comments and responses report 1. introduction · applicant and the environmental assessment...
TRANSCRIPT
-
Proposed Subdivision of Erf 177476, St James, Cape Town
SLR Consulting (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd Comments Report 1
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES REPORT
1. INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this Comments and Responses Report is to record comments received
from Interested and Affected Parties (I&APs) on the Background Information Document
(BID) review and comment period from 20 July to 21 August 2017 and the Draft Basic
Assessment Report (BAR) review and comment period from 7 January to 6 February 2019. It
should be noted that all significant changes and/or additions to the Comments and Responses
Report that was included in the Draft BAR are underlined and in a different font (Times New
Roman) to the rest of the text.
2. COMMENTS RECEIVED
The following I&APs submitted written comments during the above-mentioned comment and
review periods:
SUBMITTED BY: METHOD, DATE RECEIVED:
Authorities and/or Organs of State
1. Department of Water and Sanitation - Melissa Lintnaar - Strauss 24 July 2017
2. Heritage Western Cape - Zwelibanzi Shiceka 25 July 2017
3. South African National (SAN) Parks - Michael Slaylen 21 August 2017 and 6
February 2019
4. Department of Environmental Affairs and Development
Planning – Rondine Isaacs
29 January 2019
5. Cape Nature - Rhett Smart 6 February 2019
6. Department of Transport and Public Works: Road Network
Management – Alvin Cope
6 February 2019
7. City of Cape Town – Dimitri Georgeades (Acting Manager) 25 February 2019
General I&APs and/or Organisations
1. Andy Paige 25 July 2017
2. Zusiphe Kapa 25 July 2017
3. Mnoneleli Mlobeli 25 July 2017
4. Andrew Swain 31 July 2017
5. Gavin Brown 31 July 2017
6. Nick Steytler 31 July 2017
7. Tommy Brummer 31 July 2017
8. Bert Stafford 31 July 2017
9. Cheri Scholtz 1 August 2017
10. Simon Draper 2 August 2017
11. Norman Malcolm 2 August 2017
-
Proposed Subdivision of Erf 177476, St James, Cape Town
SLR Consulting (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd Comments Report 2
12. Steve Doidge 4 August 2017
13. Ashleigh Sandes: Praesidium Family Trust 7 August 2017
14. Barrie Gasson: Kalk Bay - St James Ratepayers Association 14 August 2017 and 6 February 2019
15. Bev Russell 18 August 2017
16. Patrick Morris 18 August 2017
17. Barbara Elshove 18 August 2017
18. Dawn Friend 19 August 2017
19. Andy Rice 21 August 2017
20. Neil Fraser and John Fraser 21 August 2017
21. William Wiley 9 January 2019
22. P.F.P Morris 6 February 2019
23. Nick Steytler - Khula Environmental Consultants on behalf of
Kevin Hodgson and Karl and Gina Leinberger
6 February 2019
Copies of the written submissions are attached as Attachment A. The comments received
are presented, and responded to, in the tables below and have been categorised as
follows:
1. General and procedural issues;
2. Flooding risks;
3. Impacts on heritage resources;
4. Site access issues;
5. Biophysical impacts;
6. Visual impacts; and
7. I&AP registrations.
No importance should be given to the order in which the categories are presented. As far
as possible, comments are presented verbatim from written submissions.
-
Proposed Subdivision of Erf 177476, St James, Cape Town
SLR Consulting (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd Comments Report
3
Table 1: Summary table of comments received from Authorities, with responses from the project team � = Letter/Fax/Post � = E-mail
NO. ISSUE COMMENT RESPONSE
1. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS AND DEVELOPMENT PLANNING (DEA&DP)
1.1. Public
Participation
You are required to submit proof of the Public Participation Process being
conducted for the draft BAR. This will include (but is not limited to):
• Proof that the BAR was made available to registered Interested and
Affected Parties;
• All comments received from Interested and Affected Parties (including
comments from Heritage Western Cape and the Department of Water
and Sanitation);
• A Comments and Responses Report, indicating all the comments
received from Interested and Affected Parties on the BAR and the
responses thereto; and
• A complete list of registered Interested and Affected Parties.
The requested information has been included
in Section F and Appendix F of the revised
Basic Assessment Report (BAR).
1.2. Declarations by
applicant and
Environmental
Assessment
Practitioner
You are hereby reminded to include the signed declarations from the
Applicant and the Environmental Assessment Practitioner (EAP) in the
BAR.
The signed declarations from the Applicant
and the EAP have been included in the revised
BAR.
1.3. Heritage Western
Cape comments
Final comment from Heritage Western Cape (HWC) must be obtained
prior to submitting the final BAR to the Department. Where applicable,
any comments or requirements from Heritage Western Cape must be met
and incorporated into the final BAR and Environmental Management
Programme.
The Heritage Specialist has submitted the
Heritage Impact Assessment Report to HWC
and requested final comment. Once a response
has been received, it will be provided to
DEA&DP.
1.4. Comment from
Department of
You are required to obtain comment from the Department of Transport
with regards to access to the proposed site.
Comment from the Western Cape
Government: Department of Transport has
-
Proposed Subdivision of Erf 177476, St James, Cape Town
SLR Consulting (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd Comments Report
4
NO. ISSUE COMMENT RESPONSE
Transport been included in the revised BAR (see
Appendix E3).
1.5. Confirmation of
availability of
services
Since electricity supply will be provided by the City of Cape Town, you
are requested to provide this office with written proof that the municipality
has sufficient unallocated capacity to provide the necessary service to the
proposed development. Confirmation of the availability of the service from
the service provider must be provided together with the BAR.
Confirmation that adequate electrical supply
capacity is available for the proposed project
has been obtained from the Energy Directorate
of the COCT (see Appendix E3).
1.6. General You are required to indicate the correct departmental reference number on
pages i and ii of the BAR. The site layout plan (Appendix B) has not been
attached.
The reference number included in the draft
BAR was provided by the Department in
response to the submission of the Notice of
Intent application. Subsequently, the
Application for Environmental Authorisation
was submitted to DEA&DP and an updated
reference number was received. The updated
reference number has been included on pages i
and ii of the revised BAR.
1.7. Submission of
final BAR
In accordance with Regulation 19(1) of Government Notice No. R. 982,
the final BAR must be submitted to this Department within a period of 90
days of receipt of the application by this Department, i.e., the final BAR
must be submitted by 8 April 2019.
The final BAR has been completed for
submission to DEA&DP by 8 April 2019.
1.8. Compliance with
NEMA
Please note that the proposed activity must not be commenced with prior to
an environmental authorisation being granted by the Department. It is
prohibited in terms of Section 24F of the NEMA for a person to commence
with a listed activity unless the competent authority has granted an
environmental authorisation for the undertaking of the activity. A person
convicted in terms of this prohibition is liable to a fine not exceeding R10
The Applicant is aware of the requirement for
Environmental Authorisation for listed
activities in terms of NEMA and is committed
to adhering to the legal requirements in this
regard.
-
Proposed Subdivision of Erf 177476, St James, Cape Town
SLR Consulting (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd Comments Report
5
NO. ISSUE COMMENT RESPONSE
million or imprisonment for a period not exceeding ten years, or to both
such fine and imprisonment.
1.9. Reference
number
Kindly quote the above-mentioned reference number in any future
correspondence in respect of this application.
This is noted.
2. DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND SANITATION
2.1. Requested hard
copy of
documentation
Please send us a hard copy of the document. Only then will we be able to provide
comment.
A hard copy of the Draft Basic Assessment Report
(BAR) was sent to the Department of Water and
Sanitation for review and comment on 6 January
2019. SLR has undertaken regular follow-up
with DWS in order to obtain comment on the
draft BAR. To date no comments have been
received.
3. SANPARKS
Comments dated 21 August 2017
3.1. Objection Having reviewed the Background Information Document, SANParks objects to the
proposed sub-division for the following reasons:
Your objection to the proposed subdivision has
been noted and is recorded here for consideration
by the Department of Environmental Affairs and
Development Planning (DEA&DP).
