the following public stakeholders submitted comments on ...€¦ · 456 shelly immenga 67 bridget...
TRANSCRIPT
The following public stakeholders submitted comments on the pre-application Basic Assessment Report for the proposed River Club development. Stakeholder submissions were numbered randomly and captured in the spreadsheet presented below in the sequence in which they were recorded. The list of stakeholders has been ordered alphabetically below (by surname) so that stakeholders can refer to their submission in the issues table.
Table Reference / Stakeholder Number First Name
Surname (alphabetical)
414 Leon Abahams 195 Mark Abrahams 490 Terry Addison 457 David Aitchison 285 Danielle Albertyn 428 Marijke Alblas 356 Kendre Allies 206 Melanie Alperstein 122 Rodney Anderson 42 Richard Andrew 28 Olivia Andrews 361 Edwin Angless 33 Justin Ashley 248 Toby Atwell 114 Bonnie Auret 116 Christopher Auret 141 Lynette Auret 142 Mark Auret 266 Ernie “Autoplastics” 227 Barry Badenhorst 363 Louise Badenhorst 398 Nashima Badsha 399 Farzanah Badsha 427 June Bam-Hutchinson 306 Farzeen Banderker 308 Shaheema Banderker 310 Hussein Banderker 169 Keith Barker 437 Marijke Barnard 4 Lloyd Barnes 212 Cameron Barnes 461 Liz Barnett 326 Peter Barrett 78 Sheila Barsel 164 Sarah Bassett 445 Lucinda Bate 102 Claudia Batschari
Table Reference / Stakeholder Number First Name
Surname (alphabetical)
244 Aniela Batschari 358 Johan Beaurain 455 Farzaneh Behroozi 171 Tracey Berg 251 Mike Berg 451 Mickie Birkett 487 Mischa Blecher 207 Tracy Blues 447 Liz Blumenthal 85 Katrin Bohlender 297 Dawn Bolton 110 Andrew Bowden 446 Gareth Bowers 387 Bronwen Bowmer 316 Miriam Breytenbach 147 Pam Britt 139 Nikki Britz 168 Peta & Joseph Brom 256 Celvin Bruton 346 Antony Brutus 26 Anthony Buckland 172 Jo Buckland 127 Jean Buckley 131 David Buckley 75 Sarah Bullen 423 Kirsten Burgess 432 Roger Burgess 71 Jason Cadle 459 Bridget Calder 245 Marco Casati 264 Abi Case 350 Alicia Chamaille 273 Jennifer Cherry 452 Mark Chong 177 Carol Clark 289 Nolan Clark 106 Megan Clausen 335 Kim Cloete 94 Lindsay Clowes 324 Rob Cobban 379 Leigh Cobban 255 Linda Codron 215 Ingrid Coetzee
Table Reference / Stakeholder Number First Name
Surname (alphabetical)
404 Katrin Coetzer 234 Mel Cohen 86 Karen Colvin 493 Adam Cooke 465 K & H Cooney & le Roux 119 Daphne Cooper 192 Christine Cooper 225 Aretha Cooper 190 Morna Cornell 321 Vaun Cornell 52 Deb Coull 405 Kari Cousins 325 Andrea Couvert 269 Jean Cowen 188 Carol Cragg 339 Martin Crawford 378 Lindsay Crawford 390 Shirley Crawford 411 Debbie Crawford 482 John Crawford 263 Janet Cronje 58 Riyaaz Dalvie 458 Fairoze Daniels 249 Riad Davids 253 Anwar Davids 366 Amiena Davids 373 Mojo Davids 374 Alice Davids 360 Rebecca Davies 488 Cheryl Davis 17 Alan Davson 181 Moises de Gouveia 209 Eileen de Klerk 226 Eloise de Klerk 250 Juanita de Villers 474 Ebeline de Villers 194 Caro de Waal 343 Hilary Dennis 477 Chloe Derbyshire 70 Francine Dieckmann 265 Bryn Divey 287 Kirk Doman 121 Kallie Doran
Table Reference / Stakeholder Number First Name
Surname (alphabetical)
272 Nancy Dorrat 239 Kirsten Douglas 359 Martin Douglas-Jones 246 Tony Drake 64 Sarah Driver-Jowitt 98 Lenita du Plessis 268 Deon du Plessis 270 Cecilia du Plessis 419 Reagan du Plessis 275 Pierre du Preez 453 Miranda du Toit 460 Johan du Toit 123 Yves Ducommun 478 Paula Dugmore 170 Barbara Dupuy 152 Manfred Dutschke 351 Wesley Eccles 128 Jenny Edge 146 Mark Elderkin 40 Gideon Engelbrecht 154 Jane English 371 Deon Erasmus 63 Claire Everatt 463 Tasmin Faragher 380 Rob Faulkner 211 Dot Feast 293 Leigh Ferreira 165 Claire Fitzgerald 8 Nina Foley 242 Carol Ford 243 Lara-Ann Ford 62 Joni foster 480 Chantal Fourie 385 Alexandra Fraser 135 Josi Frater 95 Erica Fryer 394 Gerd Gade 92 Kira Gajjar 32 Shonah Gallichan 473 Marjolein Gamble 491 Emily Gammon 291 James Garraway 12 Jonathan Gevisser
Table Reference / Stakeholder Number First Name
Surname (alphabetical)
320 Linda Gibson 425 Gorken Golbasi 93 Lee Goldstein 232 Jeanne Goodall 235 Bruce Goodall 133 Kami Gordon 420 Kevin Gordon 241 Stuart Gormley 301 Lauren Gormley 14 Charmaine Gower 485 Celine Gravenor 132 Ethan Gray 84 Susan Gredley 486 Kevin Greenberg 55 Frances Greene 431 John Greene 396 Tony Greenwood 413 Dylan Greenwood 436 Kimberlyn Greenwook 296 Jenny Grinstead 288 Liza Groenewald 233 Hazel Gubb 261 Mel Gubic 180 Adriaan Haasbroek 184 Marlis Haasbroek 334 Tracey Hafen 328 Ruth Hall 408 Kath Hall 372 Karen Harris 208 Neil Harrison 81 Colleen Hart 383 Charles Hart 77 Patricia Hayes 406 Kathleen Heiberg 467 Ludvig Heiberg 332 Hilary Henderson 367 Nikki Hendricks 443 Candice Henley 238 Jaqui Hewett 196 Conrad Hicks 254 Chloe Hoeben 49 Annette Hoekstra 216 Dorothy Holder
Table Reference / Stakeholder Number First Name
Surname (alphabetical)
197 Martha Holmes 484 Trevor Hughes 159 Rol Hunter 183 Katie Huston 370 Tracy Hyde 412 Peter Ibbotson 456 Shelly Immenga 67 Bridget Impey 468 Paolo Israel 65 Sylvia Jackson 150 Arnold Jacobs 355 Mark Jacobs 258 Robert Jacot-Guillarmod 151 Mogamad Jaffer 51 Anna James 276 Russell Jarvis 162 Robert Jeffery 91 Shariefa Job 143 Pieter Jolly 187 Louise Jones 148 Jill Joubert 464 Sue Jowell 368 Parker Junaid 167 Mike Kaufmann 178 Anthony Kaufmann 278 Mary Keet 312 Marie-Louise Kellet 416 Tessa Kennedy 421 Lindsay Kennedy 13 Julie Kenney 257 Lucy Ker 3 Robert Ketteringham 47 Mignon Keyser 21 Kiki Kimon 262 Canda Kinces 303 Leigh King 403 Viv King 449 Sue Kingma 230 Kechil Kirkham 236 Beryl Klein 282 Brian Klopper 15 Chris Koch 277 Lizet Koen
Table Reference / Stakeholder Number First Name
Surname (alphabetical)
41 Annie Kok 271 Michael Koker 50 Charmaine Koppehel 11 Michael Krause 286 Matthew Kretzschmar 239 Genevieve Langenhoven 205 John Lanham 219 Gill Lanham 89 Amanda Law 136 Terry Le Brasseur 156 Mellissa le Fevre 376 Simone le Fevre 112 Carla le Roux 454 Trevor Lea 471 Marine Leblond 220 Anneliese Le-Breton 27 Aoife Lennon-Ritchie 108 Craig Leo 76 Natalie Leon 426 Jane Levinson 191 Gareth Leyman 160 Paul Light 217 Andrew Light 307 Karima Loghdey 280 Leslie London 299 Rene Lotter 38 Sian Louw 134 Katherine Lovemore 18 Travis Lyle 418 Margot Lynn 189 Steven MacFarlane 224 Virginia MacKenny 213 Tania Mackenzie 331 Kirstin Mackenzie 295 Britt MacLaughlin 166 Tamryn MacNair 444 Ariana MacPherson 389 Miranda Madikane 327 Maud Malan 31 Linda Malone 223 Kelly Mansfield 388 Heather Marco 440 Adam Marshall
Table Reference / Stakeholder Number First Name
Surname (alphabetical)
382 Caroline Marx 57 Andries Mathee 29 Chelsey Matthys 483 Kathleen Mawson 401 S McCall 202 Hudson McComb 35 Dean McFarlane 259 Moray McGregor 442 Linda McIntosh 107 Ashley McLean 407 Marilynn McNamara 100 Catherine McShannon 43 Georgia McTaggart 34 Tracy Megan 22 Merilyn Mehl 73 Christopher Mellor 126 Patrick Melly 80 Lucia Menicanti 97 Sandra Meyer 369 Werner Meyer 10 Maureen Michalowsky 318 Sindile Mkhabela 199 Yunus Mohamed 182 Martin Molteno 153 Duncan Moore 313 Zaheer Moosa 105 Tanya Moosmann 81 Robert Morrell 87 Penny Morrell 53 Lauren Moult 145 Cheryl Muir 149 Fairuz Mullagee 304 Lynette Munro 402 Thurza Munro 117 Chris Murphy 125 Nodi Murphy 439 Frankie Murrey 340 Adriaan Myburgh 475 Laura Myers 221 Rudy Nadler-Nir 430 Raven Naidoo 228 Mark Neame 45 Thelma Nel
Table Reference / Stakeholder Number First Name
Surname (alphabetical)
186 Dan Neser 124 Mark Neville 157 Carolyn Neville 448 Rofhiwa Nthangeni 218 Isabel Nunes 393 Pieter Odendaal 83 Maryke Olivier 315 Linda Oosthuizen 109 Phyllis Orner 311 Catherine Palmer 489 Kershan Pancham 39 Ughetta Parenti 25 Wanda Parker 88 Alison Paulin 111 Sally Peisl 144 Vanessa Persson 365 Obs Pets 341 Sandy Pienaar 400 Jeanne Pienaar 229 Kimenthrie Pillay 429 Jacqueline Poking 155 Martin Power 409 Marc Privett 466 Justine Quince 330 De Vos Rabie 386 Jason Rade 422 Conor Ralphs 345 Andrew Rand 173 Nicole Rasmussen 323 Emma Rasmussen 74 Ciraj Rassool 357 Georgie Ravenscroft 354 Candice Reddy 397 Bess Reitz 113 Samantha Renda 210 Sarah Rice 267 Howard Richman 54 Marlise Richter 60 Bradley Rink 200 Boris Rivett-Carnac 203 Sonja Rivett-Carnac 410 Joy Robinson 96 Ingrid Roderick
