issue raised issue raised by whom project team … · claire saunders/peterson) colin hunt dean...

FINAL BAR PHASE COMMUNICATION (January – February 2011)

ISSUE RAISED ISSUE RAISED BY WHOM PROJECT TEAM RESPONSE

belt around the property will have a negative effect on the conservation area through brush cutting.

Home-owners on the natural interface zone must take equal responsibilities to firescape their properties.

Thus 10m within each property should be fire proofed using lawns, succulents or other suitable ground cover.

Fynbos must burn in summer to maintain its biodiversity.

A detailed plan indicating the location of the stream, flood lines, the buffer width of 30m and the property boundaries is required.

The plan must include the dimensioned width of the river corridor at regular intervals along the watercourse.

There is insufficient information in the BAR with regard to management of stormwater quality and quantity emanating from the proposed development.

Sufficient conceptual design and detail must be provided regarding the types, extent and location of the BMP’s to be used to comply with the requirements of the City’s Urban Stormwater Impacts Policy.

The 20 year flood line with residences outside the 100 year flood line as contained in the EMP does not align with the City’s Floodplain and River Corridor Management Policy.

The EMP refers to buffers, water quality standards and permeable surfacing without any specific detail.

The City requires sufficient conceptual detail to

FINAL BAR PHASE COMMUNICATION (January – February 2011)

ISSUE RAISED ISSUE RAISED BY WHOM PROJECT TEAM RESPONSE

ensure that the requirements of its Urban Stormwater Impacts Policy will be complied with.

REVISED FINAL BAR PHASE COMMUNICATION (July – August 2012)

ISSUE RAISED ISSUE RAISED BY

WHOM PROJECT TEAM RESPONSE DURING

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

PROJECT TEAM RESPONSE AFTER FURTHER INVESTIGATIONS AT REQUEST OF DEA&DP AND

CITY OF CAPE TOWN No comments were received. Adele Pretorius

Angel Kamp B Read Brett Nussey Cape Nature Carol Pym Carol Wiggett Chris Sparks Claire Saunders/Peterson) Colin Hunt Dean Byram Don Burgess Elizabeth Ann Cheyne Erika Brown Ian and Carlyn Adams J. Rumbelow Jacqui Boulle JL Robertson Joachim Eickhoff Johann Pretorius Jon Lown Lee Peterson Lindsey Bungartz Lindy Nauta Lyn Rattle Margreg Properties CC Mark Bowes Mark Pym Marné van der Westhuizen Mike van den Heever Mr. AW Badrodien






CITY OF CAPE TOWN Mr. G.S. van Heerden Mr. Jason van Antwerpen Mr. Rickus Gerber Mrs. Hadi Ertinger Mrs. Helena. M. Scheibe Ms Megan Adderall Ms. N E Shepherd Oliver Dods Paula West Paul and Jessica Hudson Prof. Susan Parnell Richard Tomlinson (Professor) Rodger & Michelle Rodger Watson & Michelle Harper-Watson Rosa Karp Samantha Urquhart Sandy Dobrin Solvej Vorster Steve Addison: Kerah Property Trust Stuart Heather-Clark Tim Szöke Tony Allan Tony van Staden Tracy Orione Uwe Bogl Yvonne Kamp

Requested to be registered as an I&AP.

Requested further information on the project.

Marvin Adriaans

Dean Botha Michael

Yolland Sue Haberman

SEC responded to all I&AP’s and advised the following: That they have been registered as an

I&AP. The I&APs were referred to the

registered stakeholder notification






CITY OF CAPE TOWN Anton

Cartwright Cullinan &

Associates Mike Downes Kerry Seymour Doug Carew Cindy Rodkin

letter which contained an Executive Summary of the procedure and findings of the Basic Assessment process, including specialist studies undertaken to inform the process, as well as details on the availability of the report.

Requested to be removed from the SEC registered stakeholder list as no longer residing in the area.

Gregory Belliers

Pepe Gee

SEC acknowledged receipt of the request and confirmed that the I&AP’s had been removed from the registered stakeholder list.

Requested confirmation of comments

Guy Baxter Katie

Cartwright Anton

Cartwright Paula Chipps Corne Dreyer Colleen Dreyer Sian Evans Hans Joerss Elke Losskarn John O’

Callaghan Michelle

Ludwig Pierre Van

Staden Hout Bay and

Llandudno Environmental

SEC acknowledged receipt of comments.






CITY OF CAPE TOWN Conservation Group: Richard Timms

Len Swimmer: Hout Bay Residents Association

Requested an extension on the commenting timeframe.

Vanessa Watson

Katie Cartwright

Cullinan & Associates

John O’Callaghan

Alexander Dierks

Hout Bay Residents and Ratepayers Association- Len Swimmer

Andrew McNulty

Cullinan and Associates

SEC acknowledged receipt of the comment.

Deadline was extended by 20 days.

Request for electronic copies of the BAR and Appendices or a link to the website where the Report and the Appendices may be downloaded from.

Michael Dabrowski

Colleen Dreyer Maya Fischer-

French

The link to the SEC website was provided.

SEC clarified that CD copies of the BAR and associated appendices were placed at the Hout Bay Library as well as with Len Swimmer of the Hout Bay Residents Association.






CITY OF CAPE TOWN Request for the contact

details of DEA&DP the project town planner.

Colleen & Corne Dreyer

The contact details of the current case officer (Mr. Rueben Molale), the previous case officer (Ms. Tammy Christie) and the project town planner (Mr. Paul van Wyk) were provided.

General objection to the proposed development taking place.

Gavin Liddle Raymond

Hartley Sian and

Matthew Evans

The I&APs’ objection is placed on record.

Query regarding what the proposed layout of the proposed access routes will be.

Colleen Dreyer

The I&AP was referred to the Basic Assessment Report and appended documents, particularly Appendix H as well as the summary of the “findings and recommendations” of the traffic engineers.

Objection to the use of Blue Valley Road as an access road as it will impact the existing residents in terms of potential increased traffic levels and related congestion, pollution, noise and safety (particularly for pedestrians and children).

Blue Valley is also considered to have too steep a gradient to accommodate increased traffic volume and also is considered unsafe due to road damage as a result of ground water seepage.

Bronchi Family Paula Chipps Lisa Krohn Dr Nick Kruger Brian Magid Stephen Martin Jenna Mervis Leonie Mervis Greg Nelson Mark Preen Jolyon &

Lindsay Robinson

Cindy Rodkin Bruce and

Concerns of the I&APs have been recorded.

Concerns regarding the use of Blue Valley as an access road have been raised in the past by neighboring residents and have been addressed in detail by the traffic engineers (ITS).

I&AP’s were referred to the Basic Assessment Report and Appended documents, particularly the traffic impact study by ITS as contained in Appendix H as well as the summary of the “findings and recommendations” of the traffic engineers contained within the Final BAR.






CITY OF CAPE TOWN Due to the fact that the Blue

Valley Road is not considered to be able to cope with the increased traffic, the proposal to provide access via Blue Valley is not desirable and an alternative access route is required.

Lorna Seymour Andrew

Shoredits Paul Stewart Tom Thring Michael

Yolland Sue Haberman Dain Hamilton Anton

Cartwright Katie

Cartwright Bokkemansklo

of Estate Home Owners Association

Alexander Dierks

Sian and Matthew Evans

Chris and Iona Everett

Fiona and Karl Heath

Luke and Lauren Hirst

Ingrid Kingon Tony van den

Breejen van den Bout

Hans Joerss

Comments and concerns raised as well as historical comments and responses provided by the engineers (ITS) will be submitted with the Final BAR to the DEA&DP for a decision.