3.2. Disruption of natural
watercourse
The proposal to sub-divide the property unnecessarily disrupts and re-routes what
appears to be a natural and productive watercourse flowing across the property.
The potential impact on natural vegetation and the
seasonal watercourse are assessed in Section F of
the BAR and the specialist freshwater and botanical
assessments (refer to Appendix G1 and G2,
respectively).
A 10 m development setback buffer is proposed
-
Proposed Subdivision of Erf 177476, St James, Cape Town
SLR Consulting (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd Comments Report
6
NO. ISSUE COMMENT RESPONSE
along Portion 2 and the upper half of Portion 1 in
order to accommodate the seasonal watercourse.
In addition, the setback would maintain a corridor of
natural vegetation between future houses and the
neighbours adjacent to this boundary. Of the total
length of the watercourse located below Boyes
Drive (180 m), approximately 30 m would be
lost through the implementation of the
proposed diversion of the watercourse.
3.3. Development on
slopes steeper than
1:4
The proposed sub-division will facilitate development on slopes steeper than 1:4
which is generally considered inappropriate.
The suburb of St James was established on the
mountain slope and there are numerous existing
residences located adjacent to Erf 177476. Thus,
the precedent for development on the slopes has
already been established.
With reference to the geotechnical
investigation which was undertaken for the
house currently under construction, it is noted
that: “changes to the current slope geometry,
such as … cuts and fills in a bulk excavation,
will adversely affect overall slope stability
unless appropriate stabilisation (remedial)
measures are taken timeously at the
engineering design stage”.
In this regard, the engineer (Eward Grobler of
-
Proposed Subdivision of Erf 177476, St James, Cape Town
SLR Consulting (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd Comments Report
7
NO. ISSUE COMMENT RESPONSE
Grobler & Associates) has indicated that such
remedial measures would include:
• Self-drilling anchors (micro piles) and
ground beams to transfer loads deep into
the soils and reduce surface loading. This
is deemed to have a positive impact on the
overall slope stability when compared to
the current status quo; and
• In areas where platforms would be created,
it is recommended that the fill areas are
contained using gabion retaining structures
at near vertical slopes, thereby constraining
the area of fill placement. This would also
include soil anchoring which forms part of
gabion retaining wall construction.
It is further noted that as part of the current
house construction, Boyes Drive has been
secured laterally by installing pile and
shotcrete walls deep into the natural ground
during the construction of the access road.
Thus, the technical requirements for
construction on the steep slopes associated
with the site are understood and would be
considered as part of the detailed engineering
design for the future houses.
-
Proposed Subdivision of Erf 177476, St James, Cape Town
SLR Consulting (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd Comments Report
8
NO. ISSUE COMMENT RESPONSE
3.4. Disturbance of
indigenous
vegetation
The established indigenous vegetation on the property will be unnecessarily
disturbed.
As noted above, the potential impact on natural
vegetation and the seasonal watercourse are
assessed in Section F of the DBAR and the
specialist freshwater and botanical assessments
(refer to Appendix G1 and G2, respectively).
A 10 m development setback buffer is proposed
along Portion 2 and the upper half of Portion 1 in
order to accommodate the seasonal watercourse.
In addition, the setback would maintain a corridor of
natural vegetation between future houses and the
neighbours adjacent to this boundary.
3.5. Development above
Boyes Drive
The proposed garage is located on the steep mountainside above Boyes Drive
and will unnecessarily disturb the indigenous vegetation and a potentially unstable
slope and will have both visual and traffic impacts. This mountainside portion of
the property should not be developed. The proposed garage should rather be
located below Boyes Drive.
No garage or any other development associated
with the proposed subdivision is planned above
Boyes Drive. Accordingly, no vegetation would be
removed and no changes to slope would occur
above Boyes Drive.
3.6. Request to register
as an I&AP
SANParks requests to be registered as an interested and affected party.
SANParks reserves the right to request further information and make additional
comments on any additional information that might be received.
SANParks was registered on the project database
(see Appendix F1).
Comments dated 6 February 2019
3.7. Objection Your email dated 7 January 2017 refers. Having reviewed the Basic
Assessment Report, SANParks objects to the proposed sub-division for the
following reasons:
This objection is noted and is recorded here for
consideration by DEA&DP during the
decision-making process.
-
Proposed Subdivision of Erf 177476, St James, Cape Town
SLR Consulting (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd Comments Report
9
NO. ISSUE COMMENT RESPONSE
3.8. Loss of
endangered
vegetation and
current stream
In response to SANPark’s previous comment (letter dated 17 August
2018) that “The proposal to sub-divide the property unnecessarily disrupts
and re-routes what appears to be a natural and productive watercourse
flowing across the property” and that “The established indigenous
vegetation on the property will be unnecessarily disturbed”, the applicant
states in the Comments and Responses Report (Annexure F5, Pg. 4) that:
“A 10 m development setback buffer is proposed along Portion 2 and the
upper half of Portion 1 in order to accommodate the seasonal watercourse.
In addition, the setback would maintain a corridor of natural vegetation
between future houses and the neighbours adjacent to this boundary”.
However, SANParks is of the view that a narrow, partial and reconstructed
water course and corridor of 10 m and does not mitigate the loss of
endangered vegetation due to the extent of the proposed development.
Notably, the massive earthworks, excavation and re-shaping that will be
required to create the two building platforms (as evidenced by the
construction of the upper platform and access driveway), will result in the
permanent loss of the current stream and the destruction of the riparian
forest.
This comment is noted. While the loss of
existing indigenous vegetation within the
future building footprints of each subdivided
portion cannot be avoided, this loss can be
mitigated to a degree through the use of
existing indigenous vegetation for landscaping
on completion of construction.
Furthermore, the proposed 10 m buffer would
allow for the preservation of a large portion of
the seasonal watercourse and associated
existing riparian vegetation (over and above
the remaining upper part of the seasonal
watercourse located adjacent to the approved
dwelling). Of the total 180 m length of the
watercourse located below Boyes Drive,
approximately 30 m of the existing
watercourse would be lost through the
implementation of the proposed diversion of
the watercourse. However, an allowance has
been made for the continuation of overland
flow along this section and a 3 m building line
would be incorporated along this section of the
property boundary. Thus some vegetation
establishment and modified ecological
functioning along this portion of the
watercourse could still occur.
-
Proposed Subdivision of Erf 177476, St James, Cape Town
SLR Consulting (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd Comments Report
10
NO. ISSUE COMMENT RESPONSE
3.9. Does not support
loss of Peninsula
Sandstone Fynbos
vegetation
In addition, the botanical specialist report states that: “The proposed
development of Erf 177476 would result in the loss of mostly intact
ENDANGERED Peninsula Sandstone Fynbos” and that “The vegetation is
likely to survive, although not optimally, without fire even though some
species may be lost over time”. (Annexure G1 pg.36).
SANParks does not support the loss of this remnant portion of endangered
vegetation and maintains its concern in this regard in the light of the
enhanced rights that are being applied for.
In Section F1(b) of the BAR it is indicated that
while the proposed project would require the
clearance of the Peninsula Sandstone Fynbos
located on the property, this vegetation type is
exceptionally well conserved, with 95% of its
total original extent remaining, of which
approximately 98% of this being formally
protected (mostly within the TMNP). Thus,
the proposed project would not have a
significant impact on the overall conservation
requirement for this vegetation type.
3.10. Disturbance of the
watercourse
The Freshwater Assessment Report states that “the extant development of
this site has already substantially impacted on the ravine, stream and forest
environment. The proposed additional development will result in the near
complete loss thereof”. (Annexure G2 pg. 8). Our previous comments in
this regard stating that “the proposal to sub-divide the property
unnecessarily disrupts and re-routes what appears to be a natural and
productive watercourse flowing across the property” have clearly not been
adequately addressed.
Refer to the response provided in Section 3.8
above.