Table Reference / Stakeholder Number First Name
Surname (alphabetical)
20 Belisa Rodrigues 120 Alex Rodrigues 352 Ann Roese 198 Alison Roomaney 434 Penelope Rose 101 Naomi Roux 472 Rosalyn Rowe 175 Heidi Russell 99 Jannah Ruthven 344 Jonah Sack 364 Ruth Sack 375 Steven Sack 494 Roger Saner 30 Karen Schofield 115 Margaret Schouw 158 Jeanine Schouw 305 Frank Schuitemaker 283 Simon Scott 37 Naren Sewpaul 317 Lynne Shannon 44 Debbie Sharwood 349 Jerome Sheed 438 Rebecca Sher 476 Emma Sidersky 48 Linda Simone 279 Bridget Simons 348 Jennifer Skibb 163 Jacob Slabbert 392 Dan Sleigh 479 Jean Sleigh 214 Marion Smallbones 36 Fiona Smith 201 Charmaine Smith 204 Kayley Smith 395 David Smith 469 Ceinwen Smith 68 Chavonne Snyman 302 Rene Spammer 462 Liz Sparg 309 Lisa Stacey 342 Gaby Stadler 104 Mark Stead 161 Robert & Tina Steiner
Table Reference / Stakeholder Number First Name
Surname (alphabetical)
450 Janine Stephen 19 Werner Steyn 274 Daniel Steyn 292 Werner Steyn 140 Emily Stockden 337 Craig Stockden 2 Kirsty Stone 338 Kimberley Stone 433 Lisa Strachan 252 Camilla Swart 470 Pam Sykes 174 Maura Talbot 24 Alison Tame 435 Lorraine Tanner 333 Frances Taylor 222 Roelien Theron 260 Catherine Theron 59 Justine Thornton 56 Edward Tilanus 90 Helen Tilanus 300 Jarred Tilanus 353 Janine Titley 240 Helen Torr 294 Darryl Torr 193 John Trafford 391 Dale Trow 314 Jennifer Truter 298 Ann Turner 7 Marc Turok 16 Anton Twigg 69 Wendy Urquhart 103 Pieter Uys 481 Jerome v Rooij 319 Cecily van Gend 130 Gideon van Lill 23 Clint van Rooy 1 Melt van Schoor 179 Britney Varley 231 Mariette VD Heever 82 Belinda VD Merwe 118 Emma VD Merwe 384 Erica VD Rede 336 George VD Schyff
Table Reference / Stakeholder Number First Name
Surname (alphabetical)
5 Stephen VD Spuy 6 Stephen VD Spuy 129 Emma VD Vliet 329 Julie VD Vlugt 441 David VD Want 281 Alex Venter 322 Jacques Verster 247 Corlea Viljoen 86 Emily Vining 381 Hans Waals 79 Geraldine Walden 46 Aimee Walker 362 Debbie Wall Smith 72 Hazel Walton 417 Lorraine Ward 377 Muffie Welch 347 Andrew Whaley 290 Karen White 9 Dave Whitelaw 137 Ashley Wildeman 185 Louisa Williamson 415 Donna Wills 424 Neville Wills 138 Leslie Witz 492 Tanya Woolf 176 Jenny Wyeth 284 Grietje Zakarian
Public Stakeholders 1 - 41
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41
Issues:
1 Melt van
Schoo
r
2 Kirsty Stone
3 Ro
bert Ketterin
gham
4 Lloyd Ba
rnes
5 Step
hen VD
Spu
y
6 Step
hen VD
Spu
y
7 Marc Turok
8 Nina Foley
9 Da
ve W
hitelaw
10 M
aureen
Michalowsky
11 M
ichael Krause
12 Jo
nathan
Gevisser
13 Ju
lie Ken
ney
14 Charm
aine
Gow
er
15 Chris Ko
ch
16 Anton
Twigg
17Alan
Davson
18 Travis L
yle
19 W
erne
r Steyn
20 Belisa
Rod
rigue
s
21 Kiki Kim
on
22 M
erilyn Meh
l
23 Clint van
Roo
y
24 Alison
Tam
e
25 W
anda
Parker
26 Antho
ny Buckland
27 Aoife Len
non‐Ritchie
28 Olivia And
rews
29 Che
lsey Matthys
30 Karen
Schofield
31 Linda
Malon
e
32 Sho
nah Gallichan
33 Ju
stin Ashley
34 Tracy M
egan
35 Dean McFarlane
36 Fiona
Smith
37 Naren
Sew
paul
38 Sian Louw
39 Ughetta Paren
ti
40 Gideo
n Engelbrecht
41 Ann
ie Kok
1 The development is in line with the CoCT MSDF (2018)
2 The development is not entirely aligned with the CoCT MSDF (2018)
3 The development is not in line with the current site zoning 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
4 We do not support the application for rezoning 1 1
5 The proposed development is not in line with the spatial designation of the site in terms of District Plan (2012) / SDP 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
6 The proposed development is not in line with the principles of the District Plan (2012)
7 Development should not be allowed in Public Open Space 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
8 We do not support the application for departures from the District Plan /SDP 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
9The development is not in line with the Two Rivers Urban Park Contextual Framework and Phase One Environmental Management Plan (2003) / not in line with the vision of TRUPA
1 1 1
10A Local Spatial Development Framework for the area is currently being drafted (and the applications should wait for this plan to be finalised)
1
11The proposed development is not in line with the CoCTs City’s Stormwater Management By‐law, Floodplain and River Corridor Management Policy and Management of Urban Stormwater Impacts Policy
12 The development (/densification) is inappropriate (for the site) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
13 The design and layout has not taken account of (potential impacts) and attempted to minimise adverse impacts
14 Development is possible at the site, with less bulk 1 1 1
15 Development is possible at the site, with an improved / better articulated layout
16 There is insufficient open space allocated in the current development proposal 1 1
17 There are insufficient recreational / social facilities proposed in the development 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
18 The development should be a public destination 1 1
19 Consider lower density alternatives / alternatives for the public good 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
20 Retain the canal and rehabilitate the original course of the Liesbeek River 1
21 Consider a different site 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
22 The development represents inappropriate built form / layout 1 1 1
23 The Urban Design Framework has failed to take cognisance of the topographic sensitivity of the site / its location in the valley 1
24 The development footprint, bulk, form, height should be tied to heritage and urban design indicators 1 1
25 The development is not the best practicable environmental option for the site 1
26 The costs of the development to society outweigh the benefits 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
27 Financial viability not sole consideration for feasibilty / cannot be used as a justification for environmental and cultural impacts 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
28 The cost of Berkley Road extension should not be used to justify the development / inform the calculation of financial viability 1 1 1 1
29 There is an opportunity cost to society from developing the site (e.g. stormwater attenuation, park / public open space, agriculture, etc)
30 The development shows no regard to the views of the surrounding community
31Will the development be commercially viable / there is insufficient demand for housing and commercial office space to justify the development / the development will trigger a drop in demand in surrounding areas
1 1 1
32 There will be high dust levels during construction
33 There will be a noise impact on the community during construction
34 There will bo a noise impact on the community during operations 1 1 1 1 1
35 Services (General): The proposed use of municipal services at the proposed development will not be sustainable 1 1 1 1 1
36 High water demand of construction acitivities during drought
37 Include stormwater harvesting, or greywater treatment 1
38 Stormwater: The site provides stormwater attenuation function (which would be lost) 1 1 1
39 The development will result in additional flooding (and is therefore not acceptable) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
40 The modelled change in flooding is not acceptable 1
41 Increased level of future floods incorrectly rated as insignificant 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
42The surface water hydrology study indicates that my house will flood in the 1:20 year return interval flood event, and that it currently does not.
