movements.

SIDRA INTERSECTION 7.0 | Copyright © 2000-2016 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.comOrganisation: AURECON AUSTRALASIA PTY LTD | Processed: Friday, 09 June 2017 1:07:22 PMProject: P:\Projects\113628 Wadeville Ext 51 TIA\7 DEL SERV\Analysis\Sidra\01_Lamp and Osborn.sip7

PHASING SUMMARYSite: 01 [2017 BG AM Peak]

01_Lamp Rd and Osborn Rd IntersectionSignals - Fixed Time Isolated Cycle Time = 72 seconds (User-Given Phase Times)Variable Sequence Analysis applied. The results are given for the selected output sequence.Phase Times specified by the userSequence: Variable PhasingReference Phase: Phase AInput Sequence: B*, A, C*Output Sequence: B*, A, C*(* Variable Phase)Phase Timing ResultsPhase B A CPhase Change Time (sec) 52 0 10Green Time (sec) 14 5 36Yellow Time (sec) 4 4 4All-Red Time (sec) 2 2 2Phase Time (sec) 20 10 42Phase Split 28% 14% 58%

REF: Reference PhaseVAR: Variable Phase

Normal Movement Permitted/OpposedSlip/Bypass-Lane Movement Opposed Slip/Bypass-LaneStopped Movement Turn On RedOther Movement Class Running Other Movement Class StoppedMixed Running & Stopped Movement ClassesUndetected Movement Phase Transition Applied


MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: 01 [2017 BG PM Peak]



ID ODMov

Deg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop. Queued

Effective Stop Rate


veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/hSouth: Lamp Rd1 L2 248 4.1 0.271 8.8 LOS A 2.7 19.3 0.42 0.68 51.72 T1 1 4.1 0.547 20.3 LOS C 6.2 45.1 0.88 0.80 42.13 R2 222 4.1 0.547 25.9 LOS C 6.2 45.1 0.88 0.80 41.0Approach 471 4.1 0.547 16.9 LOS B 6.2 45.1 0.64 0.73 46.0East: Osborn4 L2 35 4.1 0.559 19.1 LOS B 12.9 93.8 0.74 0.67 47.65 T1 494 4.1 0.559 13.5 LOS B 12.9 93.8 0.74 0.67 48.96 R2 1 4.1 0.010 39.7 LOS D 0.0 0.3 0.93 0.60 35.5Approach 530 4.1 0.559 13.9 LOS B 12.9 93.8 0.74 0.67 48.7North: Lamp Rd7 L2 13 4.1 0.025 16.4 LOS B 0.2 1.7 0.69 0.65 46.88 T1 1 4.1 0.030 17.9 LOS B 0.3 2.3 0.77 0.66 43.59 R2 12 4.1 0.030 23.5 LOS C 0.3 2.3 0.77 0.66 42.6Approach 27 4.1 0.030 19.7 LOS B 0.3 2.3 0.73 0.66 44.6West: Osborn Rd10 L2 8 4.1 0.006 6.2 LOS A 0.0 0.2 0.17 0.57 53.511 T1 878 4.1 0.983 48.4 LOS D 44.5 322.3 1.00 1.29 33.412 R2 51 4.1 0.168 25.3 LOS C 1.3 9.7 0.75 0.73 41.3Approach 937 4.1 0.983 46.8 LOS D 44.5 322.3 0.98 1.25 33.9All Vehicles 1965 4.1 0.983 30.4 LOS C 44.5 322.3 0.83 0.96 39.8


Movement Performance - PedestriansAverage Back of QueueMov

ID Description DemandFlow

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop. Queued

Effective Stop RatePedestrian Distance

ped/h sec ped m per pedP1 South Full Crossing 53 1.5 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.29 0.29All Pedestrians 53 1.5 LOS A 0.29 0.29

Level of Service (LOS) Method: SIDRA Pedestrian LOS Method (Based on Average Delay)Pedestrian movement LOS values are based on average delay per pedestrian movement.Intersection LOS value for Pedestrians is based on average delay for all pedestrian movements.


PHASING SUMMARYSite: 01 [2017 BG PM Peak]

01_Lamp Rd and Osborn Rd IntersectionSignals - Fixed Time Isolated Cycle Time = 72 seconds (User-Given Phase Times)Variable Sequence Analysis applied. The results are given for the selected output sequence.Phase Times specified by the userSequence: Variable PhasingReference Phase: Phase AInput Sequence: B*, A, C*Output Sequence: B*, A, C*(* Variable Phase)Phase Timing ResultsPhase B A CPhase Change Time (sec) 52 0 10Green Time (sec) 14 5 36Yellow Time (sec) 4 4 4All-Red Time (sec) 2 2 2Phase Time (sec) 20 10 42Phase Split 28% 14% 58%




MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: 01 [2022 BG+Lat+Dev AM Peak - Final Optimised]



ID ODMov

Deg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop. Queued

Effective Stop Rate


veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/hSouth: Lamp Rd1 L2 167 6.4 0.277 25.1 LOS C 5.0 36.6 0.72 0.72 42.02 T1 32 6.4 1.159 132.3 LOS F 10.3 75.7 1.00 1.21 18.53 R2 94 6.4 1.159 137.9 LOS F 10.3 75.7 1.00 1.21 18.3Approach 293 6.4 1.159 73.1 LOS E 10.3 75.7 0.84 0.94 27.1East: Osborn4 L2 218 6.4 0.183 10.2 LOS B 3.1 22.6 0.43 0.67 50.65 T1 1274 6.4 1.363 212.2 LOS F 140.8 1040.0 1.00 2.13 13.46 R2 54 6.4 0.075 9.5 LOS A 0.5 4.0 0.43 0.67 50.2Approach 1546 6.4 1.363 176.6 LOS F 140.8 1040.0 0.90 1.88 15.4North: Lamp Rd7 L2 13 6.4 0.014 8.4 LOS A 0.1 0.9 0.33 0.60 52.08 T1 18 6.4 0.469 47.5 LOS D 2.3 17.0 1.00 0.75 32.79 R2 32 6.4 0.469 53.1 LOS D 2.3 17.0 1.00 0.75 32.1Approach 63 6.4 0.469 42.5 LOS D 2.3 17.0 0.87 0.72 35.0West: Osborn Rd10 L2 86 6.4 0.063 6.1 LOS A 0.3 2.0 0.15 0.58 53.511 T1 504 6.4 0.485 13.0 LOS B 13.4 98.7 0.65 0.58 49.412 R2 622 6.4 1.350 192.0 LOS F 56.1 414.0 1.00 1.39 14.3Approach 1213 6.4 1.350 104.4 LOS F 56.1 414.0 0.80 0.99 21.9All Vehicles 3114 6.4 1.363 136.0 LOS F 140.8 1040.0 0.85 1.42 18.5



PHASING SUMMARYSite: 01 [2022 BG+Lat+Dev AM Peak - Final Optimised]

01_Lamp Rd and Osborn Rd IntersectionSignals - Fixed Time Isolated Cycle Time = 90 seconds (User-Given Phase Times)Variable Sequence Analysis applied. The results are given for the selected output sequence.Phase Times specified by the userSequence: Variable PhasingReference Phase: Phase BInput Sequence: A*, B, COutput Sequence: A*, B, C(* Variable Phase)Phase Timing ResultsPhase A B CPhase Change Time (sec) 66 0 55Green Time (sec) 19 50 6Yellow Time (sec) 3 3 3All-Red Time (sec) 2 2 2Phase Time (sec) 24 55 11Phase Split 27% 61% 12%




MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: 01 [2022 BG+Lat+Dev PM Peak - Final Optimised]

01_Lamp Rd and Osborn Rd IntersectionSignals - Fixed Time Isolated Cycle Time = 60 seconds (Optimum Cycle Time - Minimum Delay)