3.11. Development on
slopes steeper than
1:4
Likewise in response to SANParks comments that “the proposed sub-
division will facilitate development on slopes steeper than 1:4 which is
generally considered inappropriate, the applicant states “The suburb of St
James was established on the mountain slope and there are existing
residences located adjacent to Erf 177476. Thus, the precedent for
development on the slopes has already been established”. To our
understanding, each application needs to be assessed on its merits and in
No rationale has been provided by SANParks
as to why it is of the view that subdivision or
development on steep slopes may not take
place – there are numerous locations along the
Cape Peninsula where similar development on
steep slopes has been undertaken. As noted in
Section 3.3, the technical requirements for
-
Proposed Subdivision of Erf 177476, St James, Cape Town
SLR Consulting (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd Comments Report
11
NO. ISSUE COMMENT RESPONSE
this case the visually exposed and steep slopes should not be subdivided or
developed as proposed.
construction on the steep slopes associated
with the site are understood and would be
considered as part of the detailed engineering
design for the future houses.
3.12. Right to provide
additional
comment
SANParks reserves the right to request further information and make
additional comments on any additional information that might be received.
This is noted.
4. COMMENTS FROM CAPENATURE
4.1. Desktop
Information
The subject property is classified as No Natural according to the
Biodiversity Network (BioNet) for the City of Cape Town and the
Western Cape Biodiversity Spatial Plan. A watercourse is mapped on the
watercourse layer on City of Cape Town Map Viewer along the north
eastern boundary of the site flowing in a south easterly direction, and
entering the site in the eastern section. It is also mapped on Surveys and
Mapping along a slightly more easterly alignment. The natural vegetation
occurring over the site is Peninsula Sandstone Fynbos, listed as
Endangered.
This information is noted and was included in
the Basic Assessment Report, where relevant.
4.2. Application
The proposal is for subdivision of the subject erf into three erven (initially
five) for residential purposes. While subdivision would require a planning
approval and in itself does not require environmental authorisation, the
application is to allow for authorisation for the listed activities related to
excavation or deposition of material within a watercourse or buffer and
clearing of endangered vegetation, which is likely to be relevant to the
future development of the proposed erven.
It must be noted that planning approval was provided for the construction
of a dwelling on the largest northernmost erf, which is currently underway.
This information is correct.
-
Proposed Subdivision of Erf 177476, St James, Cape Town
SLR Consulting (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd Comments Report
12
NO. ISSUE COMMENT RESPONSE
The Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning
(DEA&DP) determined that no listed activities would be triggered for this
activity, as indicated in the correspondence dated 5 November 2014
(DEA&DP ref. no. 16/3/1/6/1/A6/82/2219/14). The determination was in
terms of the DEA&DP Circular regarding the term “commencement” and
it was determined that the development of a single dwelling had
commenced in terms of the original subdivision of the suburb and the
related commencement of earthworks (clearing of vegetation, excavation
and deposition) which would relate to the relevant NEMA listed activities.
4.3. Botanical
Assessment
A botanical assessment was undertaken and identified the presence of
intact and semi-intact vegetation occurring across the site which is typical
of the south-east facing slopes above this coastline. The presence of the
watercourse and associated ravine results in a higher presence of thicket
and forest species, and which is further enhanced by fire exclusion at this
location. The addendum to the botanical assessment includes an evaluation
of the reference in the freshwater assessment to the vegetation adjacent to
the stream as riparian forest. CapeNature wishes to express that we do not
consider there to be a discrepancy between the two reports in this regard,
as within all vegetation types, riparian/riverine vegetation would differ
from the surrounding vegetation due to increased moisture availability,
however this can only be mapped at a national scale for the larger
watercourses with more extensive riparian/riverine vegetation and not
smaller watercourses such as the stream on site.
This comment is noted, however it is unclear
how the national scale mapping of larger
watercourses is relevant with respect to the
information provided by the Botanical
specialist.
4.4. BioNet
Classification
In terms of the mapping on the BioNet for the site, CapeNature is
assuming that the No Natural classification was based on the existing
rights and the assumption that the site would be developed, because based
This comment is noted. Given that the
applicant has existing land use rights to
develop property, the assumption that the site
-
Proposed Subdivision of Erf 177476, St James, Cape Town
SLR Consulting (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd Comments Report
13
NO. ISSUE COMMENT RESPONSE
on the botanical (and freshwater) assessments there is natural vegetation
present on the site, which does not concur with the current classification.
would be developed in the future is considered
reasonable.
4.5. Watercourse
buffer zone
The botanical assessment mapped the intact and disturbed vegetation on
site and indicated a 10 m buffer from the stream as a no-go area, which
was subsequently reduced to 3 m based on the cut and fill requirements as
a result of the steep slope. CapeNature wishes to query this reduction and
whether the buffer should not remain at 10 m as originally recommended.
The overall assessment is that the impact is considered of low negative
significance both before and after mitigation, however certain species and
specimens thereof are listed as of importance.
The 3 m buffer referred to in this comment
relates to a project layout alternative that was
determined to not be feasible and was screened
out of the BAR (refer to the discussion of
alternatives presented in Section E of the
BAR). The preferred project alternative
includes a diversion of approximately 30 m of
the existing watercourse and a 10 m
development setback buffer along Portion 2
and the upper half of Portion 1 in order to
accommodate the seasonal watercourse.
Furthermore, allowance has been made for the
continuation of overland flow along this
section of the watercourse diversion and a 3 m
building line would be incorporated along this
section of the property boundary, vegetation
establishment and ecological functioning
along this portion of the watercourse can still
occur, albeit in a modified way.
4.6. Freshwater
Assessment
findings
The freshwater assessment has delineated the centreline of the stream
which more or less aligns with the mapping of the City of Cape Town
Map Viewer. The assessment reveals that the stream channel is
geomorphologically intact and is typical of a steep sloped mountain stream
flowing through a narrow ravine with an intact riparian forest zone. It
The summary of the freshwater assessment
findings is noted. However, it is pointed out
that, as per the Botanical Assessment
Addendum, no remnant coastal forest
vegetation is located on the site.
-
Proposed Subdivision of Erf 177476, St James, Cape Town
SLR Consulting (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd Comments Report
14
NO. ISSUE COMMENT RESPONSE
should be noted that the freshwater assessment has included several
additional riparian tree species to those listed in the botanical assessment.
The recommendation provided was that a minimum of a 10 m buffer from
the centreline of the stream is required.
4.7. Development
alternatives
The initial development proposal for five erven is that the stream will flow
above ground in the uppermost proposed erf (containing the existing
dwelling) after which it will enter a below ground box culvert and be
piped to where it joins with the existing underground culvert which exits
into the sea, with the remainder of the run-off from the site channelled to
the same underground culvert. The revised proposal for three erven allows
for above ground flow in the natural channel until halfway down the
lowermost third erf after which it is channelled underground as above.
This information is correct.
4.8. Concerns raised in
freshwater
assessment
Several concerns are raised in the freshwater assessment:
• Firstly, the precedent set by the existing dwelling which has
encroached into the riparian area of the stream with evidence of
material within the streambed and the associated impacts.
• The steep slopes of the site are a general concern and steeper than the
generally recognised maximum gradient permissible for development.
The steep slope significantly increases the risk of impacts associated
with erosion and sedimentation and substantially increases the
footprint size for development due to cut and fill requirements.
• The loss of the stream habitats in the lower parts and most of the
• It is noted that any impacts associated with
the construction of the existing house will
be rehabilitated on conclusion of the
construction phase. Any material located
within the seasonal watercourse would be
removed and landscaping of disturbed
areas would take place.
• Refer to the response provided in Section
3.3 above regarding development on steep
slopes.
• This comment is noted. As highlighted in
-
Proposed Subdivision of Erf 177476, St James, Cape Town
SLR Consulting (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd Comments Report
15
NO. ISSUE COMMENT RESPONSE
riparian habitat is still a concern associated with the preferred
alternative, even although the revised proposal for three erven is an
improvement on the original proposal for five erven in this regard.
The addendum to the freshwater assessment which assesses the revised
proposal of three erven as opposed to five erven provides a good summary
of the concerns with the proposal and is supported by CapeNature.
Section E of the BAR, the rationale for
selecting the preferred alternative included
the fact that the proposed layout would
have a lower impact on the seasonal
watercourse.
This comment is noted.