43The Hotel expert expresses concern about the hotel being built on a flood plain / explain potential flood hazard to future residents and users of the site
1
44 No provision has been made for compensation for reduced property prices or if insurance companies refuse to cover for flood damage 1
45 Do not support building in the floodplain for hydrological reasons (regardless of the changes in hydrology) 1 1 1 1 1 1
46 Flooding will impact the PRASA railyards
47 Flooding will increase in the Raapenburg Wetland as a result of the development 1 1 1 1
48 Flooding will impact the SAAO property
49 The Hydrology Assessment is deficient / incorrect / relies on outdated information
Water supply:
Hydrology and Flooding:
Planning:
Project Description:
Urban Design, Design and Layout:
Need and Desirability:
Noise and Dust
Page 1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41
Issues:
1 Melt van
Schoo
r
2 Kirsty Stone
3 Ro
bert Ketterin
gham
4 Lloyd Ba
rnes
5 Step
hen VD
Spu
y
6 Step
hen VD
Spu
y
7 Marc Turok
8 Nina Foley
9 Da
ve W
hitelaw
10 M
aureen
Michalowsky
11 M
ichael Krause
12 Jo
nathan
Gevisser
13 Ju
lie Ken
ney
14 Charm
aine
Gow
er
15 Chris Ko
ch
16 Anton
Twigg
17Alan
Davson
18 Travis L
yle
19 W
erne
r Steyn
20 Belisa
Rod
rigue
s
21 Kiki Kim
on
22 M
erilyn Meh
l
23 Clint van
Roo
y
24 Alison
Tam
e
25 W
anda
Parker
26 Antho
ny Buckland
27 Aoife Len
non‐Ritchie
28 Olivia And
rews
29 Che
lsey Matthys
30 Karen
Schofield
31 Linda
Malon
e
32 Sho
nah Gallichan
33 Ju
stin Ashley
34 Tracy M
egan
35 Dean McFarlane
36 Fiona
Smith
37 Naren
Sew
paul
38 Sian Louw
39 Ughetta Paren
ti
40 Gideo
n Engelbrecht
41 Ann
ie Kok
50 The Hydrological Assessment should be independently reviewed
51 Increased flooding may mobilise toxic agents found in PRASA soil
52 The surface water hydrology study should take the impacts of climate change into account
53 Climate Change: The development will reduce the resilience of this part of the City to climate change 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
54 Groundwater: Development will reduce groundwater infiltration (with ecological or water supply impacts) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
55 Development at the site will lead to a negative ecological impact 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
56What guarantees are in place for the funding of a new unlined canal / ecological rehabilitation – i.e. how can the public be sure this will be implemented
1
57 The development will negatively impact wetlands 1 1
58 The impact of infilling the original course of the Liesbeek River is unacceptable 1 1 1
59 There is an opportunity cost of not rehabilitating the original course of the Liesbeek River 1
60 There will be a negative impact on the Cape Galaxias fish
61 There will be a negative impact on ecological connectivity
62 There will be a significant negative impact on Western Leopard Toads 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
63 There will be a net loss in breeding habitat for Western Leopard Toads 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
64 There will be a net loss in terrestrial habitat for the Western Leopard Toad
65 Where would WLTs be kept while construction takes place? 1
66 Development will cause decrease / loss of pollinators
67 There will be an impact / unacceptable impact on the Cape Clawless Otter 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
68 Sensitive vegetation / Morea Aristata will be impacted 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
69 There will be a loss in avifaunal habitat
70 Bird nesting sites along the steep western bank of the Original Course of the Liesbeek River would be lost
71 High rise buildings will disrupt avifaunal flight paths
72 Consider the impacts of noise and light pollution on the fauna
73 Faunal mortalities during construction inevitable
74 Pollution from the development will lead to ecological impacts 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
75 There will be a loss / decline in public amenity by developing the site 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
76 The provision of inclusionary housing as proposed would be beneficial
77There is an insufficient allocation of housing / inclusionary housing in the development proposal / allocation too low to qualify as a material social benefit
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
78 Housing units too small to provide comfortable living space / accommodate family
79 Inclusionary housing should not be reserved for civil servants
80 The development includes no inclusionary housing
81 The use of CoCT owned land for the development will alienate public land (for private gain) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
82 The development will cause depreciation of surrounding property values.
83 Housing will diminish opportunities for existing local rental providers
84 The development will diminish the tourism potential of the Two Rivers Urban Park 1
85 The development will lead to a increase in crime and vagrancy
86 The Socio‐economic study uses outdated information 1
87 The development proposal would lead to an increase in the reliance on private vehicle use 1 1
88 The TIA is outdated / incorrect 1 1 1
89 The TIA shows the traffic model is inaccurate 1
90 The TIA study area should include the N2 1
91 Traffic impacts during construction will be significant 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
92 There will be damage to roads from construction road use 1 1 1
93 Traffic impacts during operations will be significant 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1
94 Public Transport is inadequate / cannot support predicted trip reliance
95 Parking provision is inadequate
96 The TIA does not consider the impact on cyclists sufficiently / does not include NMT 1 1
97 The City will not upgrade the Liesbeek Parkway 1
98 NMT routes will be unsafe and therefore unusable 1 1 1
99 The significance of the cultural landscape of which the site forms part has been overlooked in the HIA
100 The site represents one of the last open space remnants of the Liesbeek River and TRUP area and is of greater value 1 1 1
101 Developing in the valley (of heritage significance) is not supported 1
Socio‐economic
Biodiversity:
Traffic, Parking, Public Transport and NMT:
Page 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41
Issues:
1 Melt van
Schoo
r
2 Kirsty Stone
3 Ro
bert Ketterin
gham
4 Lloyd Ba
rnes
5 Step
hen VD
Spu
y
6 Step
hen VD
Spu
y
7 Marc Turok
8 Nina Foley
9 Da
ve W
hitelaw
10 M
aureen
Michalowsky
11 M
ichael Krause
12 Jo
nathan
Gevisser
13 Ju
lie Ken
ney
14 Charm
aine
Gow
er
15 Chris Ko
ch
16 Anton
Twigg
17Alan
Davson
18 Travis L
yle
19 W
erne
r Steyn
20 Belisa
Rod
rigue
s
21 Kiki Kim
on
22 M
erilyn Meh
l
23 Clint van
Roo
y
24 Alison
Tam
e
25 W
anda
Parker
26 Antho
ny Buckland
27 Aoife Len
non‐Ritchie
28 Olivia And
rews
29 Che
lsey Matthys
30 Karen
Schofield
31 Linda
Malon
e
32 Sho
nah Gallichan
33 Ju
stin Ashley
34 Tracy M
egan
35 Dean McFarlane
36 Fiona
Smith
37 Naren
Sew
paul
38 Sian Louw
39 Ughetta Paren
ti
40 Gideo
n Engelbrecht
41 Ann
ie Kok
102 The development will lead to an unacceptable impact on the cultural landscape 1 1 1 1 1 1
103 There will be a negative heritage impact from infilling the original course of the Liesbeek River fronting the site 1
104 The development will negatively impact on historic buildings of Observatory / surrounding the site
105 The SAAO site is of high cultural significance / the SAAO site is given insufficient recognition in the HIA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
106 The SAAO will be negatively impacted by the development / current mitigation is insufficient 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
107 Tall buildings at the confluence of the Liesbeek and Black Rivers will detract from the heritage value of the confluence
108 The site is of great heritage significance to people of the First Nations / the site is sacred 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
109 There is significant intangible heritage associated with the site 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
110 There is a great opportunity to celebrate the First Nation people of South Africa on this site
111 The proposed heritage centre is insufficient mitigation 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
112 The heritage centre is inappropriate to celebrate the First Nations culture 1 1 1
113 Proximity of heritage centre to tallest buildings and Berkley Road extension is inappropriate 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
114 Object to the destruction of the River Club Building 1
115 The development is in conflict with the move to declare TRUPA a UNESCO heritage site / NRLHR 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
116 TRUP is a site of provincial or national heritage significance 1
117 Site should be surveyed for physical evidence of archaeological value prior to construction
118 Construction at the NRF property on the River Club site is a false assumption
119 Visual and sense of place impacts are unacceptable 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
120 The proposed buildings are out of scale with the surrounding land use / visually sensitive surrounding environment 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
121 The development will visually impact surrounding areas (negatively) 0 1 1
122 The development will negatively impact views through the site 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
123 The development will negatively impact views from the site 1
124 The development will negatively impact views of the site 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
125 Light pollution will increase / interfere with operation of SAAO telescope 1 1 1 1 1
126 The development will change the sense of place of the site negatively 1
127 The VIA doesn’t address the (heritage) sensitivity of the site
128 The development will negatively impact on / change a (green) open space network of sub‐metropolitan significance 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
129 The development will negatively impact on the integrity of the (Two Rivers) Urban Park 1 1
130 Extending the open space system along the Liesbeek River will be beneficial 1
131 We do not support the proposal / we object to the proposal / we are not in favour of the development 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
132 Main aspects of the Island Concept Alternative can be supported
133 We question the sale of land to the proponent
134 Specialists are not independent 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
135 The BAR / specialist studies should be rejected / are inadequate 1
136 The BA is vague and based on too many variables. 1
137 The application is premature (unfinished consultation)
138 A full EIA process should be followed. 1
139 The statements that the Canal replaced the Liesbeek River in 1952 are false. 1
140 How will (e.g.) design, rehabilitaion and maintenance commitments be guaranteed? 1
141 How would significant height variations in the bedrock layer be addressed?
142 The feasibility calculation is flawed 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
143 The BAR does not address global warming
144 A full construction EMP should be developed for the project
145 Address the fire risk to the SAAO.
146 No / insufficient consultation with the Khoi leaders
147Your PP notices (incorrectly) refer to "Environmental Authorisation in terms of the NEMA EIA Regulations, 2014 for GN R983 (19); GN R984 (6) and (27); and GN R985 (15) and (18) activities."
1
148 Provided evidence of a site notice at the entrance to Erf 151832 1
149 Insufficent public advertisement of BA Process / public meeting
150 Previous concerns raised by commenters not systematically addressed
Public Consultation:
Visual and Sense of Place:
Heritage:
General:
Page 3
Public Stakeholders 42 - 82
Issues:
1 The development is in line with the CoCT MSDF (2018)
2 The development is not entirely aligned with the CoCT MSDF (2018)
3 The development is not in line with the current site zoning
4 We do not support the application for rezoning
5 The proposed development is not in line with the spatial designation of the site in terms of District Plan (2012) / SDP
6 The proposed development is not in line with the principles of the District Plan (2012)
7 Development should not be allowed in Public Open Space
8 We do not support the application for departures from the District Plan /SDP
9The development is not in line with the Two Rivers Urban Park Contextual Framework and Phase One Environmental Management Plan (2003) / not in line with the vision of TRUPA
10A Local Spatial Development Framework for the area is currently being drafted (and the applications should wait for this plan to be finalised)
11The proposed development is not in line with the CoCTs City’s Stormwater Management By‐law, Floodplain and River Corridor Management Policy and Management of Urban Stormwater Impacts Policy
12 The development (/densification) is inappropriate (for the site)
13 The design and layout has not taken account of (potential impacts) and attempted to minimise adverse impacts
14 Development is possible at the site, with less bulk
15 Development is possible at the site, with an improved / better articulated layout
16 There is insufficient open space allocated in the current development proposal
17 There are insufficient recreational / social facilities proposed in the development
18 The development should be a public destination
19 Consider lower density alternatives / alternatives for the public good
20 Retain the canal and rehabilitate the original course of the Liesbeek River
21 Consider a different site
22 The development represents inappropriate built form / layout
23 The Urban Design Framework has failed to take cognisance of the topographic sensitivity of the site / its location in the valley
24 The development footprint, bulk, form, height should be tied to heritage and urban design indicators
25 The development is not the best practicable environmental option for the site
26 The costs of the development to society outweigh the benefits
27 Financial viability not sole consideration for feasibilty / cannot be used as a justification for environmental and cultural impacts
28 The cost of Berkley Road extension should not be used to justify the development / inform the calculation of financial viability
29 There is an opportunity cost to society from developing the site (e.g. stormwater attenuation, park / public open space, agriculture, etc)
30 The development shows no regard to the views of the surrounding community
31Will the development be commercially viable / there is insufficient demand for housing and commercial office space to justify the development / the development will trigger a drop in demand in surrounding areas
32 There will be high dust levels during construction
33 There will be a noise impact on the community during construction
34 There will bo a noise impact on the community during operations
35 Services (General): The proposed use of municipal services at the proposed development will not be sustainable
36 High water demand of construction acitivities during drought
37 Include stormwater harvesting, or greywater treatment
38 Stormwater: The site provides stormwater attenuation function (which would be lost)
39 The development will result in additional flooding (and is therefore not acceptable)
40 The modelled change in flooding is not acceptable
41 Increased level of future floods incorrectly rated as insignificant
42The surface water hydrology study indicates that my house will flood in the 1:20 year return interval flood event, and that it currently does not.