CITY OF CAPE TOWN Elke Losskarn Tommy

Brummer (Town Planners)

Paul Stewart Tess Cowan Galen Hossack John

O’Callaghan Michelle

Ludwig Corne Dreyer Colleen Dreyer Residents’

Association Of Hout Bay: Len Swimmer

Guy Baxter Cullinan and

Associates Objection to the use of Birch

Lane as an access road as it is not considered suitable due to its steep gradient and small width, which will reduce the road to a single lane access point.

It is considered that the access road will be too small to accommodate the proposed parking and pedestrian walkways.

Jenna Mervis Leonie Mervis Bruce and

Lorna Seymour Pierre van

Staden Jane Surtees Anton

Cartwright Katie

Cartwright

Concerns of the I&AP’s have been recorded.

Objections to the use of Birch Lane as an access road have been raised in the past by neighboring residents and have been addressed in detail by ITS, the traffic engineers.

I&AP’s were referred to the Basic Assessment Report and Appended documents, particularly the ITS traffic impact study as contained in

Please refer to the ITS traffic study undertaken during November 2014. In order to investigate the access arrangements included in the preferred development layout, Layout Alternative 4: the use of Birch Lane as an access road to 29 households has been found to have acceptable impacts on the surrounding road network according to the traffic engineers, ITS.

Please also refer to the site layout plan for Layout Alternative 4, with accesses marked and contained in Appendix B.






CITY OF CAPE TOWN Not considered a suitable

road for high traffic flow. An alternative access route is

required.





Hans Joerss Elke Losskarn Tommy


John O’Callaghan

Michelle Ludwig

Residents’ Association Of Hout Bay: Len Swimmer


Associates

Appendix H as well as the summary of the “findings and recommendations” of the traffic engineers contained within the Final BAR.

Comments and concerns raised as well as historical comments and responses provided by the traffic engineers, ITS, will be submitted with the Final BAR to the DEA&DP for a decision.

Appendix E contains an email from the City of Cape Town’s transport planning department. The City does not object to the access arrangements included with the preferred development layout, Layout Alternative 4.

ITS stated that the width of Birch Road was not more than 9.45metres wide and may only be 6.6m wide in parts if measurements taken by the residents are to be taken as fact.

Updated comments from the


Comments have been noted. No response given – comments

submitted directly to the DEA&DP along with the Final BAR for a decision on 24/08/2012.

The matter of the required access road width has been dealt with at length in response to past comments by I&AP’s. Please refer to the ITS traffic studies contained in Appendix G of the amended Final BAR.

Please refer to the traffic study undertaken during November 2014 in order to investigate the access arrangements included in the preferred






CITY OF CAPE TOWN commenting authorities have not been obtained

As such, the City has commented on the development on the basis of incorrect information and the comment is thus not considered relevant.

development layout, Layout Alternative 4. The City of Cape Town’s transport planning department has no objection to the proposed development accesses. An email from the City (Mr Claude Madell,

Regional Co-ordinator: South Region) in this regard has been included in Appendix E of the amended Final BAR.

Objection to the use of Ash Lane as an access road as it is not considered suitable due to the small width of the road, the fact that there are no pavements, it would not be safe for children and pedestrians to use the road and it would impact on the Leopard Toads living at the end of the road.

An alternative access route is required and it must be made clear in the BAR which these are.

Tess Cowan Galen Hossack Guy Baxter Cullinan and

Associates

Concerns of the I&AP’s regarding the use of Ash Road as an access road have been recorded.

Comments and concerns raised will be submitted with the Final BAR to the DEA&DP for a decision.

Please refer to the ITS traffic study undertaken during November 2014, in order to investigate the access arrangements included in the preferred development layout, Layout Alternative 4: Ash Lane is not included as an access option for the development.

In addition, Section A (3) on Page 14 of the amended Final BAR contains a clear summary of the proposed development access.

Please also refer to the site layout plan for Layout Alternative 4, with accesses marked, contained in Appendix B.

Objection to the use of Rushia Lane as an access road as it is not considered suitable due to the small width of the road, the fact that there are no pavements and the road is considered to be a cul de sac.

Guy Baxter Concerns of the I&AP regarding the use of Rushia Lane as an access road have been recorded.


Please refer to the ITS traffic study undertaken during November 2014, in order to investigate the access arrangements included in the preferred development layout, Layout Alternative 4: Ruschia Lane is not included as an access option for the development.

In addition, Section A (3) on Page 14 of the amended Final BAR contains a clear summary of the proposed development access.

Please also refer to the site layout plan for Layout






CITY OF CAPE TOWN Alternative 4, with accesses marked, contained in Appendix B.

It is considered inappropriate

to use any of the “stub” roads (Birch, Ash, Conifer etc.) as access roads.


Associates

SEC acknowledged receipt of the comment: Concerns of the I&AP’s regarding the

use of the “stub” roads as access roads have been recorded.


The view that the traffic authorities always intended the stub lanes off Blue Valley to be used for access to erven comprising the site is not substantiated in the BAR.




Please refer to the detailed traffic studies contained in Appendix G to the amended Final BAR. The matter of historic township planning to allow access to Erf 2224 form Blue Valley Avenue to the east, has been addressed at some length.

A different and more realistic approach to the proposed development (including revised and genuine alternatives) is required to solve the multiple issues raised in the past relating to the existing proposals

Hout Bay and Llandudno Environmental Conservation Group: Richard Timms

Residents’ Association Of Hout Bay: Len Swimmer


Associates

SEC acknowledged receipt of the comment and responded as follows: The comments from the I&AP’s have

been recorded. Comments and concerns along with

all historical comments and concerns will be submitted with the Final BAR to DEA&DP.

The preferred development layout, Layout Alternative 4, has been formulated by the development planning team in response to the various key issues raised by the DEA&DP and by the City in response to the Final BAR of August 2012. The Executive Summary of the amended Final BAR touches on these key issues and the manner in which the preferred development layout has sought to address these. The Executive Summary of the amended Final BAR also contains a summary of alternatives investigated, whilst Section E on Pages 32 – 37 of the BAR contains a detailed investigation of alternatives.






CITY OF CAPE TOWN

Dorman Road (where the SPAR entrance is located) was suggested as an alternative access road to Blue Valley for the following reasons: The intersection at Dorman

Way has designated lanes for outbound vehicles to turn left or right.

Dorman Way is more formalised than Blue Valley with sidewalks, stormwater culverts and is tarred so better suited to accommodate pedestrians and heavy traffic.

The gradient of Dorman Way is not as steep as Blue Valley Avenue.

Access via Dorman Way would be a more logical approach in terms of layout and fewer vehicles would have to pass through the established residential neighborhood.

Dorman Road can also be linked to High level Road.

Dr Nick Kruger Jenna Mervis Leonie Mervis Sian and

Matthew Evans Luke and

Lauren Hirst Dr Nick Kruger Tommy


Tess Cowan Galen Hossack John


Ludwig Corne Dreyer Colleen Dreyer Residents’



Concerns of the I&AP’s have been recorded.

Concerns regarding the access roads have been raised in the past by neighboring residents have been addressed in detail by the traffic engineers.

I&AP’s were referred to the Basic Assessment Report and appended documents, particularly the traffic impact study as contained in Appendix H as well as the summary of the “findings and recommendations” of the traffic engineers contained within the Final BAR.

Comments and concerns raised as well as historical comments and responses provided by the engineers will be submitted with the Final BAR to the DEA&DP for a decision.

Please refer to the ITS traffic study undertaken during November 2014, which investigates the various development access options considered over the course of the planning phase of the development. The study also elaborates on why access via Dorman Way is not feasible, since such an access has not already been allowed for in the township planning for the area. A diagram of a hypothetical road alignment for development access via Dorman Way, as requested by the DEA&DP, has been included with the traffic study in Appendix G. The diagram illustrates the intrusion of the road onto private property and illustrates that such an access has not been allowed for in the township planning for the area.