4.9. Support of the
freshwater
assessment
In conclusion, CapeNature supports the findings of the freshwater
assessment, and recommends that that the proposed 10 m buffer must be
implemented to allow for the persistence of the natural stream and
associated riparian vegetation. We do not support the proposal of
tunnelling the stream underground, despite the poor historical precedents
downstream of the site. CapeNature in general does not support the
artificial canalisation (above ground or underground) of natural
watercourses supporting natural habitat.
This comment and the position of CapeNature
against the planned underground diversion of
the seasonal watercourse is noted. However, it
is pointed out that of the total 180 m length of
the watercourse located below Boyes Drive,
approximately 30 m would be lost through the
implementation of the proposed diversion of
the watercourse into an underground culvert.
Furthermore, in addition to the proposed
diversion, allowance has been made for the
continuation of overland flow along this
section of the watercourse diversion and a 3 m
building line would be incorporated along this
section of the property boundary. Vegetation
establishment and ecological functioning
along this portion of the watercourse can still
occur, albeit in a modified way.
-
Proposed Subdivision of Erf 177476, St James, Cape Town
SLR Consulting (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd Comments Report
16
NO. ISSUE COMMENT RESPONSE
4.10. Objection In terms of the application, CapeNature therefore objects to the current
proposal. While we do not object to the principle of three erven, the 10 m
buffer as indicated in Figure 5 of the freshwater assessment must be
implemented as a minimum, and should the remaining development
envelope not allow for feasible development options for the proposed
erven, the subdivision proposal must be revised. The approved
development envelope and no-go area must be binding on the title deeds
of the subdivided erven. Ideally there should be no subdivision of the
existing erf.
This objection is noted and is recorded here
for consideration by DEA&DP during the
decision-making process.
However, in response to the statement that
there should be no subdivision of the existing
erf, it must be pointed out that the current erf
represents a recent consolidation of two erven
and that the project proposal would entail the
subdivision of the current erf into three
portions. Thus, when compared to the status
quo prior to the consolidation only one
additional erf would be created.
4.11. Landscaping
recommendations
The recommendation is that landscaping should utilise locally indigenous
species, and includes those species which already occur on site. We wish
to query if the recommendation should rather be to keep as many of the
existing specimens as possible in particular mature specimens. We do also
wish to express that although fire exclusion may result in a different
vegetation community, however, it is still of biodiversity value as habitat,
particular as riparian habitat. We also wish to note that the Leucospermum
conocarpodendron specimen which was the only threatened species listed
(Endangered) was present on the already developed footprint of the
approved dwelling.
This recommendation has been updated to
reflect the requirement to keep as many of the
existing indigenous plant specimens (in
particular mature specimens) as possible for
use in site landscaping.
4.12. Comments relating
to the construction
of the existing
With regards to the existing large dwelling which has already been
constructed on the site, CapeNature does not support the use of “legal
loopholes” to enable activities which will have a significant negative
It is pointed out that the applicant has followed
due process and obtained all relevant
approvals from COCT to facilitate the
-
Proposed Subdivision of Erf 177476, St James, Cape Town
SLR Consulting (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd Comments Report
17
NO. ISSUE COMMENT RESPONSE
dwelling. impact on biodiversity. While we will not interrogate the legal
interpretations, other aspects of the National Environmental Management
Act (NEMA) such as Duty of Care (Section 28) and application of the
mitigation hierarchy (Section 2) remain relevant.
construction of the existing house.
4.13. Rehabilitation of
watercourse
The encroachment of the existing dwelling into the riparian area of the
watercourse is not supported due to the impacts on the riparian and in-
stream habitat. Although not within the ambit of an authorisation in terms
of the NEMA EIA Regulations, CapeNature recommends that a setback
line/no-go boundary from the stream needs to be established adjacent to
the dwelling which is being constructed and that a rehabilitation plan is
compiled following completion of construction.
This comment is noted. While not related to
the planned subdivision, rehabilitation of
impacts associated with the construction of the
current house will be undertaken on
completion of the construction of the current
house.
4.14. Right to provide
additional
comment
CapeNature reserves the right to revise initial comments and request
further information based on any additional information that may be
received.
This is noted.
5. HERITAGE WESTERN CAPE
5.1. Requirement for the
submission of a
Notice of Intent to
Develop
The email below and the letter attached have reference. Kindly be informed that
Heritage Western Cape (HWC) has received the letter as indicated above. As
such, HWC cannot comply with the due date mentioned. Kindly note HWC
requires a Notice of Intent to Develop (NID) in order to start this application.
Aikman Associates has been appointed as the
independent specialist heritage consultant. A Notice
of Intent to Develop (NID) form was compiled by the
heritage specialist and submitted to HWC. On 5
October 2017, HWC confirmed that a Heritage
Impact Assessment would be required.
The potential impact on heritage resources are
assessed in Section F of the BAR and the specialist
Heritage Impact Assessment (refer to Appendix
G3).
-
Proposed Subdivision of Erf 177476, St James, Cape Town
SLR Consulting (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd Comments Report
18
NO. ISSUE COMMENT RESPONSE
6. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT AND PUBLIC WORKS: ROAD NETWORK MANAGEMENT
6.1. Previous approval of access off
Boyes Drive
NOTE: This email correspondence was addressed to Mr Marlyn Botha of
the City of Cape Town: Transport Impact Assessment & Development
Control and copied to SLR.
Erf 177476 (JN 24891) is a consolidation of Erven 88268 and 88273 (JN
20155). We approved the access (Section 17 of the Roads Ordinance)
based upon the COCT’s support – it appears as though it was indeed an
existing carriageway crossings (CWC) access.
Your previous approval of the access off
Boyes Drive is noted here for consideration by
DEA&DP during the decision-making process
(a copy of this approval has been included in
Appendix E3).
6.2. No foreseeable
issue to support
proposed access
off Main Road
One extra dwelling unit using the PMR 106 (Boyes Drive) access – should
be no problem for you to support – I would suggest that it be made clear
that only single residential use will be allowed – no Bed & Breakfast or
other consent uses [sic] should be allowed.
This comment is noted.
6.3. Safe access A new access on Main Road (PMR 101) is proposed - safe? There is an existing servitude located on the
south-western section of the erf that links to
Main Road. Erf 88308 currently obtains access
of Main Road from this servitude and is thus
deemed to be safe.
6.4. No requirement for
Department to
comment
Please note that the COCT is the Regulatory Authority for both PMR 101
and PMR 106 in this area and no further input is required from this branch
- assuming there is an existing access to PMR 101, if not, with your
recommendation we will approve it in terms of Section 17.
This comment is noted.
6.5. It appears as though the reason why this branch has not received any
official request for comment on the subdivision is that there is no legal
requirement for us to comment. The same applies to the NEMA
application for subdivision – no official request for comment.
-
Proposed Subdivision of Erf 177476, St James, Cape Town
SLR Consulting (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd Comments Report
19
NO. ISSUE COMMENT RESPONSE
6.6. No objection to the
subdivision
As stated previously (for the PMR 106 access), this branch will offer no
objection to the subdivision, if requested to do so, both in terms of your
legislation as well the NEMA.
This support of the application is noted here
for consideration by DEA&DP in decision-
making.
7. CITY OF CAPE TOWN
INTEGRATED URBAN MANAGEMENT - LAND USE MANAGEMENT – KEVIN MCGILTON
7.1. Requirement for
environmental,
heritage and visual
assessments and
public
participation
process
The property in question is zoned Single Residential Zone 1 and is within
a Heritage Protection Overlay Zone. Any proposed subdivision the
property would require an application which, given the nature of the
property with its watercourse, would require an environmental assessment
and heritage assessment including a visual assessment as the property is
visible from the Main Road as well as Boyes Drive.
A process of public participation would be required before the
adjudication of the proposal.
This Basic Assessment process has been
undertaken for the proposed subdivision. The
requested specialist studies (heritage and
visual) were included in the draft Basic
Assessment Report (BAR) which was
circulated for a 30-day comment and review
period (see Appendix G).