43The Hotel expert expresses concern about the hotel being built on a flood plain / explain potential flood hazard to future residents and users of the site
44 No provision has been made for compensation for reduced property prices or if insurance companies refuse to cover for flood damage
45 Do not support building in the floodplain for hydrological reasons (regardless of the changes in hydrology)
46 Flooding will impact the PRASA railyards
47 Flooding will increase in the Raapenburg Wetland as a result of the development
48 Flooding will impact the SAAO property
49 The Hydrology Assessment is deficient / incorrect / relies on outdated information
Water supply:
Hydrology and Flooding:
Planning:
Project Description:
Urban Design, Design and Layout:
Need and Desirability:
Noise and Dust
42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82
42 Richard And
rew
43 Geo
rgia M
cTaggart
44 Deb
bie Sharwoo
d
45 The
lma Nel
46 Aim
ee W
alker
47 M
igno
n Ke
yser
48 Linda
Sim
one
49 Ann
ette Hoe
kstra
50 Charm
aine
Kop
pehe
l
51 Ann
a James
52 Deb
Cou
ll
53 Lauren Mou
lt
54 M
arlise Richter
55 Frances Green
e
56 Edw
ard Tilanu
s
57 And
ries M
athe
e
58 Riyaaz Da
lvie
59 Ju
stine Thornton
60 Bradley Rink
81 Colleen
Hart
62 Jo
ni fo
ster
63 Claire
Everatt
64 Sarah
Driv
er‐Jow
itt
65 Sylvia Jackson
86 Karen
Colvin
67 Brid
get Impe
y
68 Chavonn
e Snym
an
69 W
endy
Urquh
art
70 Francine Dieckm
ann
71 Ja
son Cadle
72 Hazel W
alton
73 Christop
her M
ellor
74 Cira
j Rassool
75 Sarah
Bullen
76 Natalie Leo
n
77 Patricia Hayes
78 She
ila Barsel
79 Geraldine
Walde
n
80 Lucia M
enicanti
81 Rob
ert M
orrell
82 Belinda
VD Merwe
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
1
1
1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1
1
1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1
1
Page 4
Issues:
50 The Hydrological Assessment should be independently reviewed
51 Increased flooding may mobilise toxic agents found in PRASA soil
52 The surface water hydrology study should take the impacts of climate change into account
53 Climate Change: The development will reduce the resilience of this part of the City to climate change
54 Groundwater: Development will reduce groundwater infiltration (with ecological or water supply impacts)
55 Development at the site will lead to a negative ecological impact
56What guarantees are in place for the funding of a new unlined canal / ecological rehabilitation – i.e. how can the public be sure this will be implemented
57 The development will negatively impact wetlands
58 The impact of infilling the original course of the Liesbeek River is unacceptable
59 There is an opportunity cost of not rehabilitating the original course of the Liesbeek River
60 There will be a negative impact on the Cape Galaxias fish
61 There will be a negative impact on ecological connectivity
62 There will be a significant negative impact on Western Leopard Toads
63 There will be a net loss in breeding habitat for Western Leopard Toads
64 There will be a net loss in terrestrial habitat for the Western Leopard Toad
65 Where would WLTs be kept while construction takes place?
66 Development will cause decrease / loss of pollinators
67 There will be an impact / unacceptable impact on the Cape Clawless Otter
68 Sensitive vegetation / Morea Aristata will be impacted
69 There will be a loss in avifaunal habitat
70 Bird nesting sites along the steep western bank of the Original Course of the Liesbeek River would be lost
71 High rise buildings will disrupt avifaunal flight paths
72 Consider the impacts of noise and light pollution on the fauna
73 Faunal mortalities during construction inevitable
74 Pollution from the development will lead to ecological impacts
75 There will be a loss / decline in public amenity by developing the site
76 The provision of inclusionary housing as proposed would be beneficial
77There is an insufficient allocation of housing / inclusionary housing in the development proposal / allocation too low to qualify as a material social benefit
78 Housing units too small to provide comfortable living space / accommodate family
79 Inclusionary housing should not be reserved for civil servants
80 The development includes no inclusionary housing
81 The use of CoCT owned land for the development will alienate public land (for private gain)
82 The development will cause depreciation of surrounding property values.
83 Housing will diminish opportunities for existing local rental providers
84 The development will diminish the tourism potential of the Two Rivers Urban Park
85 The development will lead to a increase in crime and vagrancy
86 The Socio‐economic study uses outdated information
87 The development proposal would lead to an increase in the reliance on private vehicle use
88 The TIA is outdated / incorrect
89 The TIA shows the traffic model is inaccurate
90 The TIA study area should include the N2
91 Traffic impacts during construction will be significant
92 There will be damage to roads from construction road use
93 Traffic impacts during operations will be significant
94 Public Transport is inadequate / cannot support predicted trip reliance
95 Parking provision is inadequate
96 The TIA does not consider the impact on cyclists sufficiently / does not include NMT
97 The City will not upgrade the Liesbeek Parkway
98 NMT routes will be unsafe and therefore unusable
99 The significance of the cultural landscape of which the site forms part has been overlooked in the HIA
100 The site represents one of the last open space remnants of the Liesbeek River and TRUP area and is of greater value
101 Developing in the valley (of heritage significance) is not supported
Socio‐economic
Biodiversity:
Traffic, Parking, Public Transport and NMT:
42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82
42 Richard And
rew
43 Geo
rgia M
cTaggart
44 Deb
bie Sharwoo
d
45 The
lma Nel
46 Aim
ee W
alker
47 M
igno
n Ke
yser
48 Linda
Sim
one
49 Ann
ette Hoe
kstra
50 Charm
aine
Kop
pehe
l
51 Ann
a James
52 Deb
Cou
ll
53 Lauren Mou
lt
54 M
arlise Richter
55 Frances Green
e
56 Edw
ard Tilanu
s
57 And
ries M
athe
e
58 Riyaaz Da
lvie
59 Ju
stine Thornton
60 Bradley Rink
81 Colleen
Hart
62 Jo
ni fo
ster
63 Claire
Everatt
64 Sarah
Driv
er‐Jow
itt
65 Sylvia Jackson
86 Karen
Colvin
67 Brid
get Impe
y
68 Chavonn
e Snym
an
69 W
endy
Urquh
art
70 Francine Dieckm
ann
71 Ja
son Cadle
72 Hazel W
alton
73 Christop
her M
ellor
74 Cira
j Rassool
75 Sarah
Bullen
76 Natalie Leo
n
77 Patricia Hayes
78 She
ila Barsel
79 Geraldine
Walde
n
80 Lucia M
enicanti
81 Rob
ert M
orrell
82 Belinda
VD Merwe
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1
1
1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
1 1 1 1 1 1
Page 5
Issues:
102 The development will lead to an unacceptable impact on the cultural landscape
103 There will be a negative heritage impact from infilling the original course of the Liesbeek River fronting the site
104 The development will negatively impact on historic buildings of Observatory / surrounding the site
105 The SAAO site is of high cultural significance / the SAAO site is given insufficient recognition in the HIA
106 The SAAO will be negatively impacted by the development / current mitigation is insufficient
107 Tall buildings at the confluence of the Liesbeek and Black Rivers will detract from the heritage value of the confluence
108 The site is of great heritage significance to people of the First Nations / the site is sacred
109 There is significant intangible heritage associated with the site
110 There is a great opportunity to celebrate the First Nation people of South Africa on this site
111 The proposed heritage centre is insufficient mitigation
112 The heritage centre is inappropriate to celebrate the First Nations culture
113 Proximity of heritage centre to tallest buildings and Berkley Road extension is inappropriate
114 Object to the destruction of the River Club Building
115 The development is in conflict with the move to declare TRUPA a UNESCO heritage site / NRLHR
116 TRUP is a site of provincial or national heritage significance
117 Site should be surveyed for physical evidence of archaeological value prior to construction
118 Construction at the NRF property on the River Club site is a false assumption
119 Visual and sense of place impacts are unacceptable
120 The proposed buildings are out of scale with the surrounding land use / visually sensitive surrounding environment
121 The development will visually impact surrounding areas (negatively)
122 The development will negatively impact views through the site
123 The development will negatively impact views from the site
124 The development will negatively impact views of the site
125 Light pollution will increase / interfere with operation of SAAO telescope
126 The development will change the sense of place of the site negatively
127 The VIA doesn’t address the (heritage) sensitivity of the site
128 The development will negatively impact on / change a (green) open space network of sub‐metropolitan significance
129 The development will negatively impact on the integrity of the (Two Rivers) Urban Park
130 Extending the open space system along the Liesbeek River will be beneficial
131 We do not support the proposal / we object to the proposal / we are not in favour of the development
132 Main aspects of the Island Concept Alternative can be supported
133 We question the sale of land to the proponent
134 Specialists are not independent
135 The BAR / specialist studies should be rejected / are inadequate
136 The BA is vague and based on too many variables.
137 The application is premature (unfinished consultation)
138 A full EIA process should be followed.
139 The statements that the Canal replaced the Liesbeek River in 1952 are false.
140 How will (e.g.) design, rehabilitaion and maintenance commitments be guaranteed?
141 How would significant height variations in the bedrock layer be addressed?
142 The feasibility calculation is flawed
143 The BAR does not address global warming
144 A full construction EMP should be developed for the project
145 Address the fire risk to the SAAO.
146 No / insufficient consultation with the Khoi leaders
147Your PP notices (incorrectly) refer to "Environmental Authorisation in terms of the NEMA EIA Regulations, 2014 for GN R983 (19); GN R984 (6) and (27); and GN R985 (15) and (18) activities."