The new “temporary” access road running to the south of the possible bypass can be connected to the top of Grotto Road instead of Blue Valley




Please refer to the new proposed development access arrangements, which are described in the November 2014 ITS traffic study contained in Appendix G of the amended Final BAR, as well as summarized in Section A (3) on Page 14 of the






CITY OF CAPE TOWN Avenue.

Rearrangement of the property boundaries would create access to the temporary access road which is in the long term interests of future landowners of these erven.

BAR. These access arrangements have been found by the traffic engineers to have acceptable impacts on the surrounding road network.

Please also refer to the City of Cape Town transport planning department’s email (Mr Claude Madell, Regional Co-ordinator: South Region) contained in Appendix G: the City does not object to the new proposed development access.

Access via Oakhurst Estate by a rearrangement of the erf boundaries and a crossing over the stream was suggested as a more feasible and reasonable access point for the proposed development as an alternative to Blue Valley Avenue.

Confirmation required as to why access cannot be obtained through Alan Dorman’s land on/adjacent to Oakhurst Estate.

Paula Chipps Jenna Mervis Leonie Mervis Hans Joerss Tommy


Paul Stewart Residents’



Associates

Regarding Mr. Alan Dorman’s role in the development proposal and associated suggestion that access for the development is planned via Dorman Way across land owned by Mr. Dorman, the I&AP’s were referred to a response provided by Mr Dorman in his capacity as neighbouring landowner. Mr Dorman’s appended correspondence clarified that he has no role in the development of Erf 2224, and that the owners of Erf 2224 (i.e. the applicant) have no right of access to Erf 2224 across land owned by Mr Dorman.

SEC also referred I&AP’s to the Basic Assessment Report and appended documents, particularly the Traffic Impact Statement (TIS).

The TIS states that the site does not abut Dorman Way and the applicant

The suggestion for access across Mr Alan Dorman’s private land from Oakhurst Estate has been noted. However, please refer to the ITS traffic access study undertaken during November 2014, which includes traffic engineering input on the various access alternatives investigated over the course of the development planning process. The study also includes a review of the access arrangements included with the new preferred development layout, referred to as Layout Alternative 4 in the amended Final BAR. The new preferred development layout, Layout Alternative 4, includes the proposal for development access off several of the lanes coming off Blue Valley Avenue. Please refer to the ITS traffic study contained in Appendix G of the amended Final BAR for full details; as well as to the site development plan for Layout Alternative 4 contained in Appendix B; and to Section A (3) on of the amended Final BAR. The requirement to revisit possible development access from these various lanes was communicated






CITY OF CAPE TOWN has no right, title or interest in the neighbouring property west of Erf 2224 known as Oakhurst Estate. The applicant also has no authority to impose any conditions on or utilise this property as an access route. Similarly, the owner of the aforesaid neighbouring property has no ownership rights in Erf 2224.

Concerns regarding the access roads

have been raised in the past by neighboring residents have been addressed in detail by the traffic engineers.


by the DEA&DP in response to the submission of the Final BAR during October 2012. The requirement to clarify whether access via Dorman Way is feasible by means of access diagrams was also communicated. The November 2014 TIS traffic study found that the proposed development access (via lanes coming off Blue Valley Avenue), is acceptable from the perspective of associated impacts on the surrounding road network. The City of Cape Town’s transport planning department has no objection to the proposed access. Please refer to the City’s email contained in Appendix E of the amended Final BAR. The study also elaborates on why access via Dorman Way is not feasible, since such an access has not already been allowed for in the township planning for the area. A diagram of a hypothetical road alignment for development access via Dorman Way, as requested by the DEA&DP, has been included with the traffic study in Appendix G. The diagram illustrates the intrusion of the road onto private property and illustrates that such an access has not been allowed for in the township planning for the area.

Confirmation required on the following to ensure transparency in the proposed development: Relationship of Mr. Dorman

and the applicants’ Scher and Derman

Alan Dorman’s role in the

Guy Baxter Regarding Mr. Alan Dorman’s role in the development proposal, the I&AP was referred to a response provided by Mr Dorman in his capacity as neighbouring landowner.

Mr Dorman’s appended correspondence






CITY OF CAPE TOWN proposed development (if any)

clarified that he has no role in the development of Erf 2224, and that the owners of Erf 2224 (i.e. the applicant) have no right of access to Erf 2224 across land owned by Mr Dorman.

The final proposed access roads need to be clearly outlined in the BAR and need to be clearly explained to the adjacent residents




Please refer to the summary of the development access arrangements included in the preferred development layout, Layout Alternative 4, which is contained in Section A (3) on Page 14 of the amended Final BAR.

Please also refer to the site layout plans for Layout Alternative 4, which are contained in Appendix B of the BAR.

The conclusions of the ITS Traffic Impact Assessment attached with the Final BAR differ to the conclusions of the Kantey & Templar Report commissioned by the residents as well as the Tommy Brummer Report and the discrepancies have not been addressed by the EAP.

The Traffic Impact Assessment does not adequately address the traffic related concerns of the residents, does not adequately address all traffic related issues raised by Tommy Brummer (Town Planners), gives no evidence

Katie Cartwright




Dr Nick Kruger Elke Losskarn Tommy


Paul Stewart Guy Baxter Tess Cowan Galen Hossack

SEC acknowledged receipt of the comment: Concerns of the I&AP’s have been

recorded. Concerns regarding the traffic impact

assessment have been raised in the past by neighboring residents and have been addressed in detail by the traffic engineers.

I&APs were referred to the Basic Assessment Report and appended documents, particularly the traffic impact study as contained in Appendix H as well as the summary of the “findings and recommendations” of the traffic engineers contained within the Final BAR.

Comments and concerns raised as

The requirement to revisit possible development access alternatives was communicated by the DEA&DP in response to the submission of the Final BAR during October 2012. The November 2014 ITS traffic study found that the proposed development access (via lanes coming off Blue Valley Avenue), is acceptable from the perspective of associated impacts on the surrounding road network. The City of Cape Town’s transport planning department (Mr Claude Madell, Regional Co-ordinator: South Region) has no objection to the proposed access. Please refer to the City’s email contained in Appendix E of the amended Final BAR.






CITY OF CAPE TOWN of an on-site visit and in some instance bases the report on incorrect/ irrelevant outdated information (including the road sizes in the area).

In some instances, the concerns and issues raised by the I&AP’s have been ignored entirely.

No alternative access solutions are considered as required as per Regulation 22 (2) (h) of NEMA EIA Regulations (2010).

John O’Callaghan

Michelle Ludwig

Corne Dreyer Colleen Dreyer Cullinan and

Associates

well as historical comments and responses provided by the engineers will be submitted with the Final BAR to the DEA&DP for a decision.

ITS appears to have been selective in its incorporation of the principles as contained in the “Manual for Streets” and numerous principles therein have been neglected to be incorporated into the report.

No evidence is presented of ITS applying these principles.




Please be advised that the City of Cape Town’s transport planning department has no objection to the development access arrangements contained in the preferred development layout, Layout Alternative 4. Please refer to the email from the City contained in Appendix E.

The traffic impact assessment does not include the requirement for public transport facilities.

Proof that this will be included needs to be provided by the developer for the I&APs’ review.

Katie Cartwright

Tommy Brummer (Town Planners)

John O’Callaghan

Michelle


recorded. Concerns regarding the traffic impact

assessment have been raised in the past by neighboring residents have been addressed in detail by the traffic engineers.






CITY OF CAPE TOWN Ludwig


I&AP was referred to the Basic Assessment Report and appended documents, particularly the traffic impact study as contained in Appendix H (including the recommendation for bus lay bys on the Main Road in the vicinity of the Blue Valley Avenue intersection) as well as the summary of the “findings and recommendations” of the traffic engineers contained within the Final BAR.


The proposed development indicates little to no evidence of contribution to upgrading of the road intersections or the inclusion of traffic circles.