A public participation process has been
undertaken as part of the Basic Assessment
process (see Section F of the BAR)
WATER AND SANITATION (RIVERS, STORMWATER AND CATCHMENT MANAGEMENT) – JUSTIN SMIT
7.2. Requirements for
Stormwater
Management Plan
A Stormwater management plan is to be submitted to this office for water
quality only, due to the size of the Erf. Water quantity is not required due
to the close proximity of this site to the ocean. Although Stormwater
detention for water quantity is not required, the volume of water generated
during the different scenario storms must be calculated and accommodated
for and therefore the Stormwater management plan must also clearly
indicate (with details) all required Stormwater overland escape routes to
cater for flood water not piped underground. No runoff from this site must
cause a nuisance to neighbouring properties, including Main Road. It must
This comment is noted. A preliminary
stormwater management plan has been
prepared by the project engineer. This will be
submitted to the COCT for approval as part of
the relevant town-planning application that
would be undertaken should the proposed
project receive Environmental Authorisation.
A copy of the Stormwater Management Plan
has been also appended to the Engineering
-
Proposed Subdivision of Erf 177476, St James, Cape Town
SLR Consulting (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd Comments Report
20
NO. ISSUE COMMENT RESPONSE
be further noted that due to the steep nature of this site, critical velocities
must be designed for and if so required, energy dissipaters will be required
as well as a device/devices that will prevent the blocking of any
Stormwater intakes/headwalls. Best management principles are to be
applied to this site regarding the Stormwater management.
Services Report (refer to Appendix G).
7.3. Support for
freshwater
specialist
recommendations
This office supports the recommendations of the Fresh Water Specialist. Your support of the freshwater specialist
recommendations are noted.
ROADS AND STORMWATER (ASSET MANAGEMENT AND MAINTENANCE) – HEUPPSCHENNE LEKAY
7.4. Engineering design
drawing approval
Civil Engineering drawings pertaining roads and storm water to be
submitted for approval should municipal services be affected. Civil
Engineering drawings demonstrating combined engineering services must
also be submitted for perusal. This approval must be obtained prior to
building plan approval.
Engineering design drawings will be submitted
for approval to the relevant office as per the
normal building plan approval process.
The approved civil engineering plans shall be implemented to the
satisfaction of Asset Management and Maintenance before building plan
approval or clearance application in case of sub division or taking
occupancy.
This requirement is noted.
7.5. Comply with
conditions issued
by Transport
Impact Assessment
and Development
Control
Department
Prior to submitting a full set of detailed engineering drawings to this office
(Roads and Stormwater) for approval, the applicant shall ensure that all
conditions relating to engineering requirements stipulated by Transport
Impact Assessment and Development Control (TIA & DC) are met and
depicted on the drawings. Consent given by TIA & DC must accompany
submission of the engineering drawings.
This comment is noted.
-
Proposed Subdivision of Erf 177476, St James, Cape Town
SLR Consulting (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd Comments Report
21
NO. ISSUE COMMENT RESPONSE
7.6. Development of a
Stormwater
Management Plan
Prior to submitting a full set of detailed engineering drawings to this office
(Roads and Storm water) for approval, the applicant shall submit detailed
Stormwater Management Plan to Catchment, Stormwater and River
Management for approval. Consent from Catchment, Storm water and
River Management must accompany submission of the detailed
engineering drawings that depict the SMP.
As indicated in Section 7.2, the stormwater
management plan will be submitted to the
Catchment, Stormwater and River
Management for approval as part of the
relevant town-planning application that would
be undertaken should the proposed project
receive Environmental Authorisation.
7.7. Development
contribution
Development contribution will be applicable and payable prior to or
clearance application.
This requirement is noted.
WATER AND SANITATION (WATER SECTION) – GAIRONESSE VAN WYK
7.8. Provision of
standard approval
conditions on
application for
water connection
No objections to the proposed subdivision.
Standard approval conditions will be provided when a water connection is
applied for to the respective properties. In addition, confirmation from
Water Planning will be required that there is sufficient capacity in the
existing water reticulation systems to accommodate the proposed
development or units before approvals can be granted for water
connections.
This comment is noted.
TRANSPORT IMPACT ASSESSMENT & DEVELOPMENT CONTROL – MARLYN BOTHA
7.9. No objection Please note that this branch offers no objection in principle to the proposed
subdivision of Erf 177476, St James. However, due to the fact that Boyes
Drive is classified as a Provincial Main Road (PMR 106), this branches
final comment on this application which will be issued at LUMS stage of
the process will be subject to the final approval being issued by the
Provincial Roads Engineer.
This comments is noted, however, it is pointed
out that the current access of Boyes Drive was
approved as part of the approval process
associated with the development of a house on
the site.
-
Proposed Subdivision of Erf 177476, St James, Cape Town
SLR Consulting (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd Comments Report
22
NO. ISSUE COMMENT RESPONSE
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT – CHANTAL ERLANK
7.10.Residential
properties required
to use council
refuse removal
services
The council wishes to ensure that all new developments, that require
planning permission, contain suitable accommodation for the storage and
disposal of waste to a licenced landfill site. Council reserves the right to
service all residential properties that falls within its boundaries for refuse
removal services. In terms of the Waste Management Tariff Policy,
Section 18.2.1 all residential properties are compelled to use council
refuse removal services and may not use private contractors directly. Non-
residential properties may opt to use either Council services or a private
contractor directly.
The requirement for all residential properties
to use council refuse removal services is
noted.
7.11.No objection In connection with the above proposal / development, I confirm that Solid
Waste (Collections) as the Service Provider in the St James Area has no
objection to the Proposed Subdivision and has sufficient unallocated
capacity to accept and collect and dispose of all types of waste to a
designated licence landfill site.
A good waste management system must be in place to handle all waste
generated by the activities and to mitigate against negative impact on the
environment. The generation of construction waste and waste during the
operation phases should be recycled on site or reused to fill up other sites
and clean builder’s rubble can be disposed of at the nearest licenced
facility under the guidance of the City of Cape Town. The waste generated
by the construction personnel e.g. lunch remains and packaging etc. must
be placed in approved refuse bins on site during the construction phases.
The proposed development will not have any implications on the
infrastructure of the area provided that the contractors identify a permitted
refuse disposal site for various categories of waste, provided that a refuse
This comment is noted.
-
Proposed Subdivision of Erf 177476, St James, Cape Town
SLR Consulting (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd Comments Report
23
NO. ISSUE COMMENT RESPONSE
room is included in the planning stages of the development for the storage
of waste to the satisfaction of the Director: Solid Waste Management.
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT: HERITAGE RESOURCES SECTION (HRS) – SJANEL MARTIN
7.12.Site development
plan
Site Development Plan:
The response to the Notification of Intent to Develop, (NID) requested a
detailed site development plan (SDP). The submitted SDP only indicates
the proposed subdivision lines and although these are generally in keeping
with the pattern of subdivision in the immediate surrounds, it does not
indicate proposed building platforms, proposed building massing/envelope,
proposed access roads or existing mature trees to be retained.
This comment is noted. As the application
only relates to the proposed subdivision of Erf
177476, the location of the building platforms
or the proposed building massing/envelope of
the future houses are not required at this stage.
Thus, they are not indicated at present.
If Environmental Authorisation is granted for
the proposed subdivision, any future building
plans for proposed dwellings on the
subdivided portions would have to be
submitted to the COCT for approval before
they could be constructed.
It is noted that the proposed access roads were
indicated on the layout plan included in the
draft BAR. In this regard, the approved access
road (currently under construction) would be
used to provide access from Boyes Drive to
Portion 2, while Portion 1 would obtain access
from Main Road via the existing servitude
-
Proposed Subdivision of Erf 177476, St James, Cape Town
SLR Consulting (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd Comments Report
24
NO. ISSUE COMMENT RESPONSE
adjacent to the south-western section of the erf
(closest to Main Road).
7.13.Pattern of new
building platforms
New building platforms should follow the existing pattern of development
to mitigate the impact of the new building in a currently undeveloped
landscape. Most erven in the Heritage Area are rectangular in shape. This
is derived from the historic gridiron pattern of subdivision. The
predominant building form is simple narrow rectangle with attached
verandhas or stoeps. The houses are almost always situated parallel to the
boundaries.