148 Provided evidence of a site notice at the entrance to Erf 151832
149 Insufficent public advertisement of BA Process / public meeting
150 Previous concerns raised by commenters not systematically addressed
Public Consultation:
Visual and Sense of Place:
Heritage:
General:
42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82
42 Richard And
rew
43 Geo
rgia M
cTaggart
44 Deb
bie Sharwoo
d
45 The
lma Nel
46 Aim
ee W
alker
47 M
igno
n Ke
yser
48 Linda
Sim
one
49 Ann
ette Hoe
kstra
50 Charm
aine
Kop
pehe
l
51 Ann
a James
52 Deb
Cou
ll
53 Lauren Mou
lt
54 M
arlise Richter
55 Frances Green
e
56 Edw
ard Tilanu
s
57 And
ries M
athe
e
58 Riyaaz Da
lvie
59 Ju
stine Thornton
60 Bradley Rink
81 Colleen
Hart
62 Jo
ni fo
ster
63 Claire
Everatt
64 Sarah
Driv
er‐Jow
itt
65 Sylvia Jackson
86 Karen
Colvin
67 Brid
get Impe
y
68 Chavonn
e Snym
an
69 W
endy
Urquh
art
70 Francine Dieckm
ann
71 Ja
son Cadle
72 Hazel W
alton
73 Christop
her M
ellor
74 Cira
j Rassool
75 Sarah
Bullen
76 Natalie Leo
n
77 Patricia Hayes
78 She
ila Barsel
79 Geraldine
Walde
n
80 Lucia M
enicanti
81 Rob
ert M
orrell
82 Belinda
VD Merwe
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Page 6
Public Stakeholders 83 - 123
Issues:
1 The development is in line with the CoCT MSDF (2018)
2 The development is not entirely aligned with the CoCT MSDF (2018)
3 The development is not in line with the current site zoning
4 We do not support the application for rezoning
5 The proposed development is not in line with the spatial designation of the site in terms of District Plan (2012) / SDP
6 The proposed development is not in line with the principles of the District Plan (2012)
7 Development should not be allowed in Public Open Space
8 We do not support the application for departures from the District Plan /SDP
9The development is not in line with the Two Rivers Urban Park Contextual Framework and Phase One Environmental Management Plan (2003) / not in line with the vision of TRUPA
10A Local Spatial Development Framework for the area is currently being drafted (and the applications should wait for this plan to be finalised)
11The proposed development is not in line with the CoCTs City’s Stormwater Management By‐law, Floodplain and River Corridor Management Policy and Management of Urban Stormwater Impacts Policy
12 The development (/densification) is inappropriate (for the site)
13 The design and layout has not taken account of (potential impacts) and attempted to minimise adverse impacts
14 Development is possible at the site, with less bulk
15 Development is possible at the site, with an improved / better articulated layout
16 There is insufficient open space allocated in the current development proposal
17 There are insufficient recreational / social facilities proposed in the development
18 The development should be a public destination
19 Consider lower density alternatives / alternatives for the public good
20 Retain the canal and rehabilitate the original course of the Liesbeek River
21 Consider a different site
22 The development represents inappropriate built form / layout
23 The Urban Design Framework has failed to take cognisance of the topographic sensitivity of the site / its location in the valley
24 The development footprint, bulk, form, height should be tied to heritage and urban design indicators
25 The development is not the best practicable environmental option for the site
26 The costs of the development to society outweigh the benefits
27 Financial viability not sole consideration for feasibilty / cannot be used as a justification for environmental and cultural impacts
28 The cost of Berkley Road extension should not be used to justify the development / inform the calculation of financial viability
29 There is an opportunity cost to society from developing the site (e.g. stormwater attenuation, park / public open space, agriculture, etc)
30 The development shows no regard to the views of the surrounding community
31Will the development be commercially viable / there is insufficient demand for housing and commercial office space to justify the development / the development will trigger a drop in demand in surrounding areas
32 There will be high dust levels during construction
33 There will be a noise impact on the community during construction
34 There will bo a noise impact on the community during operations
35 Services (General): The proposed use of municipal services at the proposed development will not be sustainable
36 High water demand of construction acitivities during drought
37 Include stormwater harvesting, or greywater treatment
38 Stormwater: The site provides stormwater attenuation function (which would be lost)
39 The development will result in additional flooding (and is therefore not acceptable)
40 The modelled change in flooding is not acceptable
41 Increased level of future floods incorrectly rated as insignificant
42The surface water hydrology study indicates that my house will flood in the 1:20 year return interval flood event, and that it currently does not.
43The Hotel expert expresses concern about the hotel being built on a flood plain / explain potential flood hazard to future residents and users of the site
44 No provision has been made for compensation for reduced property prices or if insurance companies refuse to cover for flood damage
45 Do not support building in the floodplain for hydrological reasons (regardless of the changes in hydrology)
46 Flooding will impact the PRASA railyards
47 Flooding will increase in the Raapenburg Wetland as a result of the development
48 Flooding will impact the SAAO property
49 The Hydrology Assessment is deficient / incorrect / relies on outdated information
Water supply:
Hydrology and Flooding:
Planning:
Project Description:
Urban Design, Design and Layout:
Need and Desirability:
Noise and Dust
83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123
83 M
aryke Olivier
84 Susan
Gredley
85 Katrin
Boh
lend
er
86 Emily Vining
87 Pen
ny M
orrell
88 Alison
Paulin
89 Amanda
Law
90 Helen
Tilanu
s
91 Sharie
fa Jo
b
92 Kira
Gajjar
93 Lee
Goldstein
94 Lindsay Clowes
95 Erica Fryer
96 Ingrid Rod
erick
97 Sandra Meyer
98 Len
ita du Plessis
99 Ja
nnah
Ruthven
100 Catherine McShann
on
101 Naomi Rou
x
102 Claudia Ba
tschari
103 Pieter Uys
104 Mark Stead
105 Tanya Moo
smann
106 Megan
Clausen
107 Ashley M
cLean
108 Craig Leo
109 Ph
yllis Orner
110 An
drew
Bow
den
111 Sally Peisl
112 Carla
le Rou
x
113 Samantha Re
nda
114 Bo
nnie Auret
115 Margaret S
chou
w
116 Ch
ristoph
er Auret
117 Ch
ris M
urph
y
118 Em
ma VD
Merwe
119 Da
phne
Coo
per
120 Alex Rod
rigue
s
121 Kallie Do
ran
122 Ro
dney And
erson
123 Yves Ducom
mun
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1
Page 7
Issues:
50 The Hydrological Assessment should be independently reviewed
51 Increased flooding may mobilise toxic agents found in PRASA soil
52 The surface water hydrology study should take the impacts of climate change into account
53 Climate Change: The development will reduce the resilience of this part of the City to climate change
54 Groundwater: Development will reduce groundwater infiltration (with ecological or water supply impacts)
55 Development at the site will lead to a negative ecological impact
56What guarantees are in place for the funding of a new unlined canal / ecological rehabilitation – i.e. how can the public be sure this will be implemented
57 The development will negatively impact wetlands
58 The impact of infilling the original course of the Liesbeek River is unacceptable
59 There is an opportunity cost of not rehabilitating the original course of the Liesbeek River
60 There will be a negative impact on the Cape Galaxias fish
61 There will be a negative impact on ecological connectivity
62 There will be a significant negative impact on Western Leopard Toads
63 There will be a net loss in breeding habitat for Western Leopard Toads
64 There will be a net loss in terrestrial habitat for the Western Leopard Toad
65 Where would WLTs be kept while construction takes place?
66 Development will cause decrease / loss of pollinators
67 There will be an impact / unacceptable impact on the Cape Clawless Otter
68 Sensitive vegetation / Morea Aristata will be impacted
69 There will be a loss in avifaunal habitat
70 Bird nesting sites along the steep western bank of the Original Course of the Liesbeek River would be lost
71 High rise buildings will disrupt avifaunal flight paths
72 Consider the impacts of noise and light pollution on the fauna
73 Faunal mortalities during construction inevitable
74 Pollution from the development will lead to ecological impacts
75 There will be a loss / decline in public amenity by developing the site
76 The provision of inclusionary housing as proposed would be beneficial
77There is an insufficient allocation of housing / inclusionary housing in the development proposal / allocation too low to qualify as a material social benefit