Proof that this will be included needs to be provided by the developer for the I&APs’ review.



Concerns regarding traffic infrastructure developments have been addressed by the various specialists in the Final Basic Assessment Report and detailed Comments and Responses Report, as well as additional specialist input obtained and appended to Appendix H.

Comments and concerns, along with all historical comments received and responses provided by the project team and specialists will be submitted along with the Final Assessment Report to the DEA&DP for decision-making purposes.






CITY OF CAPE TOWN Failure to include the report

compiled by Tommy Brummer Associates in the Final BAR.


No response given – comments submitted directly to the DEA&DP along with the Final BAR for a decision on 24/08/2012.

It should be noted that the letter compiled by Tommy Brummer Town Planners was included in the public participation appendix, Appendix E, to the revised Final BAR, since the letter was received as part of public participation. The issues raised in the letter were dealt with in the revised Final BAR, both in the content of the BAR, as well as in the Traffic Impact Statement and Comments and Responses Report.

Failure of the EAP to respond in a meaningful manner to the Kantey & Templar Report and failure to consider the Tommy Brummer Associates Report as well as failure to record these in the Final BAR constitutes non-compliance with the EIA Regulations, 2010.



The Kantey and Templar engineering opinion was included in Appendix H of the revised Final BAR, along with other specialist input received. The letter compiled by Tommy Brummer Town Planners was included in the public participation appendix, Appendix E, to the revised Final BAR, since the letter was received as part of public participation. The issues raised in the letter and the engineering opinion were dealt with in the revised Final BAR, both in the content of the BAR, as well as in the Traffic Impact Statement and Comments and Responses Report.

Recommend that DEA&DP do not approve the ‘gated development’ as this is the cause of the road access concerns raised by the existing residents.

If the development was not


Len Swimmer:


recorded. Concerns regarding development

access, etc. have been addressed by the various specialists in the Final

The new preferred development layout, Layout Alternative 4, includes the proposal for development access off several of the lanes coming off Blue Valley Avenue. Please refer to the traffic study contained in Appendix G of the amended Final BAR for full details; as well as to the site development plan for Layout Alternative 4 contained in Appendix B; and to Section






CITY OF CAPE TOWN gated, traffic could filter into the surrounding residential fabric and then would not impact on any one street specifically and would not impact the current residents so severely.

Hout Bay Residents Association

Basic Assessment Report and detailed Comments and Responses Report, as well as additional specialist input obtained and appended to Appendix H.


A (3) on Page 14 of the amended Final BAR. The requirement to revisit possible development access from these various lanes was communicated by the DEA&DP in response to the submission of the Final BAR during October 2012. The requirement to clarify whether access via Dorman Way is feasible by means of access diagrams was also communicated. The November 2014 ITS traffic study found that the proposed development access (via lanes coming off Blue Valley Avenue), is acceptable from the perspective of associated impacts on the surrounding road network. The City of Cape Town’s transport planning department has no objection to the proposed access. Please refer to the City’s email contained in Appendix E of the amended Final BAR.

Strong disagreement to the view that the traffic impacts of the development can be satisfactorily mitigated by sharing the access load between Birch Road and other small lanes parallel to it, and with Dorman Road.



The objection to shared access to the development via several of the lanes coming off Blue Valley Avenue is recorded. However, please refer to the ITS traffic access study undertaken during November 2014, which includes traffic engineering input on the various access alternatives investigated over the course of the development planning process. The study also includes a review of the access arrangements included with the new preferred development layout, referred to as Layout Alternative 4 in the amended Final BAR. The new preferred development layout, Layout






CITY OF CAPE TOWN Alternative 4, includes the proposal for development access off several of the lanes coming off Blue Valley Avenue. Please refer to the traffic study contained in Appendix G of the amended Final BAR for full details; as well as to the site development plan for Layout Alternative 4 contained in Appendix B; and to Section A (3) on Page 14 of the amended Final BAR. The requirement to revisit possible development access from these various lanes was communicated by the DEA&DP in response to the submission of the Final BAR during October 2012. The requirement to clarify whether access via Dorman Way is feasible by means of access diagrammes was also communicated. The November 2014 ITS traffic study found that the proposed development access (via lanes coming off Blue Valley Avenue), is acceptable from the perspective of associated impacts on the surrounding road network. The City of Cape Town’s transport planning department has no objection to the proposed access. Please refer to the City’s email contained in Appendix E of the amended Final BAR. The study also elaborates on why access via Dorman Way is not feasible, since such an access has not already been allowed for in the township planning for the area. A diagram of a hypothetical road alignment for development access via Dorman Way, as requested by the DEA&DP, has been included with the traffic study in Appendix G. The diagram illustrates the intrusion of the road onto private






CITY OF CAPE TOWN property and illustrates that such an access has not been allowed for in the township planning for the area.

The following documentation is required for the public’s perusal and consideration: The design plans, evaluation

reports, comparative assessments and detailed conclusions in respect of each of the alternatives for accessing the proposed development reflecting reasons why each alternative was deemed “not reasonable” and/or “not feasible”.

Access to the reports “Urban Transport Guidelines”, “Guidelines for the Provision of Engineering Services in Residential Townships” and “Transport Research Laboratory’s Report 661”.

Various road and authority guidelines and standards.

Guy Baxter SEC acknowledged receipt of the comment and responded as follows: Regarding the various documents

which the traffic engineers used as reference for their design of the proposed development access, SEC also does not have access to these documents.

SEC has summarised information provided by the specialist traffic engineers.

The concern of the I&AP that direct review of these documents was not possible is recorded.

The DEA&DP will consider this during their decision-making process.

Please note that a November 2014 traffic study was undertaken by ITS Engineers, which includes a more detailed investigation of the various access alternatives considered during the development planning process. Please refer to Appendix G of the amended Final BAR. With regards to the various guidelines referred to by the traffic engineers during the course of their investigations, these will be sent on a CD to Mr Baxter during the review period for the amended Final BAR (March-April 2015).

Concern that construction vehicles and heavy vehicles will struggle to gain access via the proposed access roads due to the size, angle and steep gradient of these roads.

Michael Chaimowitz

Paula Chipps Brain Magid Jolyon &

Lindsay Robinson


recorded. Concerns regarding vehicle access

have been raised in the past by neighboring residents have been






CITY OF CAPE TOWN Given the size of the

proposed access roads, they are unlikely to accommodate these vehicles without endangering private property and causing inconvenience to home owners.

When construction vehicles utilise the roads, due to their size they will most likely block the roads resulting in a traffic hazard, danger to the pedestrians and increased traffic congestion and emissions.

Andrew Shoredits



Hans Joerss Corne Dreyer Colleen Dreyer

addressed in detail by the traffic engineers.



Strongly oppose any construction activity or work and/or delivery into or out of the site occurring before 07h30 or after 17h00 on any weekday, or before 08h30 or after 12h00 on any Saturdays or at any time on Sundays and/or public and religious holidays.

Guy Baxter SEC acknowledged receipt of the comment and responded as follows: The comments from the I&AP have



Adherence to local authority working hours is included as a condition of the EMPr: Condition 3.1(g).

Objection to the construction of the high level bypass road.

The traffic report assumes that the high level bypass road will be developed and as such Blue Valley and Birch Road would not be

Cindy Rodkin Alexander

Dierks Luke and

Lauren Hirst Paul Stewart John


recorded. Concerns regarding the access roads

have been raised in the past by neighboring residents have been

The traffic study undertaken during April 2012 by ITS Engineers states as follows on Page 3: “It is expected that the future bypass road will have an effect on the traffic pattern in the site vicinity. However, due to the uncertainty regarding the time frame for the construction of this road it was not






CITY OF CAPE TOWN ‘temporary’ access roads.

No attempt has been made to assess the possibility that the bypass may not be built.

This assumption and the reliance of the traffic engineers that it will be built is incorrect as no EIA process has been undertaken to date for this.