The requirements for new building platforms
are noted.
7.14.St James/Kalk Bay
Heritage
Protection Overlay
Zone Design
Guidelines
Design indicators in HIA:
Heritage Resources Section (HRS) agrees in principle with the following
design indicators in the HIA:
• The subdivisions should complement the overall gridiron pattern of the
area;
• New buildings to be made up of simple rectangular forms parallel to
the boundaries;
• New building to be visually recessive with landscaping the dominant
element. The use of sandstone is recommended together with plastered
masonry painted with neutral recessive colours;
• Large areas of glass/windows to be situated in shadow by pergolas
and/or verandas;
HRS also draws the developer’s attention to the already established
design guidelines for the St James/Kalk Bay Heritage Protection Overlay
Zone (HPOZ), which should be included as a condition of approval to any
proposed subdivision. These guidelines are currently used as the
Support of the proposed design indicators
listed in the Heritage Impact Assessment
Report is acknowledged.
The requirement for the future houses to
comply with the St James/Kalk Bay HPOZ
design guidelines is noted.
-
Proposed Subdivision of Erf 177476, St James, Cape Town
SLR Consulting (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd Comments Report
25
NO. ISSUE COMMENT RESPONSE
establishment of ‘best practice’ for all new developments in the St
James/Kalk Bay HPOZ and are available on the City’s Website.
7.15.Contradiction of
the St James/Kalk
Bay HPOZ
HOA and Design guidelines:
Given that the site falls within the HPOZ, HRS already comments on all
applications in order to obtain approval to do work in the HPOZ.
Currently, HRS strongly advises applicant to obtain HRS support during
the design phase as well as input from the local conservation body prior to
formal submission. The Design Guidelines suggest that the proposed
Home Owners Association (HOA) would scrutinise plans prior to
submission to the COCT, which may cause undue conflict with
applications that meet the HOA’s requirements but not the City’s. This
needs to be reviewed and all applications need to be in accordance with the
existing design guidelines for the area.
Although HRS is not averse to architectural guidelines that are more
restrictive than the current design guidelines for the St James/Kalk Bay
HPOZ, any guidelines that are in contradiction to the established
guidelines need to be removed and are not supported. HRS will review the
guidelines in detail during the subsequent commenting period on the final
BAR as well as in HRS comment to HWC on the HIA.
The requirement for HRS to review all
applications within the area and the fact that
the requirements of the HPOZ Design
Guidelines would supersede the HOA design
guidelines are noted.
It is noted that in terms of the EIA Regulations
2014, as amended, there is no requirement for
an additional comment period on the BAR.
Thus, the revised BAR will be submitted to
DEA&DP for decision-making.
7.16.Support for Visual
Impact Assessment
mitigation
measures
VIA
HRs supports all mitigation measures that are in accordance with the
design guidelines for St Kames/Kalk Bay HPOZ.
Support of the mitigation measures contained
in the Visual Impact Assessment is
acknowledged.
7.17.Provide comments
from Kalk Bay
• Kalk Bay Heritage Subcommittee
Please provide the Kalk Bay Heritage Subcommittee’s comment to HRS.
The comments received from the Kalk Bay
Heritage subcommittee to date have been
-
Proposed Subdivision of Erf 177476, St James, Cape Town
SLR Consulting (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd Comments Report
26
NO. ISSUE COMMENT RESPONSE
Heritage
subcommittee
This is also a requirement of HWC’s response to the NID. forwarded to the HRS.
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT: ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SECTION (EMS) – CRISPIN BARRETT
7.18.Summary of
application
This application is for material exceeding 10 m3 being removed /
deposited from / in an unnamed watercourse traversing the site and
clearance of an area exceeding 300 m2 or more of indigenous vegetation.
The complete table of listed activities that
would be triggered by the proposed project are
provided in Section A of the BAR.
7.19. General comments
on
Botanical Report
The following is garnered from the Botanical Assessment Report:
• The site contains the Endangered vegetation type Peninsula Sandstone
Fynbos, which is adequately represented within the Table Mountain
National Park so the conservation value is sufficiently protected for the
geographical location, but it is still a loss that should be assessed with
possible alternative development proposal that could see more
vegetation protected rather than lost.
• The 10 m development setback is seen as adequate for the vegetation
impact but this does not take into consideration the ecological buffer
for the watercourse corridor, where the indirect impacts are not
assessed.
• The impacted and invaded patches have the potential for
restoration/rehabilitation.
• Dr David McDonald, states that the proposed development would
result in the loss of mostly intact ‘Endangered’ Peninsula Sandstone
Fynbos. While the vegetation type is well-preserved in its ecological
state with a number of invasive alien species present, there is high
restoration potential and the seasonal watercourse line is prominent
and sensitive feature. With particular interest on indirect impacts is the
loss of vegetation along the seasonal watercourse would reduce the
This summary is noted.
This comment is noted. However, it must also
be recognised that the ecological corridor of
the watercourse has been restricted by the
development of Boyes Drive and historic
diversion of the watercourse located on the
bottom of the erf. Accordingly, the ecological
corridor of the seasonal watercourse is
considered to be restricted to the site itself.
Nevertheless, allowance has been made for the
-
Proposed Subdivision of Erf 177476, St James, Cape Town
SLR Consulting (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd Comments Report
27
NO. ISSUE COMMENT RESPONSE
ecological corridor. continuation of overland flow along the
watercourse diversion and a 3 m building line
would be incorporated along this section of the
property boundary. Thus, vegetation
establishment and ecological functioning along
this portion of the watercourse can still occur,
albeit in a modified way.
7.20. General comments
on
Freshwater Report
The following is garnered from the Freshwater Assessment Report:
• The watercourse, together with its riparian zone, constitutes an intact
ecological entity.
• The National Environmental Management Act principle ‘sustainable
development’ requires the consideration of all relevant factors,
including that a risk-averse and cautious approach should be applied,
taking into account the limits of current knowledge about the
consequences of decisions and actions. This is very much applicable
for this application.
• Dr Harding’s findings are that although the previous proposed
application has been amended to reflect fewer portions of subdivision,
the negative impact on the environment is to a degree the same, if not
worse. This is due to the accumulative impact from the upper slope
development and with the proposed removal of virtually all the western
riparian vegetation, the intact ecological entity, causing it to be
disaggregated into smaller non-functional components.
This summary is noted. However, it is pointed
out that the preferred alternative layout makes
provision for fewer subdivided portions and
allows for a 10 m buffer zone along the
property boundary for Portion 2 and the upper
part of Portion 1 which incorporates a large
portion of the seasonal watercourse. The
second layout alternative considered five
subdivided portions and entails the complete
diversion of the seasonal watercourse over the
proposed additional subdivided portions.
It is also noted that, as per the Botanical
Assessment Addendum, no remnant coastal
forest vegetation is located on the site thus, the
“western riparian vegetation” delineated by the
Freshwater specialist falls under the Peninsula
Sandstone Fynbos vegetation type.
7.21.Construction of
approved dwelling
The construction of the approved dwelling has shown a significant impact
on the upper slope, which is steeper than 1:4, and requires that DEADP
Refer to the response provided in Section 3.3
above regarding development on steep slopes.
-
Proposed Subdivision of Erf 177476, St James, Cape Town
SLR Consulting (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd Comments Report
28
NO. ISSUE COMMENT RESPONSE
critically assess it in accordance with their ‘Guideline for the Management
of Development on Mountains, Hills and Ridges of the Western Cape’
(EIA Guideline Series File NO E12/2/P). The most significant
environmental attributes on this site are the presence of seasonal
watercourses, seeps and mostly intact endangered Peninsula Sandstone
Fynbos.
7.22.Conservation of
watercourses
Conservation and rehabilitation of our watercourses should be at the heart
of Water Management for Cape Town, being a water stressed area and
recently having experienced an extreme drought.
National Environmental Management Act.
The principles of the National Environmental Management Act of 1998
clearly state that sensitive, vulnerable, highly dynamic or stressed
ecosystems, such as water courses and similar systems, require specific
attention in management and planning procedures, especially where they
are subject to development pressure.