78 Housing units too small to provide comfortable living space / accommodate family
79 Inclusionary housing should not be reserved for civil servants
80 The development includes no inclusionary housing
81 The use of CoCT owned land for the development will alienate public land (for private gain)
82 The development will cause depreciation of surrounding property values.
83 Housing will diminish opportunities for existing local rental providers
84 The development will diminish the tourism potential of the Two Rivers Urban Park
85 The development will lead to a increase in crime and vagrancy
86 The Socio‐economic study uses outdated information
87 The development proposal would lead to an increase in the reliance on private vehicle use
88 The TIA is outdated / incorrect
89 The TIA shows the traffic model is inaccurate
90 The TIA study area should include the N2
91 Traffic impacts during construction will be significant
92 There will be damage to roads from construction road use
93 Traffic impacts during operations will be significant
94 Public Transport is inadequate / cannot support predicted trip reliance
95 Parking provision is inadequate
96 The TIA does not consider the impact on cyclists sufficiently / does not include NMT
97 The City will not upgrade the Liesbeek Parkway
98 NMT routes will be unsafe and therefore unusable
99 The significance of the cultural landscape of which the site forms part has been overlooked in the HIA
100 The site represents one of the last open space remnants of the Liesbeek River and TRUP area and is of greater value
101 Developing in the valley (of heritage significance) is not supported
Socio‐economic
Biodiversity:
Traffic, Parking, Public Transport and NMT:
83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123
83 M
aryke Olivier
84 Susan
Gredley
85 Katrin
Boh
lend
er
86 Emily Vining
87 Pen
ny M
orrell
88 Alison
Paulin
89 Amanda
Law
90 Helen
Tilanu
s
91 Sharie
fa Jo
b
92 Kira
Gajjar
93 Lee
Goldstein
94 Lindsay Clowes
95 Erica Fryer
96 Ingrid Rod
erick
97 Sandra Meyer
98 Len
ita du Plessis
99 Ja
nnah
Ruthven
100 Catherine McShann
on
101 Naomi Rou
x
102 Claudia Ba
tschari
103 Pieter Uys
104 Mark Stead
105 Tanya Moo
smann
106 Megan
Clausen
107 Ashley M
cLean
108 Craig Leo
109 Ph
yllis Orner
110 An
drew
Bow
den
111 Sally Peisl
112 Carla
le Rou
x
113 Samantha Re
nda
114 Bo
nnie Auret
115 Margaret S
chou
w
116 Ch
ristoph
er Auret
117 Ch
ris M
urph
y
118 Em
ma VD
Merwe
119 Da
phne
Coo
per
120 Alex Rod
rigue
s
121 Kallie Do
ran
122 Ro
dney And
erson
123 Yves Ducom
mun
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
1
1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
1
1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Page 8
Issues:
102 The development will lead to an unacceptable impact on the cultural landscape
103 There will be a negative heritage impact from infilling the original course of the Liesbeek River fronting the site
104 The development will negatively impact on historic buildings of Observatory / surrounding the site
105 The SAAO site is of high cultural significance / the SAAO site is given insufficient recognition in the HIA
106 The SAAO will be negatively impacted by the development / current mitigation is insufficient
107 Tall buildings at the confluence of the Liesbeek and Black Rivers will detract from the heritage value of the confluence
108 The site is of great heritage significance to people of the First Nations / the site is sacred
109 There is significant intangible heritage associated with the site
110 There is a great opportunity to celebrate the First Nation people of South Africa on this site
111 The proposed heritage centre is insufficient mitigation
112 The heritage centre is inappropriate to celebrate the First Nations culture
113 Proximity of heritage centre to tallest buildings and Berkley Road extension is inappropriate
114 Object to the destruction of the River Club Building
115 The development is in conflict with the move to declare TRUPA a UNESCO heritage site / NRLHR
116 TRUP is a site of provincial or national heritage significance
117 Site should be surveyed for physical evidence of archaeological value prior to construction
118 Construction at the NRF property on the River Club site is a false assumption
119 Visual and sense of place impacts are unacceptable
120 The proposed buildings are out of scale with the surrounding land use / visually sensitive surrounding environment
121 The development will visually impact surrounding areas (negatively)
122 The development will negatively impact views through the site
123 The development will negatively impact views from the site
124 The development will negatively impact views of the site
125 Light pollution will increase / interfere with operation of SAAO telescope
126 The development will change the sense of place of the site negatively
127 The VIA doesn’t address the (heritage) sensitivity of the site
128 The development will negatively impact on / change a (green) open space network of sub‐metropolitan significance
129 The development will negatively impact on the integrity of the (Two Rivers) Urban Park
130 Extending the open space system along the Liesbeek River will be beneficial
131 We do not support the proposal / we object to the proposal / we are not in favour of the development
132 Main aspects of the Island Concept Alternative can be supported
133 We question the sale of land to the proponent
134 Specialists are not independent
135 The BAR / specialist studies should be rejected / are inadequate
136 The BA is vague and based on too many variables.
137 The application is premature (unfinished consultation)
138 A full EIA process should be followed.
139 The statements that the Canal replaced the Liesbeek River in 1952 are false.
140 How will (e.g.) design, rehabilitaion and maintenance commitments be guaranteed?
141 How would significant height variations in the bedrock layer be addressed?
142 The feasibility calculation is flawed
143 The BAR does not address global warming
144 A full construction EMP should be developed for the project
145 Address the fire risk to the SAAO.
146 No / insufficient consultation with the Khoi leaders
147Your PP notices (incorrectly) refer to "Environmental Authorisation in terms of the NEMA EIA Regulations, 2014 for GN R983 (19); GN R984 (6) and (27); and GN R985 (15) and (18) activities."
148 Provided evidence of a site notice at the entrance to Erf 151832
149 Insufficent public advertisement of BA Process / public meeting
150 Previous concerns raised by commenters not systematically addressed
Public Consultation:
Visual and Sense of Place:
Heritage:
General:
83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123
83 M
aryke Olivier
84 Susan
Gredley
85 Katrin
Boh
lend
er
86 Emily Vining
87 Pen
ny M
orrell
88 Alison
Paulin
89 Amanda
Law
90 Helen
Tilanu
s
91 Sharie
fa Jo
b
92 Kira
Gajjar
93 Lee
Goldstein
94 Lindsay Clowes
95 Erica Fryer
96 Ingrid Rod
erick
97 Sandra Meyer
98 Len
ita du Plessis
99 Ja
nnah
Ruthven
100 Catherine McShann
on
101 Naomi Rou
x
102 Claudia Ba
tschari
103 Pieter Uys
104 Mark Stead
105 Tanya Moo
smann
106 Megan
Clausen
107 Ashley M
cLean
108 Craig Leo
109 Ph
yllis Orner
110 An
drew
Bow
den
111 Sally Peisl
112 Carla
le Rou
x
113 Samantha Re
nda
114 Bo
nnie Auret
115 Margaret S
chou
w
116 Ch
ristoph
er Auret
117 Ch
ris M
urph
y
118 Em
ma VD
Merwe
119 Da
phne
Coo
per
120 Alex Rod
rigue
s
121 Kallie Do
ran
122 Ro
dney And
erson
123 Yves Ducom
mun
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1
1 1 1 1
1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
1
Page 9
Public Stakeholders 124 - 164
Issues:
1 The development is in line with the CoCT MSDF (2018)
2 The development is not entirely aligned with the CoCT MSDF (2018)
3 The development is not in line with the current site zoning
4 We do not support the application for rezoning
5 The proposed development is not in line with the spatial designation of the site in terms of District Plan (2012) / SDP
6 The proposed development is not in line with the principles of the District Plan (2012)
7 Development should not be allowed in Public Open Space
8 We do not support the application for departures from the District Plan /SDP
9The development is not in line with the Two Rivers Urban Park Contextual Framework and Phase One Environmental Management Plan (2003) / not in line with the vision of TRUPA
10A Local Spatial Development Framework for the area is currently being drafted (and the applications should wait for this plan to be finalised)
11The proposed development is not in line with the CoCTs City’s Stormwater Management By‐law, Floodplain and River Corridor Management Policy and Management of Urban Stormwater Impacts Policy
12 The development (/densification) is inappropriate (for the site)
13 The design and layout has not taken account of (potential impacts) and attempted to minimise adverse impacts
14 Development is possible at the site, with less bulk
15 Development is possible at the site, with an improved / better articulated layout
16 There is insufficient open space allocated in the current development proposal
17 There are insufficient recreational / social facilities proposed in the development
18 The development should be a public destination
19 Consider lower density alternatives / alternatives for the public good
20 Retain the canal and rehabilitate the original course of the Liesbeek River
21 Consider a different site
22 The development represents inappropriate built form / layout
23 The Urban Design Framework has failed to take cognisance of the topographic sensitivity of the site / its location in the valley
24 The development footprint, bulk, form, height should be tied to heritage and urban design indicators
25 The development is not the best practicable environmental option for the site
26 The costs of the development to society outweigh the benefits
27 Financial viability not sole consideration for feasibilty / cannot be used as a justification for environmental and cultural impacts
28 The cost of Berkley Road extension should not be used to justify the development / inform the calculation of financial viability
29 There is an opportunity cost to society from developing the site (e.g. stormwater attenuation, park / public open space, agriculture, etc)
30 The development shows no regard to the views of the surrounding community
31Will the development be commercially viable / there is insufficient demand for housing and commercial office space to justify the development / the development will trigger a drop in demand in surrounding areas
32 There will be high dust levels during construction
33 There will be a noise impact on the community during construction
34 There will bo a noise impact on the community during operations
35 Services (General): The proposed use of municipal services at the proposed development will not be sustainable
36 High water demand of construction acitivities during drought
37 Include stormwater harvesting, or greywater treatment
38 Stormwater: The site provides stormwater attenuation function (which would be lost)
39 The development will result in additional flooding (and is therefore not acceptable)
40 The modelled change in flooding is not acceptable
41 Increased level of future floods incorrectly rated as insignificant
42The surface water hydrology study indicates that my house will flood in the 1:20 year return interval flood event, and that it currently does not.
43The Hotel expert expresses concern about the hotel being built on a flood plain / explain potential flood hazard to future residents and users of the site
44 No provision has been made for compensation for reduced property prices or if insurance companies refuse to cover for flood damage
45 Do not support building in the floodplain for hydrological reasons (regardless of the changes in hydrology)
46 Flooding will impact the PRASA railyards
47 Flooding will increase in the Raapenburg Wetland as a result of the development
48 Flooding will impact the SAAO property
49 The Hydrology Assessment is deficient / incorrect / relies on outdated information
Water supply:
Hydrology and Flooding:
Planning:
Project Description:
Urban Design, Design and Layout:
Need and Desirability:
Noise and Dust
124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164
124 Mark Neville
125 Nod
i Murph
y
126 Patrick Melly
127 Jean
Buckley
128 Jenn
y Edge
129 Em
ma VD
Vliet
130 Gideo
n van Lill
131 Da
vid Bu
ckley
132 Ethan Gray
133 Kami G
ordo
n
134 Katherine Lovemore
135 Josi Frater
136 Terry Le Brasseu
r
137 Ashley W
ildem
an
138 Leslie Witz
139 Nikki Britz
140 Em
ily Stockde
n
141 Lyne
tte Au
ret
142 Mark Au
ret
143 Pieter Jo
lly
144 Va
nessa Persson
145 Ch
eryl M
uir
146 Mark Elde
rkin
147 Pam Britt
148 Jill Jou
bert
149 Fairu
z Mullagee
150 Arno
ld Ja
cobs
151 Mogam
ad Ja
ffer
152 Manfred
Dutschke
153 Du
ncan
Moo
re
154 Jane
English
155 Martin
Pow
er
156 Mellissa le Fevre
157 Carolyn Neville
158 Jeanine Scho
uw
159 Ro
l Hun
ter
160 Paul Light
161 Ro
bert & Tina Steine
r
162 Ro
bert Je
ffery
163 Jacob Slabbe
rt
164 Sarah Ba
ssett
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
Page 10
Issues:
50 The Hydrological Assessment should be independently reviewed
51 Increased flooding may mobilise toxic agents found in PRASA soil
52 The surface water hydrology study should take the impacts of climate change into account
53 Climate Change: The development will reduce the resilience of this part of the City to climate change
54 Groundwater: Development will reduce groundwater infiltration (with ecological or water supply impacts)
55 Development at the site will lead to a negative ecological impact
56What guarantees are in place for the funding of a new unlined canal / ecological rehabilitation – i.e. how can the public be sure this will be implemented