Ludwig Guy Baxter Cullinan and

Associates

addressed in detail by the traffic engineers.



included in this analysis. Furthermore, it is our opinion that the current scenario with all the traffic via Blue Valley Avenue represents a worst-case scenario and should the bypass road be built, the road network in the site vicinity will operate at better levels-of-service”. Please refer to the traffic study contained in Appendix G.

Objection to the construction of houses within the vicinity of the by-pass road as it will compromise the area where the future road should run should it be constructed.

Hard development should be limited to below the proposed by-pass road reserve.



recorded. Concerns regarding development

above the by-pass road have been addressed by the various specialists in the Final Basic Assessment Report and detailed Comments and Responses Report, as well as additional specialist input obtained and appended to Appendix H.

Comments and concerns, along with all historical comments received and responses provided by the project team and specialists will be submitted along with the Final Assessment

The project planning team, including traffic engineers, town planner and civils engineers, have considered the possibility of the bypass road being constructed in the future. Hard development as reflected in the preferred layout alternative contained in the current development proposal, Layout Alternative 4, has been informed by feedback from the City of Cape Town, SANParks and the DEA&DP. This is with respect to the interface between the development and the natural surrounding mountainside. The City of Cape Town’s bulk services departments have also provided feedback on the development proposal, indicating that they are satisfied in principle with the services and access arrangements






CITY OF CAPE TOWN Report to the DEA&DP for decision-making purposes.

associated with Layout Alternative 4. There is thus no reason for the development footprint to differ from that proposed in the preferred development layout, Layout Alternative 4. Please refer to the Executive Summary contained in the amended Final BAR, which highlights the key issues which were considered in the formulation of Layout Alternative 4. Please refer to the approvals in principle obtained from the City of Cape Town with regards to bulk engineering services and provision and access arrangements, contained in Appendix E. Please refer to the site layout plan for layout Alternative 4, as contained in Appendix B.

Concern that as a result of the proposed development, the value of the existing properties will decrease.



Tess Cowan Galen Hossack



The matter of possible impact of the development on property values was raised and addressed during prior phases of public participation. Please refer to the project town planner’s input in this regard, contained in Appendix G of the amended Final BAR.

Concern regarding safety and security as a result of the potential increases in night crime.

Concern that the existing security will not have the capacity to cope.

The Bronchi Family



Breejen van

SEC acknowledged receipt of the comment: Concerns of the I&APs have been

recorded. Concerns regarding the security have

been raised in the past by neighboring residents have been addressed in






CITY OF CAPE TOWN den Bout


detail by the project team. I&AP was referred to the Basic

Assessment Report and appended documents

Comments and concerns raised as well as historical comments and responses provided by the project team will be submitted with the Final BAR to the DEA&DP for a decision.

Concern that there will be an increase in solid waste produced and additional rubbish bins stacked outside the properties




recorded. Regarding the design of solid waste

management facilities, the I&AP was referred to the City of Cape Town’s “New Development: Minimum Requirements for Vehicle Access/Waste Collections” and “Waste/Recycling Storage Areas/Rooms: Standards and Guidelines” documents of 14/08/2006 that have been included in the EMP attached as part of Appendix F of the BAR.

Comments and concerns along with all historical comments and concerns will be submitted with the Final BAR to DEA&DP.

The land earmarked for the proposed development has been neglected, is extensively covered by alien


SEC acknowledged receipt of the comment: Concerns of the I&AP has been

recorded.






CITY OF CAPE TOWN vegetation and compromises the environmental integrity of the area.

It is recommended that the alien vegetation should be cleared by the land owner as soon as possible by the landowner prior to the development plan even being considered for approval.

New home owners must maintain the land thereafter

Concerns regarding the alien vegetation have been addressed by the various specialists in the Final Basic Assessment Report and detailed Comments and Responses Report, as well as additional specialist input obtained and appended to Appendix H.


The application for the proposed development should be kept separate from the process of clearing invasive alien vegetation.


SEC acknowledged receipt of the comment: Concerns of the I&AP has been

recorded. Concerns regarding the alien

vegetation have been addressed by the various specialists in the Final Basic Assessment Report and detailed Comments and Responses Report, as well as additional specialist input obtained and appended to Appendix H.

Comments and concerns, along with all historical comments received and responses provided by the project team and specialists will be submitted along with the Final Assessment Report to the DEA&DP for decision-

The applicant has advised that alien vegetation clearing has commenced again during 2015.






CITY OF CAPE TOWN making purposes.

Concern that the proposed development will hinder access to the areas of the mountain that are covered in alien vegetation thereby making the removal of this vegetation difficult and increasing the fire risk with time.



SEC acknowledged receipt of the comment and responded as follows: The comments from the I&AP have

been recorded. Regarding fire management, the I&AP

was referred to the Fire Management Plan as contained within the EMP in Appendix F of the BAR.

Comments and concerns along with all historical comments and concerns will be submitted with the Final BAR to DEA&DP.

The Fire Management Plan has subsequently been updated to ensure that not only the recommendations of the Cape Peninsula Fire Protection Association are met, but also the recommendations contained in the City of Cape Town’s Veldfire Related Planning Guidelines, 2004.

Residents should have access to the proposed development via more than one access route in the case of fire, landslide or flood.

Tom Thring Tommy



recorded. Concerns regarding the access roads

have been raised in the past by neighboring residents have been addressed in detail by the traffic engineers.


Comments and concerns raised as well as historical comments and

The development access arrangements, as well as the treatment of the southern development boundary with the natural mountainside beyond, have been addressed in the preferred development layout, Layout Alternative 4. The Fire Management Plan also speaks to access to the mountainside and measures for inhibiting mountainside fires from spreading ono the development and vice versa. Please refer to Appendix B and Appendix H of the amended Final BAR for the site layout plan and the Fire Management Plan respectively.






CITY OF CAPE TOWN responses provided by the engineers will be submitted with the Final BAR to the DEA&DP for a decision.

There is a requirement for a 20m firebreak between the development and the surrounding natural environment. No fire breaks have been identified in the proposal. If it is assumed this will be above the private land outside and above the urban edge (on National Park land), then it is difficult to see how the firebreaks will be accessed. The only side-road off Blue Valley Ave through which this firebreak could be accessed is Olinia Rd as this is the highest access point; hence any firebreak would need to align with this road.




A fire break which aligns with authority requirements has been included in the preferred development layout, Layout Alternative 4.

The Fire Management Plan also addresses in detail implementation and maintenance of a fire break.

Please refer to Appendix B and Appendix H of the amended Final BAR for the site layout plan and the Fire Management Plan respectively.

It is essential that the principles contained within the “Urban Edge Veldfire Guidelines” be taken into account in the BAR and EMP in order to prevent and combat the spread of veldfires and protect the neighborhoods.




The Fire Management Plan has subsequently been updated to ensure that not only the recommendations of the Cape Peninsula Fire Protection Association are met, but also the recommendations contained in the City of Cape Town’s Veldfire Related Planning Guidelines, 2004. Please refer to the Fire Management Plan contained in Appendix H.

The space between the CPPNE line and the By-Pass

Len Swimmer: Hout Bay

SEC acknowledged receipt of the comment:

A fire break which aligns with authority requirements has been included in the preferred






CITY OF CAPE TOWN Road Reserve should be designated as highest order Open Space to act as a natural fire buffer between the Park and the developed urban area.

Residents Association

Concerns of the I&AP has been recorded.

Concerns regarding the development above the CPPNE line have been addressed by the various specialists in the Final Basic Assessment Report and detailed Comments and Responses Report, as well as additional specialist input obtained and appended to Appendix H.


development layout, Layout Alternative 4. The Fire Management Plan also addresses in

detail implementation and maintenance of a fire break.

Please refer to Appendix B and Appendix H of the amended Final BAR for the site layout plan and the Fire Management Plan respectively.