These comments are noted.
7.23.Floodplain and
River Corridor
Management
Policy
As per the City’s Floodplain and River Corridor Management Policy (27
May 2009), watercourses and wetlands with their adjacent riparian areas
and associated fauna and flora must be protected or ‘buffered’ from the
impacts of adjacent development or activity. Buffers for watercourses can
be up to 40 m from river edge/bank edge.
The perennial & non-perennial watercourses in the narrow St James
valleys are threatened by, inter alia, alien invasion, infilling, increased
volumes of stormwater runoff and poor water quality. With the recent,
approved development of the upper slope of the erf, erosion has increased
and foreign debris has accumulated in the lower stretch of the watercourse.
These comments are noted. It is also noted that
in terms of this policy, the adjustment of the
recommended buffer can take place on a
site/case specific basis.
The preferred layout alternative aims to
balance the right of the applicant to extract
value from the property with the need to
conserve the seasonal watercourse through the
implementation of the proposed 10 m buffer
-
Proposed Subdivision of Erf 177476, St James, Cape Town
SLR Consulting (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd Comments Report
29
NO. ISSUE COMMENT RESPONSE
The existing watercourse, although impacted upon, needs to be conserved
and rehabilitated and there should be no further net loss, particularly
where alternatives exist.
zone. As noted in Section 4.8, any foreign
debris located within the seasonal watercourse
will be removed on completion of current
construction activities.
7.24.Presentation of an
alternative
proposal
EMS requires an alternative proposal to be presented where there is:
• An additional development setback that is taken from the watercourse
and determined by the aquatic specialist and not the property
boundary.
• In addition to this a registered river servitude that restricts any further
development/associated infrastructure as well as landscaping with prior
consent from the relevant Environmental Management department.
• A Detailed Site Development Plan that shows reduced building
platforms/massing/envelope and access roads.
• Condition that no second dwellings will be permissible on the
subdivided portions.
It is understood that the requirements listed
herein fall outside of the mandate of the
Environmental Management Section. The
proposed project proposal remains as was
originally presented in the draft Basic
Assessment Report.
-
Proposed Subdivision of Erf 177476, St James, Cape Town
SLR Consulting (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd Comments Report
30
Table 2: Summary table of comments received from I&APs, with responses from the project team � = Letter/Fax/Post � = E-mail
NO. ISSUE NAME METHOD COMMENT RESPONSE
1. GENERAL
1.1. Proposed building
lines/ boundaries.
Andy Rice �= E-mail dated
21 August 2017
Building lines / boundaries. The proposed building lines applicable
to the subdivided portions will be in
compliance with the requirements of
the relevant City of Cape Town
planning ordinances and/or by-laws, as
applicable. As noted in the DBAR, a 10
m development setback buffer would
be included over Portion 2 and the
upper part of Portion 1. A standard
common boundary building line
restriction of 3 m would be applicable
to the remaining common boundaries.
1.2. Withheld comment/objection
St. James
Ratepayers
Heritage Sub-
committee – Barrie
Gasson
�= E-mail
dated
6 February
2019
After much consideration of this application we
have decided to withhold any
comment/objection until such time as the site
works, which appear to have stalled, are
completed according to the approved plans and
to Council’s satisfaction. We are referring to,
among other things, the stone cladding yet to be
done to retaining walls, abandoned rock and
rubble heaps that should either be put to use or
removed, and the cantilever road curve, that was
You right to reserve comment on
the application is noted. However,
in terms of the EIA Regulations
2014, as amended, there is no
requirement for an additional
comment period on the BAR. Thus,
the revised BAR, which includes
this comment, will be submitted to
DEA&DP for decision-making.
-
Proposed Subdivision of Erf 177476, St James, Cape Town
SLR Consulting (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd Comments Report
31
NO. ISSUE NAME METHOD COMMENT RESPONSE
not part of the original plans, the underside of
which requires ‘closing up’ with appropriate
stone-clad structure. Further, we expect that
environmental damage to the
watercourse/ravine, such as accumulation of
rubble and at least on large boulder, to be made
good. Once these matters have been attended to
we will be prepared to reconsider the
application to subdivide.
1.3. Legal non-
compliance
Khula
Environmental
Consultants – Nick
Steytler on behalf
of Kevin Hodgson
and Karl and Gina
Leinberger
�= E-mail
dated
6 February
2019
Over a period of several years numerous
activities have been undertaken on the lower
reaches of the site in close proximity and
directly affecting the watercourse. These
activities have included clearance of vegetation,
infilling and excavations in close proximity and
within the watercourse to create level platforms
and to re-route the watercourse. Most (if not all)
of these activities have commenced without
prior environmental authorisation in terms of
the National Environmental Management Act
(NEMA) EIA Regulations (as applicable at the
time of the commencement of these activities).
Given the direct impact these activities have had
on the lower reaches of the watercourse it is
also likely that a water use authorisation should
have been applied for in terms of the National
It is pointed out that the applicant
took ownership of the property in
2014. Thus, the applicant was not
in control of the land prior to this
date. With respect to the alleged
activities highlighted in this
comment, no evidence has been
provided to show that any of the
alleged activities took place or that
such actions would have triggered
any listed activities that may have
been in force at the time.
It should also be noted that the
residents in this submission applied
themselves for the right to
undertake activities in close
-
Proposed Subdivision of Erf 177476, St James, Cape Town
SLR Consulting (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd Comments Report
32
NO. ISSUE NAME METHOD COMMENT RESPONSE
Water Act (Act 36 of 1998). These historic
activities should be investigated by the
competent authority as these have a direct
bearing on the lawfulness of the current
application as no application in terms of the
NEMA EIA Regulations should be considered
by the competent authority if the same site is
associated with unlawful activities. On this
basis alone the application should be withdrawn
until the competent authority has investigated
the allegations and, if found to be true, only
after the completion of a successful Section 24G
Rectification Application, can the current
application be considered.
proximity to the watercourse,
including a gabion basket retaining
wall located within a few meters of
the watercourse.
1.4. Impact on the
provision of
municipal services
Khula
Environmental
Consultants – Nick
Steytler on behalf
of Kevin Hodgson
and Karl and Gina
Leinberger
�= E-mail
dated
6 February
2019
Subdividing residential property and the
associated densification of urban areas, while
being desirable from a spatial planning
perspective, results in an increase in pressure on
the Local Authority’s capacity to provide
adequate municipal services. Potable water
supply, which is currently strained given the
recent drought, in particular is likely to be
impacted with the result that existing residents
suffer the consequences which range from
reduced water pressure to dwindling levels of
household supply.
Confirmation has been obtained
from the COCT service
departments that adequate capacity
is available for the proposed
project (see Appendix E3).
-
Proposed Subdivision of Erf 177476, St James, Cape Town
SLR Consulting (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd Comments Report
33
NO. ISSUE NAME METHOD COMMENT RESPONSE
1.5. Nuisance impacts Given the location of the site in a dense
residential suburb the potential for nuisance
impacts is high and special attention is required
to ensure that any potential nuisance impacts are
minimised. The EMP simply states that
construction activities outside normal working
hours should be avoided. This is simply not
sufficient because the Contractor could
undertake work over weekends and cause
significant nuisance impacts and motivate that
the timing was unavoidable. Working outside
normal work hours should not be permitted
without the express permission of the
independent Environmental Control Officer
(ECO). This would provide greater assurance
that the nuisance impacts associated with
working outside normal work hours would be
satisfactorily minimised.
The recommendations relating to
noise control and working hours
are set out in Section 3.10 of the
EMP (see Appendix H). In this
regard, it is specifically noted that a
permit shall be obtained from the
local authority for any deviation
from local by-laws and/or
regulations with respect to working
hours.
The significance of general
nuisance impacts during the
construction phase was assessed in
Section G of the BAR. In this
regard, although intensity of these
impacts could be high at times
during construction, the overall
construction period would be over
the short-term and would be of
local extent. Thus, these impacts
are deemed to be of low to
medium significance without
mitigation. With the
implementation of mitigation, the
significance would reduce to
-
Proposed Subdivision of Erf 177476, St James, Cape Town
SLR Consulting (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd Comments Report
34
NO. ISSUE NAME METHOD COMMENT RESPONSE
LOW.