ID ODMov

Deg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop. Queued

Effective Stop Rate


veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/hSouth: Lamp Rd1 L2 490 4.1 0.582 9.9 LOS A 5.9 43.0 0.57 0.73 50.82 T1 1 4.1 0.669 19.5 LOS B 7.6 54.8 0.93 0.86 42.53 R2 298 4.1 0.669 25.1 LOS C 7.6 54.8 0.93 0.86 41.7Approach 789 4.1 0.669 15.6 LOS B 7.6 54.8 0.71 0.78 46.9East: Osborn Rd4 L2 55 4.1 0.044 7.1 LOS A 0.3 2.2 0.31 0.61 52.95 T1 546 4.1 0.595 12.3 LOS B 11.7 85.0 0.78 0.69 49.96 R2 1 4.1 0.009 36.1 LOS D 0.0 0.3 0.97 0.58 36.8Approach 602 4.1 0.595 11.8 LOS B 11.7 85.0 0.73 0.68 50.2North: Lamp Rd7 L2 14 4.1 0.020 13.8 LOS B 0.2 1.5 0.62 0.64 48.38 T1 1 4.1 0.033 15.0 LOS B 0.3 2.1 0.78 0.65 45.19 R2 13 4.1 0.033 20.6 LOS C 0.3 2.1 0.78 0.65 44.1Approach 29 4.1 0.033 17.0 LOS B 0.3 2.1 0.70 0.65 46.2West: Osborn Rd10 L2 10 4.1 0.006 6.2 LOS A 0.0 0.2 0.19 0.57 53.511 T1 970 4.1 1.097 85.6 LOS F 59.4 430.5 1.00 1.70 24.912 R2 128 4.1 0.441 25.8 LOS C 3.3 23.7 0.86 0.79 41.1Approach 1107 4.1 1.097 78.0 LOS E 59.4 430.5 0.98 1.58 26.2All Vehicles 2528 4.1 1.097 42.1 LOS D 59.4 430.5 0.83 1.11 35.3



PHASING SUMMARYSite: 01 [2022 BG+Lat+Dev PM Peak - Final Optimised]

01_Lamp Rd and Osborn Rd IntersectionSignals - Fixed Time Isolated Cycle Time = 60 seconds (Optimum Cycle Time - Minimum Delay)Phase Times determined by the programSequence: Split PhasingReference Phase: Phase BInput Sequence: B, ?, COutput Sequence: B, ?, CPhase Timing ResultsPhase B ? CPhase Change Time (sec) 0 34 45Green Time (sec) 29 6 9Yellow Time (sec) 3 4 3All-Red Time (sec) 2 2 2Phase Time (sec) 34 11 15Phase Split 57% 18% 25%





02_Lamp Rd and Snapper / Chaperone Rd IntersectionStop (Two-Way)


ID ODMov

Deg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop. Queued

Effective Stop Rate


veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/hSouth: Lamp Rd1 L2 9 9.0 0.094 6.5 LOS A 0.1 1.0 0.09 0.07 56.92 T1 147 9.0 0.094 0.1 LOS A 0.1 1.0 0.09 0.07 59.03 R2 12 9.0 0.094 6.8 LOS A 0.1 1.0 0.09 0.07 56.3Approach 167 9.0 0.094 1.0 NA 0.1 1.0 0.09 0.07 58.7East: Chaperone Rd4 L2 14 9.0 0.022 9.8 LOS A 0.1 0.6 0.42 0.88 50.55 T1 2 9.0 0.022 12.7 LOS B 0.1 0.6 0.42 0.88 50.36 R2 2 9.0 0.022 14.0 LOS B 0.1 0.6 0.42 0.88 50.0Approach 17 9.0 0.022 10.5 LOS B 0.1 0.6 0.42 0.88 50.4North: Lamp Rd7 L2 3 9.0 0.254 6.3 LOS A 1.0 7.4 0.21 0.18 55.78 T1 300 9.0 0.254 0.3 LOS A 1.0 7.4 0.21 0.18 57.69 R2 128 9.0 0.254 6.3 LOS A 1.0 7.4 0.21 0.18 55.1Approach 431 9.0 0.254 2.1 NA 1.0 7.4 0.21 0.18 56.8West: Snapper Rd10 L2 41 9.0 0.067 9.0 LOS A 0.2 1.8 0.30 0.90 50.511 T1 2 9.0 0.067 13.0 LOS B 0.2 1.8 0.30 0.90 50.312 R2 12 9.0 0.067 14.0 LOS B 0.2 1.8 0.30 0.90 50.0Approach 55 9.0 0.067 10.2 LOS B 0.2 1.8 0.30 0.90 50.4All Vehicles 671 9.0 0.254 2.7 NA 1.0 7.4 0.19 0.23 56.5

Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay (SIDRA). Site LOS Method is specified in the Parameter Settings dialog (Site tab).Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay per movement.Minor Road Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all vehicle movements.NA: Intersection LOS and Major Road Approach LOS values are Not Applicable for two-way sign control since the average delay is not a good LOS measure due to zero delays associated with major road movements.SIDRA Standard Delay Model is used. Control Delay includes Geometric Delay.Gap-Acceptance Capacity: SIDRA Standard (Akçelik M3D).HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation.

SIDRA INTERSECTION 7.0 | Copyright © 2000-2016 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.comOrganisation: AURECON AUSTRALASIA PTY LTD | Processed: Wednesday, 07 June 2017 2:21:55 PMProject: P:\Projects\113628 Wadeville Ext 51 TIA\7 DEL SERV\Analysis\Sidra\02_Lamp and Snapper-Chaperone.sip7




ID ODMov

Deg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop. Queued

Effective Stop Rate


veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/hSouth: Lamp Rd1 L2 1 4.5 0.140 5.9 LOS A 0.0 0.3 0.01 0.01 58.02 T1 258 4.5 0.140 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.3 0.01 0.01 59.83 R2 4 4.5 0.140 5.8 LOS A 0.0 0.3 0.01 0.01 57.3Approach 264 4.5 0.140 0.1 NA 0.0 0.3 0.01 0.01 59.8East: Chaperone Rd4 L2 7 4.5 0.012 8.5 LOS A 0.0 0.3 0.21 0.92 51.15 T1 3 4.5 0.012 9.9 LOS A 0.0 0.3 0.21 0.92 50.96 R2 1 4.5 0.012 11.5 LOS B 0.0 0.3 0.21 0.92 50.6Approach 12 4.5 0.012 9.3 LOS A 0.0 0.3 0.21 0.92 51.0North: Lamp Rd7 L2 1 4.5 0.058 6.5 LOS A 0.1 0.8 0.11 0.09 57.08 T1 90 4.5 0.058 0.2 LOS A 0.1 0.8 0.11 0.09 58.89 R2 13 4.5 0.058 6.4 LOS A 0.1 0.8 0.11 0.09 56.4Approach 104 4.5 0.058 1.1 NA 0.1 0.8 0.11 0.09 58.4West: Snapper Rd10 L2 143 4.5 0.147 9.5 LOS A 0.6 4.4 0.39 0.89 51.211 T1 1 4.5 0.147 10.3 LOS B 0.6 4.4 0.39 0.89 50.912 R2 7 4.5 0.147 10.7 LOS B 0.6 4.4 0.39 0.89 50.7Approach 152 4.5 0.147 9.6 LOS A 0.6 4.4 0.39 0.89 51.1All Vehicles 533 4.5 0.147 3.2 NA 0.6 4.4 0.14 0.30 56.6


SIDRA INTERSECTION 7.0 | Copyright © 2000-2016 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.comOrganisation: AURECON AUSTRALASIA PTY LTD | Processed: Wednesday, 07 June 2017 2:21:56 PMProject: P:\Projects\113628 Wadeville Ext 51 TIA\7 DEL SERV\Analysis\Sidra\02_Lamp and Snapper-Chaperone.sip7

MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: 02 [2022 BG+Lat+Dev AM Peak - Final Upgrade]



ID ODMov

Deg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop. Queued

Effective Stop Rate


veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/hSouth: Lamp Rd1 L2 10 9.0 0.268 9.5 LOS A 1.6 12.3 0.58 0.39 52.72 T1 162 9.0 0.268 3.1 LOS A 1.6 12.3 0.58 0.39 54.43 R2 147 9.0 0.268 9.5 LOS A 1.6 12.3 0.58 0.39 52.5Approach 319 9.0 0.268 6.3 NA 1.6 12.3 0.58 0.39 53.5East: Chaperone Rd4 L2 66 9.0 0.069 10.1 LOS B 0.3 2.0 0.43 0.89 50.85 T1 59 9.0 0.684 31.3 LOS D 3.3 24.8 0.92 1.20 37.56 R2 90 9.0 0.684 39.4 LOS E 3.3 24.8 0.92 1.20 37.3Approach 214 9.0 0.684 28.2 LOS D 3.3 24.8 0.77 1.10 40.7North: Lamp Rd7 L2 264 9.0 0.430 6.1 LOS A 1.8 13.7 0.23 0.28 54.58 T1 331 9.0 0.430 0.4 LOS A 1.8 13.7 0.23 0.28 56.39 R2 141 9.0 0.430 6.6 LOS A 1.8 13.7 0.23 0.28 53.9Approach 736 9.0 0.430 3.7 NA 1.8 13.7 0.23 0.28 55.2West: Snapper Rd10 L2 45 9.0 0.611 16.4 LOS C 3.1 23.3 0.71 1.13 40.611 T1 114 9.0 0.611 33.6 LOS D 3.1 23.3 0.71 1.13 40.412 R2 14 9.0 0.611 29.8 LOS D 3.1 23.3 0.71 1.13 40.3Approach 172 9.0 0.611 28.8 LOS D 3.1 23.3 0.71 1.13 40.5All Vehicles 1441 9.0 0.684 10.9 NA 3.3 24.8 0.45 0.53 50.0