The CPPNE area is considered a Protected Area in terms of the NEMPAA. The relevant authority must be consulted with regard to the implications of the proposed development within the CPPNE area.

Andrew Greenwood: City of Cape Town



recorded. Concerns regarding the development

above the CPPNE line have been addressed by the various specialists in the Final Basic Assessment Report and detailed Comments and Responses Report, as well as additional specialist input obtained and appended to Appendix H.

Comments and concerns, along with all historical comments received and responses provided by the project team and specialists will be submitted

The DEA&DP have advised that they will provide any feedback relative to development around the CPPNE line, when the decision on the development application is being made (Pers. Comm, Tammy Christie).






CITY OF CAPE TOWN along with the Final Assessment Report to the DEA&DP for decision-making purposes.

Recommend that DEA&DP do not approve the upper part of the development and instead limit development to below the CPPNE line.

Building in the CPPNE is strongly opposed.



SEC acknowledged receipt of the comment: Concerns of the I&APs have been

recorded. Concerns regarding the development

above the CPPNE line have been addressed by the various specialists in the Final Basic Assessment Report and detailed Comments and Responses Report, as well as additional specialist input obtained and appended to Appendix H.


Please refer to the “Letter Opinion in Response to Town Planning Considerations Raised by the DEA&DP, April 2014”, contained in Appendix G to the amended Final BAR. The letter opinion highlights that the number of dwellings situated beyond the CPPNE line has reduced significantly with the preferred development layout, namely Layout Alternative 4; and that any dwellings still situated above the line are situated either on or just above the line but no higher than that.

The City of Cape Town has developed draft guidelines for planning on the urban edge which recommend that there is a buffer inside the urban edge as well as outside it.

In the current plan housing developments extend right up to the urban edge and no such internal buffer has been allowed. It is present in the


Comments have been noted. No response given – comments submitted directly to the DEA&DP along with the Final BAR for a decision on 24/08/2012.

Please refer to the “Letter Opinion in Response to Town Planning Considerations Raised by the DEA&DP, April 2014”, contained in Appendix G to the amended Final BAR. The letter opinion highlights that with the preferred development layout, Layout Alternative 4, there is no longer any development on slopes steeper than 1:4. This has resulted in there being no hard development along the urban edge.






CITY OF CAPE TOWN form of a strip of ‘private open space’ on the outside of the urban edge.

If the guidelines are considered to be unnecessary then reason should be provided as to why the development should be exempt from the guideline.

The gradient is particularly steep above and below the contour line which demarcates the urban edge. A buffer of open space inside the edge and on the down-hill side of it will reduce run-off from the development as a whole and allow for a more gentle transition from urban to mountainside.

Please refer to Section 3.1, “Topographical Constraints”, contained in the letter opinion.

The option of including the balance of land above the development footprint into the existing SANParks contractual management servitude must be investigated.




Beyond the development footprint on Erf 2224 lie the following natural areas: a. An approximately 9ha open space area just

south of the development footprint, which is too steep and too ecologically sensitive to develop; and

b. An approximately 48.28ha area adjacent to the Table Mountain National Park, which is currently being managed by SANParks in terms of the National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act. The area is being managed in accordance with a long term management






CITY OF CAPE TOWN agreement between the landowner and SANParks.

The management agreement for this area allows for extension of the area subject to written agreement by both parties. The inclusion of the 9ha open space area into the contracted area managed by SANParks is supported by both SANParks and the landowner, All management details relating to the expansion of the management area, is to be further discussed between the landowner and SANParks.

Require that the land above the designated Urban Edge line and upper portion of Erf 224 is donated to SANParks and managed by Table Mountain National Parks in perpetuity.






Beyond the development footprint on Erf 2224 lie the following natural areas: a. An approximately 9ha open space area just

south of the development footprint, which is too steep and too ecologically sensitive to develop; and

b. An approximately 48.28ha area adjacent to the Table Mountain National Park, which is currently being managed by SANParks in terms of the National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act. The area is being managed in accordance with a long term management agreement between the landowner and SANParks.

The management agreement for this area allows for






CITY OF CAPE TOWN extension of the area subject to written agreement by both parties. The inclusion of the 9ha open space area into the contracted area managed by SANParks is supported by both SANParks and the landowner, All management details relating to the expansion of the management area, is to be further discussed between the landowner and SANParks.

Objection to the development of the area above the pipe track.

Concern that the portion of the development that is above the pipe track will exceed the scale of the Bokkemanskloof portion above Fynbos close.

Development above the pipe track should be limited and the height of the proposed development should be no higher than the houses located on Fynbos Close

Andrew Shoredits

Brian Magid Mark Preen Hout Bay and

Llandudno Environmental Conservation Group: Richard Timms


SEC acknowledged receipt of the comment: The concerns regarding the

development above the pipe track have been recorded.

Similar concerns have been raised in the past and have addressed by the project team and town planner during the course of the project.

The I&AP’s were referred to the “memorandum response” as contained in Appendix H of the BAR.


Concern that the portion of the development proposed for above the “pipe track” upper road will impact the cyclists and runners using the area as a safe access to Hout Bay on a daily basis.

Mark Preen SEC acknowledged receipt of the comment: The concerns regarding the

development above the “pipe track” have been recorded.

Similar concerns have been raised in the past and have addressed by the project team and town planner during






CITY OF CAPE TOWN the course of the project.

I&AP was referred to the “memorandum response” as contained in Appendix H of the BAR.


The suggestion by the developer to use the land in the vicinity of the urban edge for vineyard purposes is opposed.


SEC acknowledged receipt of the comment: Concerns of the I&AP have been

recorded. Concerns regarding the proposed

vineyard have been addressed by the various specialists in the Final Basic Assessment Report and detailed Comments and Responses Report, as well as additional specialist input obtained and appended to Appendix H.


The preferred development layout alternative, Layout Alternative 4, does not contain any provision for a vineyard. In addition, all areas along the interface between the development and the natural mountainside are subject to restrictions as explained in Section 3.1, “Topographical Constraints”, of the “Letter Opinion in Response to Town Planning Considerations Raised by the DEA&DP, April 2014”, contained in Appendix G to the amended Final BAR.

The proposed development should preserve the ambiance of the area and protect the wetland and riverine corridor.

Hout Bay and Llandudno Environmental Conservation Group: Richard



Please refer to the amended Final BAR. There is detailed discussion of layout alternatives and the treatment of valuable freshwater features on the site, as well as the maintenance of the character and aesthetic value of the area.






CITY OF CAPE TOWN The river corridor should be

designated as Public Open Space.

Timms Len Swimmer:



The development layout and any design restrictions have been informed by specialist input, as well as authority feedback.

Concern regarding the impact of the proposed development and access roads on the existing flora and fauna particularly the smaller animals such as the Leopard Toad and the Owls


Brian Magid The Bronchi

Family Tess Cowan Galen Hossack City of Cape

Town: Andrew Greenwood

Corne Dreyer Colleen Dreyer Cullinan and

Associates


recorded. Concerns regarding the flora and

fauna have been raised in the past by neighboring residents have been addressed in detail by the project team.

I&AP was referred to the Basic Assessment Report and appended documents


Concern that the Western Leopard Toad study did not ensure adequate assessment of the prevalence and behavior of Western Leopard Toads in the area.

In the absence of proper assessment of the species, the precautionary approach must be implemented.

A further, more





Please refer to an additional assessment of Western Leopard Toad habitat and the potential impacts of the development on the habitat, which was undertaken in consideration of the preferred development layout, Layout Alternative 4. The assessment was undertaken during September 2014. Please refer to Appendix G of the amended Final BAR. All recommendations for preventing unacceptable impacts on Western Leopard Toads and their habitat have been included in the EMPr to govern all phases






CITY OF CAPE TOWN comprehensive study is recommended.