1.6. Operational
management
Khula
Environmental
Consultants – Nick
Steytler on behalf
of Kevin Hodgson
and Karl and Gina
Leinberger
�= E-mail
dated
6 February
2019
The timing and frequency of culvert inspections
and cleaning of debris, indicated as a key
operational phase environmental management
activity, needs to be specified. Given the risk of
flood-related impacts associated with the
proposed infrastructure failing, it is important
that the precise timing of inspections and debris
removal should be recommended by a
hydrologist.
This comment is noted. The timing
and frequency of such inspections
and actions would be the same as
those undertaken by the COCT for
the existing culvert located on the
site.
2. PROCEDURAL ISSUES
2.1. Flawed public
participation
process
Khula
Environmental
Consultants – Nick
Steytler on behalf
of Kevin Hodgson
and Karl and Gina
Leinberger
�= E-mail
dated
6 February
2019
The Public Participation Process (PPP) is
flawed as it does not satisfy the principle that all
information submitted for decision-making will
have been reviewed by the stakeholders (in this
case the Interested and Affected Parties, I&APs)
prior to the decision having being reached. The
flaw has come about as a result of the manner in
which the process has been designed whereby
only one opportunity has been provided to
I&APs to review the Basic Assessment (the
currently available Draft BAR) and associated
specialist studies. It is indicated that the
comment received on the Draft BAR will be
incorporated into a Final BAR which will be
It is pointed out that in terms of the
EIA Regulations 2014, as
amended, there is no requirement
for an additional comment period
on the BAR. Thus, the revised
BAR, which includes this
comment, will be submitted to
DEA&DP for decision-making. As
is commented, I&APs had the
opportunity to comments on the
BID during the pre-application
phase – this is seen as normal
practice to inform people and
provide opportunity to comment
-
Proposed Subdivision of Erf 177476, St James, Cape Town
SLR Consulting (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd Comments Report
35
NO. ISSUE NAME METHOD COMMENT RESPONSE
submitted to the competent authority for a
decision. As such it appears as though no
opportunity is available for the Registered
I&APs to review and comment on any
additional information or significant changes to
the BAR or specialist studies that may arise as a
result of the comment on the Draft BAR.
Circulating a Background Information
Document (BID) as a precursor to the Draft
BAR should not be considered as a substitute
for a comment period on a BAR as the BID
lacks the detail presented in the BAR and the
specialist studies, a critical component of any
EIA process, are not included.
ahead of the formal application
procedure.
2.2. Concern for a need
of a Water Use
Licence
Khula
Environmental
Consultants – Nick
Steytler on behalf
of Kevin Hodgson
and Karl and Gina
Leinberger
�= E-mail
dated
6 February
2019
Related to this concern is the very strong
likelihood that the proposed development will
require a Water Use Licence Application
(WULA) in terms of the National Water Act
(NWA), Act 36 of 1998. The BAR simply
indicates that the current BAR (which includes
a freshwater specialist Risk Assessment) has
been submitted to the Department of Water and
Sanitation (DWS) for confirmation regarding
the requirement for a WULA. Given that a
WULA is highly likely (and this is
acknowledged by the EAP) and that the project
This comment is noted. Once
confirmation has been received
from DWS that a WULA is
required, the applicant will have to
undertake a public participation
process which complies with the
legislative requirements for a
WULA in terms of the NWA.
Thus, registered I&APs would still
have an opportunity to review any
additional information that may be
required for the WULA.
-
Proposed Subdivision of Erf 177476, St James, Cape Town
SLR Consulting (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd Comments Report
36
NO. ISSUE NAME METHOD COMMENT RESPONSE
Khula
Environmental
Consultants – Nick
Steytler on behalf
of Kevin Hodgson
and Karl and Gina
Leinberger
�= E-mail
dated
6 February
2019
is associated with the unmitigable loss of
aquatic habitat that is assessed as having a
HIGH Risk, it is highly likely that DWS, in
order to decide on the WULA, will require
additional information and/or revisions to the
project design. If additional information or a
change is project design is required in order for
the WUL to be issued then the Registered
I&APs would not have been able to review the
additional information and the Environmental
Authorisation (if issued) would not be aligned
with the WUL. Section 24(4) of NEMA calls
for the alignment of all environmental
applications and at present the requirement for
integrated decision-making is being
implemented by DEA&DP. Accordingly the
information submitted as part of the Basic
Assessment process should also be sufficient for
fulfilling the information of other environmental
applications (viz a viz the very likely WULA
which clearly it is not).
Where there is a requirement to
alter the proposed project design
due to the findings of the WULA,
these changes would be presented
to DEA&DP to confirm whether an
Application to Amend
Environmental Authorisation (if
issued) would be necessary.
2.3. Insufficient
information
Certain important information is lacking in the
application and this also presents a flaw. In
terms of the layout and design of the proposed
development no estimate of the development
footprint is presented in the Draft BAR and the
As noted in Section 7.2, no detailed
information pertaining to the
building footprint of future houses
is required as this application
related to the proposed subdivision
-
Proposed Subdivision of Erf 177476, St James, Cape Town
SLR Consulting (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd Comments Report
37
NO. ISSUE NAME METHOD COMMENT RESPONSE
Khula
Environmental
Consultants – Nick
Steytler on behalf
of Kevin Hodgson
and Karl and Gina
Leinberger
�= E-mail
dated
6 February
2019
Site Layout Plan presented in Appendix B of the
Draft BAR does not show building footprints.
No plan is included in the Draft BAR which
presents a map of the environmental
sensitivities of the site with an overlay of the
layout of the proposed development. This is a
specified requirement as per Appendix 1 of
Regulation 3 of GN No. R326 of the NEMA
EIA Regulations 2014 (as amended).
The proposed engineered containment of the
seasonal watercourse on the eastern boundary of
the site (i.e. the proposed headwall, open and
of the erf. This information would
only be available if Environmental
Authorisation is granted for the
proposed subdivision and once
building plans have been
completed for each subdivided
portion for formal approval by the
City of Cape Town.
A plan showing the location of the
erf in relation to mapped Critical
Biodiversity Areas is provided in
Appendix D of the BAR. In
addition, Figure 10 of the Botanical
specialist assessment report shows
the location of intact and semi-
intact natural vegetation located on
the site and Figure 4 of the
freshwater assessment shows the
location of the seasonal
watercourse.
A cross-section of this
infrastructure was included in
Figure 3 of the Engineering
Services Report (see Appendix
-
Proposed Subdivision of Erf 177476, St James, Cape Town
SLR Consulting (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd Comments Report
38
NO. ISSUE NAME METHOD COMMENT RESPONSE
closed culverts) is associated with potentially
significant environmental impacts yet no
engineering drawings of these structures are
presented for scrutiny.
Due to the nature of the receiving environment
and also the requirement for a Heritage Impact
Assessment where a key concern is the potential
visual impact information allowing for the
satisfactory assessment of visual impacts is
necessary. However upon review of the
specialist VIA and the Draft BAR it is evident
that no elevation drawings or any 3D
impressions showing the visual appearance of
the developed site are included. This lack of
information undermines the credibility of the
VIA and is considered a significant limitation.
G5). The engineer has provided
additional detail flor the proposed
structure in the Stormwater
Management Plan appended to the
Services Report.
As no detailed information
pertaining to the building footprint
of future houses is required at the
time of the assessment, no 3D
impressions were prepared.
However, the Visual Impact
Assessment practitioner deemed
that sufficient information was
available to adequately assess the
potential visual impact of the
proposed project on sensitive
viewers. The implementation of
design guidelines for the future
residences (and the required
approvals of these residences in
terms of the HPOZ) was deemed to
be significant mitigation for any
potential visual impacts (refer to
Appendix G4).
-
Proposed Subdivision of Erf 177476, St James, Cape Town
SLR Consulting (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd Comments Report
39
NO. ISSUE NAME METHOD COMMENT RESPON