SIDRA INTERSECTION 7.0 | Copyright © 2000-2016 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.comOrganisation: AURECON AUSTRALASIA PTY LTD | Processed: Thursday, 08 June 2017 12:12:59 PMProject: P:\Projects\113628 Wadeville Ext 51 TIA\7 DEL SERV\Analysis\Sidra\02_Lamp and Snapper-Chaperone.sip7

MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: 02 [2022 BG+Lat+Dev PM Peak - Final Upgrade]



ID ODMov

Deg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop. Queued

Effective Stop Rate


veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/hSouth: Lamp Rd1 L2 1 4.5 0.183 6.3 LOS A 0.4 2.6 0.10 0.09 57.02 T1 285 4.5 0.183 0.1 LOS A 0.4 2.6 0.10 0.09 58.83 R2 46 4.5 0.183 6.2 LOS A 0.4 2.6 0.10 0.09 56.7Approach 333 4.5 0.183 1.0 NA 0.4 2.6 0.10 0.09 58.5East: Chaperone Rd4 L2 124 4.5 0.097 8.6 LOS A 0.4 2.9 0.21 0.89 51.65 T1 107 4.5 0.724 18.2 LOS C 5.5 40.3 0.80 1.29 44.16 R2 230 4.5 0.724 22.9 LOS C 5.5 40.3 0.80 1.29 43.9Approach 461 4.5 0.724 18.0 LOS C 5.5 40.3 0.65 1.19 45.8North: Lamp Rd7 L2 76 4.5 0.106 5.8 LOS A 0.2 1.2 0.10 0.26 55.48 T1 99 4.5 0.106 0.2 LOS A 0.2 1.2 0.10 0.26 57.19 R2 15 4.5 0.106 6.6 LOS A 0.2 1.2 0.10 0.26 54.8Approach 190 4.5 0.106 3.0 NA 0.2 1.2 0.10 0.26 56.2West: Snapper Rd10 L2 158 4.5 0.250 9.8 LOS A 1.0 7.6 0.46 0.94 50.611 T1 48 4.5 0.250 12.1 LOS B 1.0 7.6 0.46 0.94 50.412 R2 9 4.5 0.250 15.4 LOS C 1.0 7.6 0.46 0.94 50.1Approach 215 4.5 0.250 10.5 LOS B 1.0 7.6 0.46 0.94 50.5All Vehicles 1199 4.5 0.724 9.6 NA 5.5 40.3 0.38 0.69 51.2


SIDRA INTERSECTION 7.0 | Copyright © 2000-2016 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.comOrganisation: AURECON AUSTRALASIA PTY LTD | Processed: Thursday, 08 June 2017 12:13:49 PMProject: P:\Projects\113628 Wadeville Ext 51 TIA\7 DEL SERV\Analysis\Sidra\02_Lamp and Snapper-Chaperone.sip7


03_Lamp Rd & Steenbras Rd IntersectionStop (All-Way)


ID ODMov

Deg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop. Queued

Effective Stop Rate


veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/hSouth: Lamp Rd1 L2 78 10.1 0.325 15.0 LOS C 1.2 9.4 0.81 1.36 48.22 T1 123 10.1 0.325 14.7 LOS B 1.2 9.4 0.81 1.36 48.0Approach 202 10.1 0.325 14.9 LOS B 1.2 9.4 0.81 1.36 48.1North: Lamp Rd8 T1 142 10.1 0.292 12.3 LOS B 1.0 7.8 0.68 1.36 49.59 R2 102 10.1 0.292 12.0 LOS B 1.0 7.8 0.68 1.36 49.3Approach 243 10.1 0.292 12.1 LOS B 1.0 7.8 0.68 1.36 49.4West: Steenbras Rd10 L2 85 10.1 0.357 20.0 LOS C 1.5 11.1 0.92 1.36 45.312 R2 62 10.1 0.357 19.4 LOS C 1.5 11.1 0.92 1.36 44.9Approach 147 10.1 0.357 19.7 LOS C 1.5 11.1 0.92 1.36 45.1All Vehicles 592 10.1 0.357 14.9 LOS B 1.5 11.1 0.79 1.36 47.9


SIDRA INTERSECTION 7.0 | Copyright © 2000-2016 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.comOrganisation: AURECON AUSTRALASIA PTY LTD | Processed: Wednesday, 07 June 2017 1:32:43 PMProject: P:\Projects\113628 Wadeville Ext 51 TIA\7 DEL SERV\Analysis\Sidra\03_Lamp and Steenbras Rd.sip7




ID ODMov

Deg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop. Queued

Effective Stop Rate


veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/hSouth: Lamp Rd1 L2 65 7.8 0.304 14.6 LOS B 1.1 8.4 0.80 1.35 48.62 T1 125 7.8 0.304 14.3 LOS B 1.1 8.4 0.80 1.35 48.3Approach 190 7.8 0.304 14.4 LOS B 1.1 8.4 0.80 1.35 48.4North: Lamp Rd8 T1 102 7.8 0.184 12.1 LOS B 0.6 4.4 0.70 1.31 49.79 R2 33 7.8 0.184 11.8 LOS B 0.6 4.4 0.70 1.31 49.5Approach 135 7.8 0.184 12.0 LOS B 0.6 4.4 0.70 1.31 49.7West: Steenbras Rd10 L2 111 7.8 0.322 15.7 LOS C 1.2 9.3 0.84 1.34 47.812 R2 71 7.8 0.322 15.1 LOS C 1.2 9.3 0.84 1.34 47.3Approach 183 7.8 0.322 15.5 LOS C 1.2 9.3 0.84 1.34 47.6All Vehicles 508 7.8 0.322 14.1 LOS B 1.2 9.3 0.79 1.34 48.4



MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: 03 [2022 BG+Lat+Dev AM Peak]



ID ODMov

Deg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop. Queued

Effective Stop Rate


veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/hSouth: Lamp Rd1 L2 87 10.1 0.505 16.8 LOS C 2.4 18.1 0.84 1.48 47.22 T1 265 10.1 0.505 16.5 LOS C 2.4 18.1 0.84 1.48 47.0Approach 352 10.1 0.505 16.6 LOS C 2.4 18.1 0.84 1.48 47.1North: Lamp Rd8 T1 205 10.1 0.381 13.1 LOS B 1.5 11.2 0.72 1.40 49.09 R2 112 10.1 0.381 12.8 LOS B 1.5 11.2 0.72 1.40 48.8Approach 317 10.1 0.381 13.0 LOS B 1.5 11.2 0.72 1.40 48.9West: Steenbras Rd10 L2 93 10.1 0.443 23.9 LOS C 2.0 15.2 0.96 1.41 43.212 R2 68 10.1 0.443 23.3 LOS C 2.0 15.2 0.96 1.41 42.9Approach 162 10.1 0.443 23.7 LOS C 2.0 15.2 0.96 1.41 43.1All Vehicles 830 10.1 0.505 16.6 LOS C 2.4 18.1 0.82 1.44 46.9



MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: 03 [2022 BG+Lat+Dev PM Peak]



ID ODMov

Deg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop. Queued

Effective Stop Rate


veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/hSouth: Lamp Rd1 L2 71 7.8 0.361 14.3 LOS B 1.4 10.5 0.78 1.38 48.72 T1 183 7.8 0.361 14.0 LOS B 1.4 10.5 0.78 1.38 48.5Approach 254 7.8 0.361 14.1 LOS B 1.4 10.5 0.78 1.38 48.5North: Lamp Rd8 T1 225 7.8 0.327 12.7 LOS B 1.2 8.9 0.71 1.37 49.39 R2 37 7.8 0.327 12.4 LOS B 1.2 8.9 0.71 1.37 49.1Approach 262 7.8 0.327 12.7 LOS B 1.2 8.9 0.71 1.37 49.3West: Steenbras Rd10 L2 122 7.8 0.418 19.1 LOS C 1.8 13.5 0.91 1.39 45.812 R2 79 7.8 0.418 18.5 LOS C 1.8 13.5 0.91 1.39 45.4Approach 202 7.8 0.418 18.8 LOS C 1.8 13.5 0.91 1.39 45.7All Vehicles 717 7.8 0.418 14.9 LOS B 1.8 13.5 0.79 1.38 48.0