Effective implementation of all mitigation measures are critical and should be ensured.

of the development.

Concern regarding the appropriateness of the proposed development given that the peacefulness and ‘natural state’ of the area as well as the character of the existing neighborhood would be disturbed.

The Bronchi Family

Dain Hamilton Tommy



SEC acknowledged receipt of the comment: The concerns regarding the

appropriateness of the proposed development have been noted.

The concerns regarding the appropriateness of the proposed development have been raised in the past by neighboring residents and have been addressed by the project town planners during the course of the project.

I&AP’s were referred to the Appendix E for a detailed response from the town planners addressing the issue.

Comments and concern raised as well as historical comments and responses provided by the project team will be submitted with the Final BAR to the DEA&DP for a decision.

The Rehabilitation Plan (which should include a section on alien vegetation management) for the riverine area and its associated ecological buffer, the wetland and its associated ecological


Len Swimmer: Hout Bay Residents


Please refer to the Rehabilitation Plan for the Riverine Corridor and Adjacent Natural Areas: Erven A/8343 and R/2224, Hout Bay, contained in Appendix H of the amended Final BAR.






CITY OF CAPE TOWN buffer, as well as the area above the Urban Edge line up to the SANParks Contractual Management Servitude boundary and any other relevant areas outside the development footprint is required and must be submitted to approval by the City of Cape Town prior to building plan approval.

Association

The ecological buffer and development setback line must be implemented as 30 metres from the top of the bank on either side of all watercourses.

This must be specified clearly in the reports.



In consultation with the freshwater specialist and the City of Cape Town (emailed correspondence with Ms Suretha Dorse, dated 14 – 28/05/2014), 30m buffers have been implemented around the Bokkemanskloof River corridor and associated wetland. 20m buffers have been implemented along the two tributaries to the Bokkemanskloof River that run across the site.

These buffers are reflected in the preferred development layout, Layout Alternative 4, as shown in the site development plans contained in Appendix B of the amended Final BAR.

The new residential development should integrate harmoniously (physically and socially) and sustainably into the existing residential fabric without antagonizing local communities or compromising the Public or the local infrastructure.


Comments have been noted.

No impermeable boundary Andrew Comments have been noted. This requirement has been included in the EMPr






CITY OF CAPE TOWN treatments must be used for internal and external boundary treatments.

Palisade fencing would be ideal with planting of appropriate indigenous hedge forming shrubs to ensure privacy where required.

Greenwood: City of Cape Town


under Western Leopard Toad management measures. Please refer to Appendix H of the amended Final BAR.

The revisions made to the Final BAR do not fully address or alleviate the concerns of the adjacent property owners and as such it is considered that the issues raised have not been resolved or addressed satisfactorily.

No alternative solutions are considered as required as per Regulation 22 (2) (h) of NEMA EIA Regulations (2010).

In some instances, the concerns and issues raised by the I&AP’s have been ignored entirely.




Elke Losskarn Tommy




Ludwig Len Swimmer:


The amended Final BAR and associated documents (EMPr, Rehabilitation Plan, Fire Management Plan, updated specialist studies considering the preferred development layout, Layout Alternative 4) seek to provide a thorough investigation of alternatives to address concerns raised, primarily by the DEA&DP and the City of Cape Town. Please refer to the Executive Summary of the amended Final BAR, which details the key issues raised, and the alternatives investigation undertaken to try and address these concerns. The current development proposal contains a preferred layout alternative, Layout Alternative 4, which considers the issues raised to date.






CITY OF CAPE TOWN Cullinan and

Associates It is felt that the Final BAR is

deeply flawed with respect to the assessment to traffic impacts and does not comply with the requirements of NEMA, the EIA Regulations (2010) or even the EIA Regulations (2006).

The Final BAR, if submitted to the competent authority, falls to be rejected in terms of regulation 24 of the EIA Regulations, 2010.

Even if not rejected, the competent authority must refuse the application on the basis that the BAR does not form a proper basis for a decision by the competent authority.




At every stage of the public participation process, the traffic engineers have provided feedback to the issues and concerns raised by neighbouring residents. The feedback rested on factors such as relevant authority design guidelines for roads, as well as the City roads authority having no objection to the access proposals made for the development to date. However, the DEA&DP in their rejection of the Final BAR submission of September 2012, agreed that the investigation of access alternatives was insufficiently communicated to I&AP’s. As such, please refer to the amended Final BAR for a detailed investigation of the various access alternatives considered over the course of the development planning process. The traffic study undertaken during November 2014 by ITS, which considers the access arrangements included in the preferred development layout, Layout Alternative 4, also includes an investigation of alternative access options. Please refer to Appendix G of the amended Final BAR for the updated traffic study.

It is felt that further research and evaluation needs to be conducted, preferably by a qualified independent traffic engineering and planning expert who has no


Associates

Comments have been noted.






CITY OF CAPE TOWN connection to the developer.

It is not clear in the BAR whether the landowner received confirmation from the Department of Agriculture regarding whether the land is no longer viable for agriculture and whether the land owner received consent to subdivide the land in terms of the Subdivision of Agricultural Land Act 70 of 1970.



Erven A/8343 and R/2224, Hout Bay (the development site) are not zoned for agricultural purposes, but have subdivisional zoning. Please refer to the letter form the City of cape Town in this regard, contained in Appendix e of the amended Final BAR.

Concern that the public participation process has been inadequately undertaken in terms of timeframes given to the residents to comment, the lack of placement of site notices and the lack of clear communication regarding the proposed development thereby meaning that the public have been unable to participate meaningfully and thus the public participation falls short of the legislative requirements.

Katie Cartwright

Anton Cartwright




Ludwig Corne Dreyer Colleen Dreyer Guy Baxter Cullinan and

Associates

SEC acknowledged receipt of the comment: Concerns of the I&AP’s were

recorded The I&AP’s were referred to the

record of public participation as contained in Appendix E of the Report.

Comments and concerns as well as all historical comments received will be submitted along with the Final Basic Assessment Report to the DEA&DP for a decision.

Comments and objections were omitted from the Final

Corne Dreyer Colleen Dreyer

SEC has confirmed that the comment referred to was acknowledged as

Detailed comments from Mr and Mrs Dreyer were received by SEC on 14/01/2011 and 20/01/2011. These comments were included in the public






CITY OF CAPE TOWN BAR circulated for public participation.


received by SEC in the past, and the issues raised in the possibly excluded comment were responded to in the Comments and Responses Report and by the traffic engineers in their feedback to I&APs.

The possibly excluded comment has been flagged for inclusion in the final submission to the DEA&DP.

The concerns of the I&AP’s along with historical comments received and responses sent will also be submitted along with the Final BAR to the DEA&DP for their decision.

participation record included in the revised Final BAR. The comment is located on Pages 8-19 of the document titled “070845 Final BAR Appendix E-10”, which accompanied the revised Final BAR that was distributed for public comment.

The competent authority should request the EAP to engage in further consultation with I&AP’s and allow for a further commenting period for I&AP’s once issues relating to traffic and access points have been fully explained so that I&AP’s are in a position to participate and comment meaningfully.



The current development proposal, which includes a preferred development layout which seeks to address concerns and requirements raised by the City and the DEA&DP, including that development access alternatives need to be investigated in more detail, is being distributed for public comment for a period of 30 days.

There is no province-approved Environmental Management Framework in place for the area.

Given the potential impacts on the existing residents, the DEA&DP should present and

Guy Baxter SEC acknowledged receipt of the comment: Concern of the I&AP was recorded. Regarding the lack of a province-

approved Environmental Management Framework for the area: the DEA&DP may issue a decision on an






CITY OF CAPE TOWN approve an Environmental Management Framework for the area prior to the approval being considered.

application for Environmental Authorisation in the absence of such an EMF. The BAR is thus considered the Final BAR for decision-making purposes.