57 The development will negatively impact wetlands
58 The impact of infilling the original course of the Liesbeek River is unacceptable
59 There is an opportunity cost of not rehabilitating the original course of the Liesbeek River
60 There will be a negative impact on the Cape Galaxias fish
61 There will be a negative impact on ecological connectivity
62 There will be a significant negative impact on Western Leopard Toads
63 There will be a net loss in breeding habitat for Western Leopard Toads
64 There will be a net loss in terrestrial habitat for the Western Leopard Toad
65 Where would WLTs be kept while construction takes place?
66 Development will cause decrease / loss of pollinators
67 There will be an impact / unacceptable impact on the Cape Clawless Otter
68 Sensitive vegetation / Morea Aristata will be impacted
69 There will be a loss in avifaunal habitat
70 Bird nesting sites along the steep western bank of the Original Course of the Liesbeek River would be lost
71 High rise buildings will disrupt avifaunal flight paths
72 Consider the impacts of noise and light pollution on the fauna
73 Faunal mortalities during construction inevitable
74 Pollution from the development will lead to ecological impacts
75 There will be a loss / decline in public amenity by developing the site
76 The provision of inclusionary housing as proposed would be beneficial
77There is an insufficient allocation of housing / inclusionary housing in the development proposal / allocation too low to qualify as a material social benefit
78 Housing units too small to provide comfortable living space / accommodate family
79 Inclusionary housing should not be reserved for civil servants
80 The development includes no inclusionary housing
81 The use of CoCT owned land for the development will alienate public land (for private gain)
82 The development will cause depreciation of surrounding property values.
83 Housing will diminish opportunities for existing local rental providers
84 The development will diminish the tourism potential of the Two Rivers Urban Park
85 The development will lead to a increase in crime and vagrancy
86 The Socio‐economic study uses outdated information
87 The development proposal would lead to an increase in the reliance on private vehicle use
88 The TIA is outdated / incorrect
89 The TIA shows the traffic model is inaccurate
90 The TIA study area should include the N2
91 Traffic impacts during construction will be significant
92 There will be damage to roads from construction road use
93 Traffic impacts during operations will be significant
94 Public Transport is inadequate / cannot support predicted trip reliance
95 Parking provision is inadequate
96 The TIA does not consider the impact on cyclists sufficiently / does not include NMT
97 The City will not upgrade the Liesbeek Parkway
98 NMT routes will be unsafe and therefore unusable
99 The significance of the cultural landscape of which the site forms part has been overlooked in the HIA
100 The site represents one of the last open space remnants of the Liesbeek River and TRUP area and is of greater value
101 Developing in the valley (of heritage significance) is not supported
Socio‐economic
Biodiversity:
Traffic, Parking, Public Transport and NMT:
124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164
124 Mark Neville
125 Nod
i Murph
y
126 Patrick Melly
127 Jean
Buckley
128 Jenn
y Edge
129 Em
ma VD
Vliet
130 Gideo
n van Lill
131 Da
vid Bu
ckley
132 Ethan Gray
133 Kami G
ordo
n
134 Katherine Lovemore
135 Josi Frater
136 Terry Le Brasseu
r
137 Ashley W
ildem
an
138 Leslie Witz
139 Nikki Britz
140 Em
ily Stockde
n
141 Lyne
tte Au
ret
142 Mark Au
ret
143 Pieter Jo
lly
144 Va
nessa Persson
145 Ch
eryl M
uir
146 Mark Elde
rkin
147 Pam Britt
148 Jill Jou
bert
149 Fairu
z Mullagee
150 Arno
ld Ja
cobs
151 Mogam
ad Ja
ffer
152 Manfred
Dutschke
153 Du
ncan
Moo
re
154 Jane
English
155 Martin
Pow
er
156 Mellissa le Fevre
157 Carolyn Neville
158 Jeanine Scho
uw
159 Ro
l Hun
ter
160 Paul Light
161 Ro
bert & Tina Steine
r
162 Ro
bert Je
ffery
163 Jacob Slabbe
rt
164 Sarah Ba
ssett
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
1
1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
Page 11
Issues:
102 The development will lead to an unacceptable impact on the cultural landscape
103 There will be a negative heritage impact from infilling the original course of the Liesbeek River fronting the site
104 The development will negatively impact on historic buildings of Observatory / surrounding the site
105 The SAAO site is of high cultural significance / the SAAO site is given insufficient recognition in the HIA
106 The SAAO will be negatively impacted by the development / current mitigation is insufficient
107 Tall buildings at the confluence of the Liesbeek and Black Rivers will detract from the heritage value of the confluence
108 The site is of great heritage significance to people of the First Nations / the site is sacred
109 There is significant intangible heritage associated with the site
110 There is a great opportunity to celebrate the First Nation people of South Africa on this site
111 The proposed heritage centre is insufficient mitigation
112 The heritage centre is inappropriate to celebrate the First Nations culture
113 Proximity of heritage centre to tallest buildings and Berkley Road extension is inappropriate
114 Object to the destruction of the River Club Building
115 The development is in conflict with the move to declare TRUPA a UNESCO heritage site / NRLHR
116 TRUP is a site of provincial or national heritage significance
117 Site should be surveyed for physical evidence of archaeological value prior to construction
118 Construction at the NRF property on the River Club site is a false assumption
119 Visual and sense of place impacts are unacceptable
120 The proposed buildings are out of scale with the surrounding land use / visually sensitive surrounding environment
121 The development will visually impact surrounding areas (negatively)
122 The development will negatively impact views through the site
123 The development will negatively impact views from the site
124 The development will negatively impact views of the site
125 Light pollution will increase / interfere with operation of SAAO telescope
126 The development will change the sense of place of the site negatively
127 The VIA doesn’t address the (heritage) sensitivity of the site
128 The development will negatively impact on / change a (green) open space network of sub‐metropolitan significance
129 The development will negatively impact on the integrity of the (Two Rivers) Urban Park
130 Extending the open space system along the Liesbeek River will be beneficial
131 We do not support the proposal / we object to the proposal / we are not in favour of the development
132 Main aspects of the Island Concept Alternative can be supported
133 We question the sale of land to the proponent
134 Specialists are not independent
135 The BAR / specialist studies should be rejected / are inadequate
136 The BA is vague and based on too many variables.
137 The application is premature (unfinished consultation)
138 A full EIA process should be followed.
139 The statements that the Canal replaced the Liesbeek River in 1952 are false.
140 How will (e.g.) design, rehabilitaion and maintenance commitments be guaranteed?
141 How would significant height variations in the bedrock layer be addressed?
142 The feasibility calculation is flawed
143 The BAR does not address global warming
144 A full construction EMP should be developed for the project
145 Address the fire risk to the SAAO.
146 No / insufficient consultation with the Khoi leaders
147Your PP notices (incorrectly) refer to "Environmental Authorisation in terms of the NEMA EIA Regulations, 2014 for GN R983 (19); GN R984 (6) and (27); and GN R985 (15) and (18) activities."
148 Provided evidence of a site notice at the entrance to Erf 151832
149 Insufficent public advertisement of BA Process / public meeting
150 Previous concerns raised by commenters not systematically addressed
Public Consultation:
Visual and Sense of Place:
Heritage:
General:
124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164
124 Mark Neville
125 Nod
i Murph
y
126 Patrick Melly
127 Jean
Buckley
128 Jenn
y Edge
129 Em
ma VD
Vliet
130 Gideo
n van Lill
131 Da
vid Bu
ckley
132 Ethan Gray
133 Kami G
ordo
n
134 Katherine Lovemore
135 Josi Frater
136 Terry Le Brasseu
r
137 Ashley W
ildem
an
138 Leslie Witz
139 Nikki Britz
140 Em
ily Stockde
n
141 Lyne
tte Au
ret
142 Mark Au
ret
143 Pieter Jo
lly
144 Va
nessa Persson
145 Ch
eryl M
uir
146 Mark Elde
rkin
147 Pam Britt
148 Jill Jou
bert
149 Fairu
z Mullagee
150 Arno
ld Ja
cobs
151 Mogam
ad Ja
ffer
152 Manfred
Dutschke
153 Du
ncan
Moo
re
154 Jane
English
155 Martin
Pow
er
156 Mellissa le Fevre
157 Carolyn Neville
158 Jeanine Scho
uw
159 Ro
l Hun
ter
160 Paul Light
161 Ro
bert & Tina Steine
r
162 Ro
bert Je
ffery
163 Jacob Slabbe
rt
164 Sarah Ba
ssett
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1
1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
Page 12
Public Stakeholders 165 - 205
Issues:
1 The development is in line with the CoCT MSDF (2018)
2 The development is not entirely aligned with the CoCT MSDF (2018)
3 The development is not in line with the current site zoning
4 We do not support the application for rezoning
5 The proposed development is not in line with the spatial designation of the site in terms of District Plan (2012) / SDP
6 The proposed development is not in line with the principles of the District Plan (2012)
7 Development should not be allowed in Public Open Space
8 We do not support the application for departures from the District Plan /SDP
9The development is not in line with the Two Rivers Urban Park Contextual Framework and Phase One Environmental Management Plan (2003) / not in line with the vision of TRUPA
10A Local Spatial Development Framework for the area is currently being drafted (and the applications should wait for this plan to be finalised)
11The proposed development is not in line with the CoCTs City’s Stormwater Management By‐law, Floodplain and River Corridor Management Policy and Management of Urban Stormwater Impacts Policy
12 The development (/densification) is inappropriate (for the site)
13 The design and layout has not taken account of (potential impacts) and attempted to minimise adverse impacts
14 Development is possible at the site, with less bulk
15 Development is possible at the site, with an improved / better articulated layout
16 There is insufficient open space allocated in the current development proposal
17 There are insufficient recreational / social facilities proposed in the development
18 The development should be a public destination
19 Consider lower density alternatives / alternatives for the public good
20 Retain the canal and rehabilitate the original course of the Liesbeek River
21 Consider a different site
22 The development represents inappropriate built form / layout
23 The Urban Design Framework has failed to take cognisance of the topographic sensitivity of the site / its location in the valley
24 The development footprint, bulk, form, height should be tied to heritage and urban design indicators
25 The development is not the best practicable environmental option for the site
26 The costs of the development to society outweigh the benefits
27 Financial viability not sole consideration for feasibilty / cannot be used as a justification for environmental and cultural impacts
28 The cost of Berkley Road extension should not be used to justify the development / inform the calculation of financial viability
29 There is an opportunity cost to society from developing the site (e.g. stormwater attenuation, park / public open space, agriculture, etc)
30 The development shows no regard to the views of the surrounding community
31Will the development be commercially viable / there is insufficient demand for housing and commercial office space to justify the development / the development will trigger a drop in demand in surrounding areas
32 There will be high dust levels during construction
33 There will be a noise impact on the community during construction
34 There will bo a noise impact on the community during operations
35 Services (General): The proposed use of municipal services at the proposed development will not be sustainable
36 High water demand of construction acitivities during drought
37 Include stormwater harvesting, or greywater treatment
38 Stormwater: The site provides stormwater attenuation function (which would be lost)
39 The development will result in additional flooding (and is therefore not acceptable)
40 The modelled change in flooding is not acceptable
41 Increased level of future floods incorrectly rated as insignificant
42The surface water hydrology study indicates that my house will flood in the 1:20 year return interval flood event, and that it currently does not.