04_Lamp Rd and Lantern Rd IntersectionStop (All-Way)


ID ODMov

Deg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop. Queued

Effective Stop Rate


veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/hSouth: Lamp Rd1 L2 13 13.7 0.169 12.0 LOS B 0.5 4.1 0.66 1.32 50.12 T1 102 13.7 0.169 11.7 LOS B 0.5 4.1 0.66 1.32 49.83 R2 20 13.7 0.169 11.4 LOS B 0.5 4.1 0.66 1.32 49.6Approach 135 13.7 0.169 11.7 LOS B 0.5 4.1 0.66 1.32 49.8East: Lantern Rd4 L2 9 13.7 0.100 18.7 LOS C 0.3 2.6 0.91 1.27 46.15 T1 19 13.7 0.100 18.4 LOS C 0.3 2.6 0.91 1.27 45.96 R2 5 13.7 0.100 18.1 LOS C 0.3 2.6 0.91 1.27 45.7Approach 33 13.7 0.100 18.4 LOS C 0.3 2.6 0.91 1.27 46.0North: Lamp Rd7 L2 29 13.7 0.144 12.5 LOS B 0.5 3.5 0.70 1.31 49.88 T1 67 13.7 0.144 12.2 LOS B 0.5 3.5 0.70 1.31 49.59 R2 7 13.7 0.144 11.9 LOS B 0.5 3.5 0.70 1.31 49.3Approach 103 13.7 0.144 12.3 LOS B 0.5 3.5 0.70 1.31 49.6West: Lantern Rd10 L2 16 13.7 0.133 20.3 LOS C 0.5 3.6 0.94 1.28 45.211 T1 19 13.7 0.133 20.0 LOS C 0.5 3.6 0.94 1.28 45.012 R2 5 13.7 0.133 19.7 LOS C 0.5 3.6 0.94 1.28 44.8Approach 40 13.7 0.133 20.1 LOS C 0.5 3.6 0.94 1.28 45.1All Vehicles 312 13.7 0.169 13.7 LOS B 0.5 4.1 0.74 1.31 48.6


SIDRA INTERSECTION 7.0 | Copyright © 2000-2016 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.comOrganisation: AURECON AUSTRALASIA PTY LTD | Processed: Wednesday, 07 June 2017 12:37:36 PMProject: P:\Projects\113628 Wadeville Ext 51 TIA\7 DEL SERV\Analysis\Sidra\04_Lamp and Lantern.sip7


Lamp Rd and Lantern Rd IntersectionStop (All-Way)


ID ODMov

Deg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop. Queued

Effective Stop Rate


veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/hSouth: Lamp Rd1 L2 10 9.8 0.207 15.8 LOS C 0.7 5.5 0.85 1.31 47.92 T1 81 9.8 0.207 15.5 LOS C 0.7 5.5 0.85 1.31 47.73 R2 9 9.8 0.207 15.2 LOS C 0.7 5.5 0.85 1.31 47.4Approach 100 9.8 0.207 15.5 LOS C 0.7 5.5 0.85 1.31 47.7East: Lantern Rd4 L2 24 9.8 0.340 22.4 LOS C 1.4 10.5 0.95 1.35 44.15 T1 30 9.8 0.340 22.1 LOS C 1.4 10.5 0.95 1.35 43.96 R2 61 9.8 0.340 21.9 LOS C 1.4 10.5 0.95 1.35 43.7Approach 115 9.8 0.340 22.1 LOS C 1.4 10.5 0.95 1.35 43.8North: Lamp Rd7 L2 13 9.8 0.310 16.4 LOS C 1.2 9.0 0.86 1.35 47.58 T1 139 9.8 0.310 16.2 LOS C 1.2 9.0 0.86 1.35 47.39 R2 9 9.8 0.310 15.9 LOS C 1.2 9.0 0.86 1.35 47.1Approach 161 9.8 0.310 16.2 LOS C 1.2 9.0 0.86 1.35 47.3West: Lantern Rd10 L2 10 9.8 0.176 22.0 LOS C 0.6 4.8 0.96 1.29 44.311 T1 15 9.8 0.176 21.7 LOS C 0.6 4.8 0.96 1.29 44.112 R2 24 9.8 0.176 21.4 LOS C 0.6 4.8 0.96 1.29 43.9Approach 49 9.8 0.176 21.6 LOS C 0.6 4.8 0.96 1.29 44.1All Vehicles 425 9.8 0.340 18.2 LOS C 1.4 10.5 0.89 1.34 46.0



MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: 04 [2022 BG+Lat+Dev AM Peak]

04_Lamp Rd and Lantern Rd IntersectionStop (All-Way)


ID ODMov

Deg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop. Queued

Effective Stop Rate


veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/hSouth: Lamp Rd1 L2 14 13.7 0.202 12.7 LOS B 0.7 5.2 0.71 1.33 49.72 T1 113 13.7 0.202 12.5 LOS B 0.7 5.2 0.71 1.33 49.43 R2 22 13.7 0.202 12.1 LOS B 0.7 5.2 0.71 1.33 49.2Approach 149 13.7 0.202 12.4 LOS B 0.7 5.2 0.71 1.33 49.4East: Lantern Rd4 L2 10 13.7 0.079 14.9 LOS B 0.3 2.0 0.83 1.27 48.35 T1 21 13.7 0.079 14.6 LOS B 0.3 2.0 0.83 1.27 48.16 R2 6 13.7 0.079 14.3 LOS B 0.3 2.0 0.83 1.27 47.9Approach 37 13.7 0.079 14.7 LOS B 0.3 2.0 0.83 1.27 48.1North: Lamp Rd7 L2 32 13.7 0.195 12.6 LOS B 0.6 5.0 0.70 1.32 49.78 T1 74 13.7 0.195 12.4 LOS B 0.6 5.0 0.70 1.32 49.49 R2 38 13.7 0.195 12.0 LOS B 0.6 5.0 0.70 1.32 49.2Approach 145 13.7 0.195 12.3 LOS B 0.6 5.0 0.70 1.32 49.4West: Lantern Rd10 L2 100 13.7 0.325 20.1 LOS C 1.3 10.1 0.93 1.35 45.211 T1 21 13.7 0.325 19.8 LOS C 1.3 10.1 0.93 1.35 45.012 R2 6 13.7 0.325 19.5 LOS C 1.3 10.1 0.93 1.35 44.8Approach 128 13.7 0.325 20.0 LOS C 1.3 10.1 0.93 1.35 45.2All Vehicles 459 13.7 0.325 14.7 LOS B 1.3 10.1 0.78 1.33 48.0



MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: 04 [2022 BG+Lat+Dev PM Peak]

Lamp Rd and Lantern Rd IntersectionStop (All-Way)


ID ODMov

Deg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop. Queued

Effective Stop Rate


veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/hSouth: Lamp Rd1 L2 12 9.8 0.249 17.1 LOS C 0.9 7.0 0.88 1.32 47.12 T1 90 9.8 0.249 16.8 LOS C 0.9 7.0 0.88 1.32 46.93 R2 10 9.8 0.249 16.5 LOS C 0.9 7.0 0.88 1.32 46.7Approach 112 9.8 0.249 16.8 LOS C 0.9 7.0 0.88 1.32 46.9East: Lantern Rd4 L2 27 9.8 0.364 22.5 LOS C 1.5 11.5 0.95 1.36 44.05 T1 33 9.8 0.364 22.3 LOS C 1.5 11.5 0.95 1.36 43.86 R2 67 9.8 0.364 22.0 LOS C 1.5 11.5 0.95 1.36 43.6Approach 127 9.8 0.364 22.2 LOS C 1.5 11.5 0.95 1.36 43.8North: Lamp Rd7 L2 15 9.8 0.453 16.8 LOS C 2.0 15.2 0.85 1.43 47.28 T1 154 9.8 0.453 16.5 LOS C 2.0 15.2 0.85 1.43 47.09 R2 116 9.8 0.453 16.2 LOS C 2.0 15.2 0.85 1.43 46.8Approach 285 9.8 0.453 16.4 LOS C 2.0 15.2 0.85 1.43 46.9West: Lantern Rd10 L2 54 9.8 0.491 41.1 LOS E 2.4 17.9 1.00 1.43 36.011 T1 16 9.8 0.491 40.8 LOS E 2.4 17.9 1.00 1.43 35.812 R2 27 9.8 0.491 40.5 LOS E 2.4 17.9 1.00 1.43 35.7Approach 97 9.8 0.491 40.8 LOS E 2.4 17.9 1.00 1.43 35.9All Vehicles 621 9.8 0.491 21.5 LOS C 2.4 17.9 0.90 1.40 44.2



MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: SiteAccess [2017 AM Peak BG ]

Chaperone and Site AccessStop (Two-Way)


ID ODMov

Deg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop. Queued

Effective Stop Rate


veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/hSouthEast: Site Access21a L1 2 9.0 0.003 7.8 LOS A 0.0 0.1 0.07 0.95 51.223b R3 2 9.0 0.003 8.2 LOS A 0.0 0.1 0.07 0.95 51.1Approach 3 9.0 0.003 8.0 LOS A 0.0 0.1 0.07 0.95 51.1East: Chaperone Rd4b L3 2 9.0 0.010 6.6 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.07 57.75 T1 16 9.0 0.010 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.07 59.4Approach 17 9.0 0.010 0.7 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.07 59.2West: Chaperone Rd11 T1 16 9.0 0.009 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.1 0.02 0.05 59.512a R1 2 9.0 0.009 4.7 LOS A 0.0 0.1 0.02 0.05 57.4Approach 17 9.0 0.009 0.5 NA 0.0 0.1 0.02 0.05 59.3All Vehicles 38 9.0 0.010 1.2 NA 0.0 0.1 0.01 0.14 58.4


SIDRA INTERSECTION 7.0 | Copyright © 2000-2016 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.comOrganisation: AURECON AUSTRALASIA PTY LTD | Processed: Thursday, 08 June 2017 5:42:42 PMProject: P:\Projects\113628 Wadeville Ext 51 TIA\7 DEL SERV\Analysis\Sidra\Site Access.sip7

MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: SiteAccess [2017 PM Peak BG]



ID ODMov

Deg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop. Queued

Effective Stop Rate





MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: SiteAccess [2022 AM Peak BG+Lat+Dev]



ID ODMov

Deg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop. Queued

Effective Stop Rate


veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/hSouthEast: Site Access21a L1 184 9.0 0.233 7.8 LOS A 1.0 7.4 0.05 0.99 50.423b R3 52 9.0 0.233 13.4 LOS B 1.0 7.4 0.05 0.99 50.3Approach 236 9.0 0.233 9.1 LOS A 1.0 7.4 0.05 0.99 50.4East: Chaperone Rd4b L3 152 9.0 0.108 6.6 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.56 53.45 T1 17 9.0 0.108 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.56 54.8Approach 169 9.0 0.108 5.9 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.56 53.6West: Chaperone Rd11 T1 17 9.0 0.334 0.8 LOS A 1.9 14.6 0.37 0.55 54.812a R1 474 9.0 0.334 5.5 LOS A 1.9 14.6 0.37 0.55 53.0Approach 491 9.0 0.334 5.3 NA 1.9 14.6 0.37 0.55 53.1All Vehicles 897 9.0 0.334 6.4 NA 1.9 14.6 0.22 0.67 52.4



MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: SiteAccess [2022 PM Peak BG+Lat+Dev]



ID ODMov

Deg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop. Queued

Effective Stop Rate





Appendix B Drawings

OSBORN ROAD

LAMP R

OAD

3,7m

3,7m

3,7m

3,7m

3,7m

3,7m

3,7m

3,7m

3,7m3,7m3,7m

60m

90m

60m

60m

20m

20m

60m

60m

EXT.51 DEVELOPER UPGRADES

EXT.50 LATENT DEVELOPMENT

LEGEND

A1

PROJECT No.

SCALE SIZE

TYPE REV

DATE

DRAWN

DESIGNED

REVIEWED

APPROVED

TITLE

PROJECT

REVISION DETAILSDATEREV APPROVED

CLIENT

WBS DISC NUMBER

DRAWING NUMBER

.

WADEVILLE EXTENSION 51TRAFFIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT

PROPOSED UPGRADE FOROSBORN ROAD & LAMP ROAD INTERSECTION

113628 0000 DRG TIA 0001 A

1:500 PRELIMINARYNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

H. ESPAG

V. MPOFU

W. HEYNS

A 20/06/'17 FOR INFORMATION W. H.

Filen

ame:

Plot

Date:

Offic

e:C:

\A T

EMP

WOR

KING

\WAD

EVILL

E TI

A\LA

MP_O

SBOR

N IN

TERS

ECTI

ON.D

WG

22/6/

2017

12:48

:12 P

MZA

DC1

GROWTHPOINT PROPERTIES

Aurecon South Africa (Pty) Ltd

Reg No 1977/003711/07

Aurecon Centre Lynnwood Bridge Office Park 4 Daventry Street Lynnwood Manor 0081

PO Box 74381 Lynnwood Ridge 0040 South Africa

T

F

E

W

+27 12 427 2000

+27 86 556 0521

[email protected]

aurecongroup.com

Aurecon offices are located in: Angola, Australia, Botswana, China, Ghana, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Kenya, Lesotho, Macau, Mozambique, Namibia, New Zealand, Nigeria, Philippines, Qatar, Singapore, South Africa, Swaziland, Tanzania, Thailand, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Vietnam.

Appendix G-4: Memo: Peak hour traffic calculations and assumptions

Estimate of Daily Peak Hour Trips to and from Naturecell Premises To ensure compliance with the allocated number of trips provided for by Growthpoint in the Traffic Impact Assessment, conducted by Aurecon, dated 30 June 2017, and submitted to the Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality, Naturecell conducted a study on the number of trips required from an operations and staffing perspective. The TIA provided for the following:

• The Aurecon study expected the new Growthpoint development to generate 108 trips during both the AM and PM peak hour;

• Based on the proportionate land area, Naturecell premises were allocated 40 of these peak hour trips.

The estimation of trips required by Naturecell considered the following points and are presented in the table below:

• Naturecell will operate on a 24/7 basis and factory personnel arrivals/departures will only impact on morning peak hour owing to shift times.

• Office hours will be slightly flexible within strict guidelines and will impact on both morning and afternoon peak hours.

• Maximum daily product deliveries allowed exceed daily production capacity by 20%.

• A mix of 20m3, 40m3 and 110m3 vehicles will be used for product deliveries, with a daily maximum number of 42 delivered loads. These vehicles will be reasonably uniformly dispatched over a 7-hour period, starting from 07h00 – 14h00 daily.

• All raw material deliveries will be scheduled for afternoon from 14h00 – 16h00.

• Visitors to the factory during morning and afternoon peak hours will be negligible.

At all times the number of peak hourly trips fall within the levels stipulated in the TIA.

Morning peak

06h00 - 07h00 9 4 3 0 16

07h00 - 08h00 12 0 6 6 24

Afternoon peak

16h00 - 17h00 0 12 5 2 19

17h00 - 18h00 0 0 0 0 0

Delivery

vehicle arrivals

Delivery

vehicle

Staff

departuresStaff arrivals Total trips

Appendix G-5: Screening Report – Development footprint

of 14 Disclaimer applies 09/09/2019

SCREENING REPORT FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL AUTHORIZATION OR FOR A PART TWO AMENDMENT OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL AUTHORISATION

AS REQUIRED BY THE 2014 EIA REGULATIONS – PROPOSED SITE ENVIRONMENTAL SENSITIVITY

EIA Reference number: GDARD Reference No: 002/18-19/I0011

Project name: Proposed cellulose recovery plant for for the recovery of pre- and post-consumer newsprint in Wadeville, Gauteng Province

Project title: Waste Management Licence Application for the proposed development of a cellulose recovery plant and related infrastructure for the recovery of pre- and post-consumer newsprint in Wadeville, Gauteng Province

Date screening report generated: 09/09/2019 17:42:04

Applicant: Naturecell Africaq RF (Pty) Ltd

Compiler: Dr. Mathys Vosloo, Zitholele Consulting (Pty) Ltd

Compiler signature: .....................................................................................................