The City of Cape Town requires the submission of the final CEMP or Site Environmental Management Plan (SEMP) during the Land Use Management Process for the final approval of the City of Cape Town prior to building plan approval.



The requirement for the City to have another opportunity during the land use planning process to approve the EMPr prior to building plan approval, has been included in the EMPr.

The City of Cape Town requires the submission of the OEMP stipulating future management responsibilities and actions of the Body Corporate/ Home Owners Association. The OEMP must be submitted to the City for approval prior to building plan approval.



Please refer to the Operational Phase conditions contained in Section 3.4 of the EMPr, which is included in Appendix H to the amended Final BAR. Responsibilities for key management measures have been assigned to the Homeowners’ Association that will be established once the development is operational.

A Landscape Plan for any recreational areas and road verges within the development must be submitted for final approval of the City of Cape Town.

A Planting List must be submitted for approval by the City of Cape Town which the



These requirements have been included in the EMPr governing the operational phase of the development.






CITY OF CAPE TOWN residents and homeowners will be bound to.

The City of Cape Town requires the registration of a servitude in favor of Council across the entire width of the ecological buffer of the Bokkemanskloof River on either side of the watercourse and the wetland area. The following restrictions must be stipulated for this servitude: No buildings or structures to

be built within the servitude area

No impermeable boundary walls/ boundary treatment

No discharge of stormwater, swimming pool overflow or any other effluent into the river

No manipulation of the watercourse or flow regime without written prior approval from the Director: ERM

No infilling, compacting or excavating without prior written approval from the Director: ERM

Andrew Greenwood:

City of Cape Town


The City’s requirements align with all specialist recommendations contained in the EMPr for the establishment and maintenance of the river buffer area.

With regards to stormwater management, sufficient scientific conceptual information should be provided to indicate that the



Please refer to the Stormwater Management Plan contained in Appendix G of the amended Final BAR.






CITY OF CAPE TOWN Policy requirements can be complied with within the proposed layout.

Additional information needs to be provided with regard to the management of stormwater run-off from the mountain catchment.

The project team is referred to the City document entitled “Stormwater Management on Slopes Adjacent to Natural Areas” which should be included in the detailed stormwater management plan.

The Department of Water Affairs requires confirmation of the following: The Municipality will supply

water to the development. The Municipality will have

sufficient capacity for the sewage that will be generated during the operational phase

A plan on how sewage generated during the construction phase will be dealt with.

Proof of the agreement between the applicant and the service provider

The Municipality will

Bulelani Rolinyati: Department of Water Affairs


Please refer to the municipality’s correspondence confirming availability of bulk engineering services supply capacity. This is contained in Appendix E of the amended Final BAR.






CITY OF CAPE TOWN accommodate the stormwater from the development into the existing stormwater system

The Municipality will collect solid water at an approved collection point in the development.

The existing drainage in the area is already not considered to be coping with the existing level of occupancy in the area and is considered to be a major issue.

The required camber of the proposed road will mean that stormwater will be directed straight down the residents’ driveways and into their homes.


Corne Dreyer Colleen Dreyer


recorded. Concerns regarding the stormwater

have been raised in the past by neighboring residents have been addressed in detail by the project team.

I&AP was referred to the Basic Assessment Report and appended documents


A detailed Stormwater Management Plan for the development is available for reference. Please refer to Appendix G of the amended Final BAR.

No structures will be allowed below the 1:50 year flood lines as opposed to the 1:20 year flood line as stipulated in both Freshwater Assessments as per the City’s Floodplain and River Management Policy.



No structures associated with the development proposal are situated below the 1:50 year floodline.

Any development within Bulelani No response given – comments A Water Use Licence has been applied for. Please






CITY OF CAPE TOWN 1:100 year flood line, within 500m of any wetland or within the riparian habitat requires a Water Use License according to the Department’s regulations and will require authorization before any development may commence.

Rolinyati: Department of Water Affairs


refer to a copy of the WULA form contained in Appendix J.

The residents are not necessarily opposed to the proposed development per se but are of the opinion that they do have valid concerns which should be addressed.


Bokkemanskloof Estate Home Owners Association

Paul Stewart John


Ludwig Len Swimmer:




POST REVISED FINAL BAR PHASE COMMUNICATION FOLLOWING SUBMISSION TO DEA&DP (September 2012 – February 2014)


WHOM PROJECT TEAM RESPONSE

PROJECT TEAM RESPONSE AFTER FURTHER INVESTIGATIONS AT REQUEST OF DEA&DP

AND CITY OF CAPE TOWN Saffron Road (off Blue

Valley) has been earmarked for emergency access to the proposed development.

There currently is no existing road and instead a river runs where the road is indicated on the map.

The area thus could only be used as emergency access if a bridge was built.

Maya Fisher-French

No response was given due to the late submission of the comment.

Please refer to the current development layout, Layout Alternative 4, contained in Appendix B; as well as to the Fire Management Plan contained in Appendix H.

Access servitudes for emergency vehicles to the mountainside south of the development are proposed against the following strategically positioned properties: From the development’s internal road

marked on the site plan as Erf 76, traversing a greenbelt (Erf 70) as well as single residential Erf 37.

From the development’s internal road marked on the site plan as Erf 75, traversing a greenbelt (Erf 72).

From the municipal road network at the Grotto Road / Bay Road intersection to the west of the development, traversing rural Erf 68.

Request for an update on the project.

Mike Downes Cullinan and

Associates

SEC acknowledgement of receipt of comments.

The specialists and project engineers are busy reviewing the project as well as the most recent iteration of the site plan which addresses the various items of feedback from the City and Province.

SEC and the traffic engineers’ response to concerns raised by the I&AP’s did not satisfactorily address the



The I&AP was informed that the Final Basic Assessment Report was submitted to DEA&DP 24/08/12

The traffic study undertaken during November 2014 provides detail on the various access alternatives investigated during the planning of the development. Please refer to Appendix G of the amended Final BAR. Alternatively, Section E of





AND CITY OF CAPE TOWN issues raised; access alternatives were not adequately considered; and impact of traffic associated with the development on pedestrian safety was not adequately considered.

The BAR is considered to be deeply flawed.

Comments and concerns have been forwarded to the DEA&DP case officer Mr. Rueben Molale for the consideration of the DEA&DP.

the BAR, on Pages 32 to 37 also provides detail on the alternatives investigated.

Request a detailed development proposal as opposed to only reference to what policies were considered in the development planning.



The I&AP was informed that the Final Basic Assessment Report was submitted to DEA&DP 24/08/12

Comments and concerns have been forwarded to the DEA&DP case officer Mr. Rueben Molale for the consideration of the DEA&DP.

The amended Final BAR should be read together with inter alia the EMPr, Fire Management Plan, Rehabilitation Plan for the river corridor and natural areas adjacent to the development footprint; and the Stormwater Management Plan.

These various management plans governing the life cycle of the development, necessarily considered, and are aligned with, whatever policies may be relevant, such as the City’s Management of Urban Stormwater Impacts Policy, and the City’s Veldfire Related Planning Guidelines.

Please refer to the various appendices of the amended Final BAR.

The proposed development will require a water use license (“WULA”)

A WULA must be obtained from DWA for any development that

Department of Water Affairs

No response given due to very late submission of comment.

A Water Use Licence has been applied for. Please refer to a copy of the WULA form contained in Appendix J.





AND CITY OF CAPE TOWN may alter the resource quality within the riparian habitat or that is within the 1:100 year flood line.

A WULA must be submitted for the construction of the bridge/ river crossing.

The following documentation must be completed: DW758, DW901, DW902, DW763, DW768, DW775 and DW781.

A pre-authorisation meeting may be arranged with this Department to assist with the authorisation process.

issue raised issue raised by whom project team … · claire saunders/peterson) colin hunt dean...

Documents