Table of Contents

Proposed Project Location .................................................................................................................... 3

Orientation map 1: General location .................................................................................................. 3

Map of proposed site and relevant area(s) ........................................................................................... 4

Cadastral details of the proposed site ................................................................................................ 4

Wind and Solar developments with an approved Environmental Authorisation or applications under consideration within 30 km of the proposed area ................................................................... 4

Environmental Management Frameworks relevant to the application ............................................. 5

Environmental screening results and assessment outcomes ............................................................... 5

Relevant development incentives, restrictions, exclusions or prohibitions ....................................... 5

Map indicating proposed development footprint within applicable development incentive, restriction, exclusion or prohibition zones ............................................................................................ 7

Proposed Development Area Environmental Sensitivity .................................................................... 7

Specialist assessments identified ........................................................................................................ 8

Results of the environmental sensitivity of the proposed area. ........................................................... 9

MAP OF RELATIVE AGRICULTURE THEME SENSITIVITY .................................................................... 10

MAP OF RELATIVE AQUATIC BIODIVERSITY THEME SENSITIVITY ..................................................... 11

MAP OF RELATIVE CIVIL AVIATION THEME SENSITIVITY .................................................................. 12

MAP OF RELATIVE DEFENCE THEME SENSITIVITY ............................................................................. 13

MAP OF RELATIVE TERRESTRIAL BIODIVERSITY THEME SENSITIVITY ............................................... 14


Proposed Project Location

Orientation map 1: General location

General Orientation: Proposed cellulose recovery plant for for the recovery of pre- and post-consumer newsprint in Wadeville, Gauteng Province


Map of proposed site and relevant area(s)

Cadastral details of the proposed site Property details:

No Farm Name Farm/Erf Number Portion Latitude Longitude 1 WADEVILLE 686 00000 -26.27376 28.19311 2 WADEVILLE 687 00000 -26.27372 28.19338 3 WADEVILLE 690 00000 -26.27436 28.19327 4 WADEVILLE 665 00000 -26.27393 28.19267 5 WADEVILLE 666 00000 -26.27424 28.19275 6 WADEVILLE 569 00000 -26.27516 28.19463 7 WADEVILLE 664 00000 -26.27398 28.19244 8 WADEVILLE 689 00000 -26.27425 28.19359 9 WADEVILLE 667 00000 -26.27429 28.19252 10 WADEVILLE 564 00000 -26.27384 28.1942 11 WADEVILLE 688 00000 -26.27398 28.19352 Development footprint1 details: No development footprint(s) specified.

Wind and Solar developments with an approved Environmental Authorisation or applications under consideration within 30 km of the proposed area

No EIA Reference Classification Status of Distance from proposed

1 “development footprint”, means the area within the site on which the development will take place and incudes all ancillary developments for example roads, power lines, boundary walls, paving etc. which require vegetation clearance or which will be disturbed and for which the application has been submitted.


No application area (km) 1 14/12/16/3/3/1/569 Solar PV Approved 10.4 2 12/12/20/2530 Solar PV Approved 24.5 3 12/12/20/2551 Solar PV Approved 24.5

Environmental Management Frameworks relevant to the application

Environmental Management Framework

LINK

Gauteng EMF https://screening.environment.gov.za/ScreeningDownloads/EMF/Zone_1,_Zone_2,_Zone_3,_Zone_4,_Zone_5.pdf

Environmental screening results and assessment outcomes

The following sections contain a summary of any development incentives, restrictions, exclusions or prohibitions that apply to the proposed development site as well as the most environmental sensitive features on the site based on the site sensitivity screening results for the application classification that was selected. The application classification selected for this report is: Services|Waste Management Services|Treatment facilities|General|Treatment facilities - General.

Relevant development incentives, restrictions, exclusions or prohibitions The following development incentives, restrictions, exclusions or prohibitions and their implications that apply to this site are indicated below.

Incentive, restrictio

Implication


n or prohibition Strategic Transmission Corridor-Central corridor

https://screening.environment.gov.za/ScreeningDownloads/DevelopmentZones/GNR_350_of_13_April_2017.pdf

Gauteng EMF-Urban development zone 1

https://screening.environment.gov.za/ScreeningDownloads/DevelopmentZones/Zone_1.pdf

Gauteng EMF-Industrial and large commercial focus zone 5


Air Quality-Highveld Priority Area

https://screening.environment.gov.za/ScreeningDownloads/DevelopmentZones/HIGHVELD_PRIORITY_AREA_AQMP.pdf


Map indicating proposed development footprint within applicable development incentive, restriction, exclusion or prohibition zones

Project Location: Proposed cellulose recovery plant for for the recovery of pre- and post-consumer newsprint in Wadeville, Gauteng Province

Proposed Development Area Environmental Sensitivity The following summary of the development site environmental sensitivities is identified. Only the highest environmental sensitivity is indicated. The footprint environmental sensitivities for the proposed development footprint as identified, are indicative only and must be verified on site by a suitably qualified person before the specialist assessments identified below can be confirmed.

Theme Very High sensitivity

High sensitivity

Medium sensitivity

Low sensitivity

Agriculture Theme X

Aquatic Biodiversity Theme

X


Civil Aviation Theme X

Defence Theme X Terrestrial Biodiversity Theme

X

Specialist assessments identified Based on the selected classification, and the environmental sensitivities of the proposed development footprint, the following list of specialist assessments have been identified for inclusion in the assessment report. It is the responsibility of the EAP to confirm this list and to motivate in the assessment report, the reason for not including any of the identified specialist study including the provision of photographic evidence of the site situation.

No

Specialist assessment

Assessment Protocol

1 Agricultural Impact Assessment

https://screening.environment.gov.za/ScreeningDownloads/Assessment/General/DraftAgricultureProtocol.pdf

2 Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment

https://screening.environment.gov.za/ScreeningDownloads/Assessment/General/Appendix6.pdf

3 Palaeontology Impact Assessment


4 Terrestrial Biodiversity Impact Assessment


5 Aquatic Biodiversity Impact Assessment


6 Hydrology Assessment


7 Noise Impact Assessment


8 Traffic Impact Assessment


9 Health Impact Assessment


10 Socio-Economic Assessment


11 Ambient Air Quality Impact Assessment



Results of the environmental sensitivity of the proposed area.

The following section represents the results of the screening for environmental sensitivity of the proposed site for relevant environmental themes associated with the project classification. It is the duty of the EAP to ensure that the environmental themes provided by the screening tool are comprehensive and complete for the project. Refer to the disclaimer.


MAP OF RELATIVE AGRICULTURE THEME SENSITIVITY

Very High sensitivity High sensitivity Medium sensitivity Low sensitivity X

Sensitivity Features:

Sensitivity Feature(s) Medium Land capability;06. Low-Moderate/07. Low-Moderate/08. Moderate


MAP OF RELATIVE AQUATIC BIODIVERSITY THEME SENSITIVITY

Very High sensitivity High sensitivity Medium sensitivity Low sensitivity X Sensitivity Features:

Sensitivity Feature(s) Low Low Sensitivity Areas


MAP OF RELATIVE CIVIL AVIATION THEME SENSITIVITY



Sensitivity Feature(s) High Within 15 km of a civil aviation radar High Within 8 km of other civil aviation aerodrome Medium Between 15 and 35 km from a major civil aviation aerodrome


MAP OF RELATIVE DEFENCE THEME SENSITIVITY


Sensitivity Feature(s) Low Low sensitivity


MAP OF RELATIVE TERRESTRIAL BIODIVERSITY THEME SENSITIVITY



Sensitivity Feature(s) Very High CBA,Focus area for PAES

Appendix G-6: Screening Report – Development footprint 500m buffer


SCREENING REPORT FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL AUTHORIZATION OR FOR A PART TWO AMENDMENT OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL AUTHORISATION

AS REQUIRED BY THE 2014 EIA REGULATIONS – PROPOSED SITE ENVIRONMENTAL SENSITIVITY

EIA Reference number: GDARD Reference No: 002/18-19/I0011

Project name: Waste Management Licence Application for the proposed development of a cellulose recovery plant and related infrastructure for the recovery of pre- and post-consumer newsprint in Wadeville, Gauteng Province

Project title: Aquatic sensitivity screening with 500m buffer around development site

Date screening report generated: 10/09/2019 09:37:24

Applicant: Naturecell Africa RF (Pty) Ltd

Compiler: Dr. Mathys Vosloo, Zitholele Consulting (Pty) Ltd

Compiler signature: .....................................................................................................


Table of Contents

Proposed Project Location .................................................................................................................... 3

Orientation map 1: General location .................................................................................................. 3

Map of proposed site and relevant area(s) ........................................................................................... 4

Cadastral details of the proposed site ................................................................................................ 4

Wind and Solar developments with an approved Environmental Authorisation or applications under consideration within 30 km of the proposed area ................................................................... 7

Environmental Management Frameworks relevant to the application ............................................. 8

Environmental screening results and assessment outcomes ............................................................... 8

Relevant development incentives, restrictions, exclusions or prohibitions ....................................... 8

Map indicating proposed development footprint within applicable development incentive, restriction, exclusion or prohibition zones .......................................................................................... 10

Proposed Development Area Environmental Sensitivity .................................................................. 10

Specialist assessments identified ...................................................................................................... 11

Results of the environmental sensitivity of the proposed area. ......................................................... 12

MAP OF RELATIVE AGRICULTURE THEME SENSITIVITY .................................................................... 13

MAP OF RELATIVE AQUATIC BIODIVERSITY THEME SENSITIVITY ..................................................... 14

MAP OF RELATIVE CIVIL AVIATION THEME SENSITIVITY .................................................................. 15

MAP OF RELATIVE DEFENCE THEME SENSITIVITY ............................................................................. 16

MAP OF RELATIVE TERRESTRIAL BIODIVERSITY THEME SENSITIVITY ............................................... 17


Proposed Project Location

Orientation map 1: General location

General Orientation: Waste Management Licence Application for the proposed development of a cellulose recovery plant and related infrastructure for the

recovery of pre- and post-consumer newsprint in Wadeville, Gauteng Province


Map of proposed site and relevant area(s)

Cadastral details of the proposed site Property details:

No Farm Name Farm/Erf Number Portion Latitude Longitude 1 WADEVILLE 534 00110 -26.27207 28.19275 2 WADEVILLE 534 00113 -26.27201 28.18908 3 WADEVILLE 534 00114 -26.27193 28.18944 4 WADEVILLE 534 00134 -26.27285 28.19093 5 WADEVILLE 534 00142 -26.27351 28.1911 6 WADEVILLE 534 00143 -26.2736 28.19071 7 WADEVILLE 534 00144 -26.27368 28.19032 8 WADEVILLE 534 00153 -26.2709 28.19247 9 WADEVILLE 534 00165 -26.27076 28.19507 10 WADEVILLE 534 00168 -26.27143 28.19447 11 WADEVILLE 534 00170 -26.27181 28.19413 12 WADEVILLE 534 00171 -26.27164 28.19389 13 WADEVILLE 534 00172 -26.27139 28.19403 14 WADEVILLE 534 00174 -26.27104 28.19435 15 WADEVILLE 534 00175 -26.27087 28.19451 16 WADEVILLE 534 00177 -26.27154 28.193 17 WADEVILLE 534 00178 -26.27133 28.19303 18 WADEVILLE 534 00179 -26.27106 28.19306 19 WADEVILLE 534 00180 -26.27086 28.19324 20 WADEVILLE 534 00181 -26.27069 28.19341 21 WADEVILLE 534 00184 -26.27092 28.1937 22 WADEVILLE 534 00185 -26.27112 28.19349 23 WADEVILLE 534 00186 -26.27137 28.1934 24 WADEVILLE 534 00189 -26.27201 28.19338 25 WADEVILLE 534 00192 -26.27304 28.19388 26 WADEVILLE 534 00193 -26.27273 28.19409 27 WADEVILLE 534 00194 -26.27254 28.19438 28 WADEVILLE 534 00199 -26.27181 28.1954 29 WADEVILLE 534 00203 -26.27274 28.19541 30 WADEVILLE 534 00204 -26.27265 28.19506


31 WADEVILLE 534 00209 -26.26777 28.19389 32 WADEVILLE 534 00115 -26.27185 28.18981 33 WADEVILLE 534 00118 -26.2714 28.19111 34 WADEVILLE 534 00119 -26.27107 28.19145 35 WADEVILLE 534 00120 -26.27073 28.19177 36 WADEVILLE 534 00121 -26.27038 28.1921 37 WADEVILLE 534 00156 -26.27037 28.19291 38 WADEVILLE 534 00157 -26.2702 28.19307 39 WADEVILLE 534 00158 -26.26913 28.19291 40 WADEVILLE 534 00159 -26.26935 28.19321 41 WADEVILLE 534 00160 -26.26956 28.19351 42 WADEVILLE 534 00163 -26.27019 28.19443 43 WADEVILLE 534 00149 -26.2735 28.18791 44 WADEVILLE 671 00000 -26.27447 28.19166 45 WADEVILLE 672 00000 -26.27451 28.19145 46 WADEVILLE 673 00000 -26.27456 28.19123 47 WADEVILLE 674 00000 -26.27459 28.191 48 WADEVILLE 675 00000 -26.27466 28.19075 49 WADEVILLE 676 00000 -26.27488 28.19072 50 WADEVILLE 677 00000 -26.27511 28.19075 51 WADEVILLE 681 00000 -26.27611 28.19084 52 WADEVILLE 682 00000 -26.27607 28.19111 53 WADEVILLE 683 00000 -26.276 28.19139 54 WADEVILLE 684 00000 -26.27658 28.19155 55 WADEVILLE 685 00000 -26.27666 28.19119 56 WADEVILLE 686 00000 -26.27376 28.19311 57 WADEVILLE 687 00000 -26.27372 28.19338 58 WADEVILLE 690 00000 -26.27436 28.19327 59 WADEVILLE 695 00000 -26.27849 28.19265 60 WADEVILLE 696 00000 -26.27796 28.19457 61 WADEVILLE 718 00000 -26.2706 28.19905 62 WADEVILLE 720 00000 -26.2732 28.19717 63 WADEVILLE 722 00000 -26.27204 28.19609 64 WADEVILLE 723 00000 -26.27161 28.19637 65 WADEVILLE 724 00000 -26.27143 28.19604 66 WADEVILLE 725 00000 -26.27116 28.19575 67 WADEVILLE 567 00000 -26.27503 28.19622 68 WADEVILLE 568 00000 -26.2752 28.19554 69 WADEVILLE 570 00000 -26.27525 28.19371 70 WADEVILLE 571 00000 -26.27525 28.18784 71 WADEVILLE 572 00000 -26.27513 28.18841 72 WADEVILLE 573 00000 -26.27502 28.18889 73 WADEVILLE 575 00000 -26.27479 28.18987 74 WADEVILLE 534 00133 -26.27294 28.19054 75 WADEVILLE 534 00136 -26.27269 28.19171 76 WADEVILLE 534 00137 -26.2726 28.19218 77 WADEVILLE 534 00138 -26.27308 28.19274 78 WADEVILLE 534 00139 -26.27326 28.19227 79 WADEVILLE 534 00140 -26.27335 28.19188 80 WADEVILLE 534 00141 -26.27343 28.19149 81 WADEVILLE 534 00146 -26.27384 28.18956 82 WADEVILLE 534 00042 -26.27259 28.18842 83 WADEVILLE 534 00044 -26.27229 28.18757 84 WADEVILLE 534 00084 -26.27333 28.18869 85 WADEVILLE 534 00085 -26.27399 28.18886 86 WADEVILLE 534 00086 -26.27411 28.18833 87 WADEVILLE 663 00000 -26.27402 28.19223 88 WADEVILLE 534 00150 -26.27162 28.19203 89 WADEVILLE 534 00151 -26.27141 28.19222 90 WADEVILLE 534 00152 -26.27117 28.19235


91 WADEVILLE 534 00155 -26.27052 28.19276 92 WADEVILLE 534 00087 -26.27421 28.18784 93 WADEVILLE 665 00000 -26.27393 28.19267 94 WADEVILLE 666 00000 -26.27424 28.19275 95 WADEVILLE 668 00000 -26.27434 28.19231 96 WADEVILLE 669 00000 -26.27438 28.19209 97 WADEVILLE 670 00000 -26.27442 28.19188 98 WADEVILLE 534 00125 -26.27213 28.19068 99 WADEVILLE 534 00128 -26.27237 28.18956 100 WADEVILLE 534 00129 -26.27244 28.18919 101 WADEVILLE 657 00000 -26.27429 28.19094 102 WADEVILLE 659 00000 -26.2742 28.19137 103 WADEVILLE 660 00000 -26.27416 28.19159 104 WADEVILLE 661 00000 -26.27411 28.1918 105 WADEVILLE 534 00200 -26.2721 28.19541 106 WADEVILLE 534 00207 -26.27123 28.19547 107 WADEVILLE 534 00122 -26.27012 28.19236 108 WADEVILLE 534 00253 -26.26991 28.19257 109 WADEVILLE 534 00099 -26.27155 28.18776 110 WADEVILLE 534 00112 -26.27255 28.19339 111 WADEVILLE 534 00101 -26.27069 28.1896 112 WADEVILLE 534 00145 -26.27376 28.18994 113 WADEVILLE 534 00169 -26.2716 28.19431 114 WADEVILLE 534 00173 -26.27122 28.19419 115 WADEVILLE 534 00198 -26.27163 28.19513 116 WADEVILLE 534 00116 -26.27177 28.19018 117 WADEVILLE 534 00154 -26.27068 28.19261 118 WADEVILLE 534 00182 -26.27052 28.19358 119 WADEVILLE 534 00187 -26.27158 28.19337 120 WADEVILLE 534 00148 -26.26785 28.19172 121 WADEVILLE 534 00167 -26.27126 28.19463 122 WADEVILLE 534 00188 -26.27181 28.19331 123 WADEVILLE 534 00205 -26.27283 28.19475 124 WADEVILLE 534 00117 -26.27167 28.19068 125 WADEVILLE 534 00098 -26.26977 28.19147 126 WADEVILLE 680 00000 -26.2755 28.19061 127 WADEVILLE 721 00000 -26.27194 28.19661 128 WADEVILLE 658 00000 -26.27425 28.19116 129 WADEVILLE 569 00000 -26.27516 28.19463 130 WADEVILLE 534 00190 -26.27213 28.19358 131 WADEVILLE 664 00000 -26.27398 28.19244 132 WADEVILLE 534 00124 -26.27205 28.19107 133 WADEVILLE 534 00206 -26.27298 28.19435 134 WADEVILLE 689 00000 -26.27425 28.19359 135 WADEVILLE 679 00000 -26.27551 28.19095 136 WADEVILLE 534 00126 -26.27221 28.1903 137 WADEVILLE 534 00127 -26.27229 28.18993 138 WADEVILLE 656 00000 -26.27435 28.19073 139 WADEVILLE 719 00000 -26.27445 28.19807 140 WADEVILLE 662 00000 -26.27407 28.19201 141 WADEVILLE 565 00000 -26.2739 28.19515 142 WADEVILLE 534 00093 -26.27365 28.18718 143 WADEVILLE 534 00079 -26.27046 28.19081 144 WADEVILLE 534 00183 -26.27073 28.19388 145 WADEVILLE 534 00201 -26.27238 28.19546 146 WADEVILLE 574 00000 -26.2749 28.18938 147 WADEVILLE 534 00135 -26.27277 28.19132 148 WADEVILLE 534 00043 -26.27275 28.18769 149 WADEVILLE 534 00162 -26.26999 28.19412 150 WADEVILLE 534 00132 -26.27302 28.19015


151 WADEVILLE 534 00088 -26.27431 28.18735 152 WADEVILLE 534 00111 -26.27232 28.19307 153 WADEVILLE 534 00166 -26.27108 28.19479 154 WADEVILLE 534 00176 -26.27177 28.19299 155 WADEVILLE 534 00191 -26.27227 28.19376 156 WADEVILLE 534 00202 -26.27267 28.19571 157 WADEVILLE 576 00000 -26.27464 28.19034 158 WADEVILLE 534 00131 -26.2731 28.18976 159 WADEVILLE 534 00041 -26.27213 28.1883 160 WADEVILLE 667 00000 -26.27429 28.19252 161 WADEVILLE 534 00123 -26.27188 28.19163 162 WADEVILLE 534 00130 -26.27319 28.18938 163 WADEVILLE 678 00000 -26.27531 28.19089 164 WADEVILLE 564 00000 -26.27384 28.1942 165 WADEVILLE 534 00256 -26.26942 28.19101 166 WADEVILLE 566 00000 -26.27374 28.19583 167 WADEVILLE 534 00161 -26.26977 28.19381 168 WADEVILLE 688 00000 -26.27398 28.19352 169 KLIPPOORTJE 110 00216 -26.27646 28.1894 170 KLIPPOORTJE 110 00223 -26.27474 28.19909 171 KLIPPOORTJE 110 00064 -26.27697 28.19795 172 KLIPPOORTJE 110 00062 -26.27979 28.18991 173 KLIPPOORTJE 110 00099 -26.27576 28.19249 Development footprint1 details: No development footprint(s) specified.

Wind and Solar developments with an approved Environmental Authorisation or applications under consideration within 30 km of the proposed area

No EIA Reference No

Classification Status of application

Distance from proposed area (km)

1 14/12/16/3/3/1/569 Solar PV Approved 9.8 2 12/12/20/2530 Solar PV Approved 23.9 3 12/12/20/2551 Solar PV Approved 23.9

1 “development footprint”, means the area within the site on which the development will take place and incudes all ancillary developments for example roads, power lines, boundary walls, paving etc. which require vegetation clearance or which will be disturbed and for which the application has been submitted.


Environmental Management Frameworks relevant to the application

Environmental Management Framework

LINK

Gauteng EMF https://screening.environment.gov.za/ScreeningDownloads/EMF/Zone_1,_Zone_2,_Zone_3,_Zone_4,_Zone_5.pdf

Environmental screening results and assessment outcomes

The following sections contain a summary of any development incentives, restrictions, exclusions or prohibitions that apply to the proposed development site as well as the most environmental sensitive features on the site based on the site sensitivity screening results for the application classification that was selected. The application classification selected for this report is: Services|Waste Management Services|Treatment facilities|General|Treatment facilities - General.

Relevant development incentives, restrictions, exclusions or prohibitions The following development incentives, restrictions, exclusions or prohibitions and their implications that apply to this site are indicated below.

Incentive, restriction or prohibition

Implication

Strategic Transmissio

https://screening.environment.gov.za/ScreeningDownloads/DevelopmentZones/GNR_350_of_13_April_2017.pdf


n Corridor-Central corridor Gauteng EMF-Urban development zone 1


Gauteng EMF-Industrial and large commercial focus zone 5


Air Quality-Highveld Priority Area

https://screening.environment.gov.za/ScreeningDownloads/DevelopmentZones/HIGHVELD_PRIORITY_AREA_AQMP.pdf


Map indicating proposed development footprint within applicable development incentive, restriction, exclusion or prohibition zones

Project Location: Waste Management Licence Application for the proposed development of a cellulose recovery plant and related infrastructure for the

recovery of pre- and post-consumer newsprint in Wadeville, Gauteng Province

Proposed Development Area Environmental Sensitivity The following summary of the development site environmental sensitivities is identified. Only the highest environmental sensitivity is indicated. The footprint environmental sensitivities for the proposed development footprint as identified, are indicative only and must be verified on site by a suitably qualified person before the specialist assessments identified below can be confirmed.

Theme Very High sensitivity

High sensitivity

Medium sensitivity

Low sensitivity

Agriculture Theme X

Aquatic Biodiversity X


Theme Civil Aviation Theme X

Defence Theme X Terrestrial Biodiversity Theme

X

Specialist assessments identified Based on the selected classification, and the environmental sensitivities of the proposed development footprint, the following list of specialist assessments have been identified for inclusion in the assessment report. It is the responsibility of the EAP to confirm this list and to motivate in the assessment report, the reason for not including any of the identified specialist study including the provision of photographic evidence of the site situation.

No

Specialist assessment

Assessment Protocol

1 Agricultural Impact Assessment

https://screening.environment.gov.za/ScreeningDownloads/Assessment/General/DraftAgricultureProtocol.pdf

2 Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment


3 Palaeontology Impact Assessment


4 Terrestrial Biodiversity Impact Assessment


5 Aquatic Biodiversity Impact Assessment


6 Hydrology Assessment


7 Noise Impact Assessment


8 Traffic Impact Assessment


9 Health Impact Assessment


10 Socio-Economic Assessment


11 Ambient Air Quality Impact Assessment



Results of the environmental sensitivity of the proposed area.

The following section represents the results of the screening for environmental sensitivity of the proposed site for relevant environmental themes associated with the project classification. It is the duty of the EAP to ensure that the environmental themes provided by the screening tool are comprehensive and complete for the project. Refer to the disclaimer.


MAP OF RELATIVE AGRICULTURE THEME SENSITIVITY



Sensitivity Feature(s) High Land capability;09. Moderate-High/10. Moderate-High Medium Land capability;06. Low-Moderate/07. Low-Moderate/08. Moderate


MAP OF RELATIVE AQUATIC BIODIVERSITY THEME SENSITIVITY


Sensitivity Feature(s) Low Low Sensitivity Areas


MAP OF RELATIVE CIVIL AVIATION THEME SENSITIVITY



Sensitivity Feature(s) High Within 15 km of a civil aviation radar High Within 8 km of other civil aviation aerodrome Medium Between 15 and 35 km from a major civil aviation aerodrome


MAP OF RELATIVE DEFENCE THEME SENSITIVITY


Sensitivity Feature(s) Low Low sensitivity


MAP OF RELATIVE TERRESTRIAL BIODIVERSITY THEME SENSITIVITY



Sensitivity Feature(s) Low None Very High CBA,Focus area for PAES