43The Hotel expert expresses concern about the hotel being built on a flood plain / explain potential flood hazard to future residents and users of the site
44 No provision has been made for compensation for reduced property prices or if insurance companies refuse to cover for flood damage
45 Do not support building in the floodplain for hydrological reasons (regardless of the changes in hydrology)
46 Flooding will impact the PRASA railyards
47 Flooding will increase in the Raapenburg Wetland as a result of the development
48 Flooding will impact the SAAO property
49 The Hydrology Assessment is deficient / incorrect / relies on outdated information
Water supply:
Hydrology and Flooding:
Planning:
Project Description:
Urban Design, Design and Layout:
Need and Desirability:
Noise and Dust
165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205
165 Claire Fitzgerald
166 Tamryn MacNair
167 Mike Kaufmann
168 Peta & Jo
seph
Brom
169 Ke
ith Barker
170 Ba
rbara Du
puy
171 Tracey Berg
172 Jo Buckland
173 Nicole Ra
smussen
174 Maura Talbo
t
175 He
idi Russell
176 Jenn
y Wyeth
177 Carol Clark
178 An
thon
y Kaufmann
179 Britn
ey Varley
180 Ad
riaan
Haasbroek
181 Moises d
e Gou
veia
182 Martin
Molteno
183 Katie
Huston
184 Marlis Haasbroek
185 Louisa W
illiamson
186 Da
n Neser
187 Louise Jo
nes
188 Carol Cragg
189 Steven
MacFarla
ne
190 Morna
Corne
ll
191 Gareth Leym
an
192 Ch
ristin
e Co
oper
193 John
Traffo
rd
194 Ca
ro de Waal
195 Mark Ab
rahams
196 Co
nrad
Hicks
197 Martha Ho
lmes
198 Aliso
n Ro
omaney
199 Yunu
s Moh
amed
200 Bo
ris Rivett‐Carnac
201 Ch
armaine
Smith
202 Hu
dson
McCom
b
203 Sonja Rivett‐Carnac
204 Kayley Smith
205 John
Lanham
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
1
1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Page 13
Issues:
50 The Hydrological Assessment should be independently reviewed
51 Increased flooding may mobilise toxic agents found in PRASA soil
52 The surface water hydrology study should take the impacts of climate change into account
53 Climate Change: The development will reduce the resilience of this part of the City to climate change
54 Groundwater: Development will reduce groundwater infiltration (with ecological or water supply impacts)
55 Development at the site will lead to a negative ecological impact
56What guarantees are in place for the funding of a new unlined canal / ecological rehabilitation – i.e. how can the public be sure this will be implemented
57 The development will negatively impact wetlands
58 The impact of infilling the original course of the Liesbeek River is unacceptable
59 There is an opportunity cost of not rehabilitating the original course of the Liesbeek River
60 There will be a negative impact on the Cape Galaxias fish
61 There will be a negative impact on ecological connectivity
62 There will be a significant negative impact on Western Leopard Toads
63 There will be a net loss in breeding habitat for Western Leopard Toads
64 There will be a net loss in terrestrial habitat for the Western Leopard Toad
65 Where would WLTs be kept while construction takes place?
66 Development will cause decrease / loss of pollinators
67 There will be an impact / unacceptable impact on the Cape Clawless Otter
68 Sensitive vegetation / Morea Aristata will be impacted
69 There will be a loss in avifaunal habitat
70 Bird nesting sites along the steep western bank of the Original Course of the Liesbeek River would be lost
71 High rise buildings will disrupt avifaunal flight paths
72 Consider the impacts of noise and light pollution on the fauna
73 Faunal mortalities during construction inevitable
74 Pollution from the development will lead to ecological impacts
75 There will be a loss / decline in public amenity by developing the site
76 The provision of inclusionary housing as proposed would be beneficial
77There is an insufficient allocation of housing / inclusionary housing in the development proposal / allocation too low to qualify as a material social benefit
78 Housing units too small to provide comfortable living space / accommodate family
79 Inclusionary housing should not be reserved for civil servants
80 The development includes no inclusionary housing
81 The use of CoCT owned land for the development will alienate public land (for private gain)
82 The development will cause depreciation of surrounding property values.
83 Housing will diminish opportunities for existing local rental providers
84 The development will diminish the tourism potential of the Two Rivers Urban Park
85 The development will lead to a increase in crime and vagrancy
86 The Socio‐economic study uses outdated information
87 The development proposal would lead to an increase in the reliance on private vehicle use
88 The TIA is outdated / incorrect
89 The TIA shows the traffic model is inaccurate
90 The TIA study area should include the N2
91 Traffic impacts during construction will be significant
92 There will be damage to roads from construction road use
93 Traffic impacts during operations will be significant
94 Public Transport is inadequate / cannot support predicted trip reliance
95 Parking provision is inadequate
96 The TIA does not consider the impact on cyclists sufficiently / does not include NMT
97 The City will not upgrade the Liesbeek Parkway
98 NMT routes will be unsafe and therefore unusable
99 The significance of the cultural landscape of which the site forms part has been overlooked in the HIA
100 The site represents one of the last open space remnants of the Liesbeek River and TRUP area and is of greater value
101 Developing in the valley (of heritage significance) is not supported
Socio‐economic
Biodiversity:
Traffic, Parking, Public Transport and NMT:
165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205
165 Claire Fitzgerald
166 Tamryn MacNair
167 Mike Kaufmann
168 Peta & Jo
seph
Brom
169 Ke
ith Barker
170 Ba
rbara Du
puy
171 Tracey Berg
172 Jo Buckland
173 Nicole Ra
smussen
174 Maura Talbo
t
175 He
idi Russell
176 Jenn
y Wyeth
177 Carol Clark
178 An
thon
y Kaufmann
179 Britn
ey Varley
180 Ad
riaan
Haasbroek
181 Moises d
e Gou
veia
182 Martin
Molteno
183 Katie
Huston
184 Marlis Haasbroek
185 Louisa W
illiamson
186 Da
n Neser
187 Louise Jo
nes
188 Carol Cragg
189 Steven
MacFarla
ne
190 Morna
Corne
ll
191 Gareth Leym
an
192 Ch
ristin
e Co
oper
193 John
Traffo
rd
194 Ca
ro de Waal
195 Mark Ab
rahams
196 Co
nrad
Hicks
197 Martha Ho
lmes
198 Aliso
n Ro
omaney
199 Yunu
s Moh
amed
200 Bo
ris Rivett‐Carnac
201 Ch
armaine
Smith
202 Hu
dson
McCom
b
203 Sonja Rivett‐Carnac
204 Kayley Smith
205 John
Lanham
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1
1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1
1
1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Page 14
Issues:
102 The development will lead to an unacceptable impact on the cultural landscape
103 There will be a negative heritage impact from infilling the original course of the Liesbeek River fronting the site
104 The development will negatively impact on historic buildings of Observatory / surrounding the site
105 The SAAO site is of high cultural significance / the SAAO site is given insufficient recognition in the HIA
106 The SAAO will be negatively impacted by the development / current mitigation is insufficient
107 Tall buildings at the confluence of the Liesbeek and Black Rivers will detract from the heritage value of the confluence
108 The site is of great heritage significance to people of the First Nations / the site is sacred
109 There is significant intangible heritage associated with the site
110 There is a great opportunity to celebrate the First Nation people of South Africa on this site
111 The proposed heritage centre is insufficient mitigation
112 The heritage centre is inappropriate to celebrate the First Nations culture
113 Proximity of heritage centre to tallest buildings and Berkley Road extension is inappropriate
114 Object to the destruction of the River Club Building
115 The development is in conflict with the move to declare TRUPA a UNESCO heritage site / NRLHR
116 TRUP is a site of provincial or national heritage significance
117 Site should be surveyed for physical evidence of archaeological value prior to construction
118 Construction at the NRF property on the River Club site is a false assumption
119 Visual and sense of place impacts are unacceptable
120 The proposed buildings are out of scale with the surrounding land use / visually sensitive surrounding environment
121 The development will visually impact surrounding areas (negatively)
122 The development will negatively impact views through the site
123 The development will negatively impact views from the site
124 The development will negatively impact views of the site
125 Light pollution will increase / interfere with operation of SAAO telescope
126 The development will change the sense of place of the site negatively
127 The VIA doesn’t address the (heritage) sensitivity of the site
128 The development will negatively impact on / change a (green) open space network of sub‐metropolitan significance
129 The development will negatively impact on the integrity of the (Two Rivers) Urban Park
130 Extending the open space system along the Liesbeek River will be beneficial
131 We do not support the proposal / we object to the proposal / we are not in favour of the development
132 Main aspects of the Island Concept Alternative can be supported
133 We question the sale of land to the proponent
134 Specialists are not independent
135 The BAR / specialist studies should be rejected / are inadequate
136 The BA is vague and based on too many variables.
137 The application is premature (unfinished consultation)
138 A full EIA process should be followed.
139 The statements that the Canal replaced the Liesbeek River in 1952 are false.
140 How will (e.g.) design, rehabilitaion and maintenance commitments be guaranteed?
141 How would significant height variations in the bedrock layer be addressed?
142 The feasibility calculation is flawed
143 The BAR does not address global warming
144 A full construction EMP should be developed for the project
145 Address the fire risk to the SAAO.
146 No / insufficient consultation with the Khoi leaders
147Your PP notices (incorrectly) refer to "Environmental Authorisation in terms of the NEMA EIA Regulations, 2014 for GN R983 (19); GN R984 (6) and (27); and GN R985 (15) and (18) activities."
148 Provided evidence of a site notice at the entrance to Erf 151832
149 Insufficent public advertisement of BA Process / public meeting
150 Previous concerns raised by commenters not systematically addressed
Public Consultation:
Visual and Sense of Place:
Heritage:
General:
165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205
165 Claire Fitzgerald
166 Tamryn MacNair
167 Mike Kaufmann
168 Peta & Jo
seph
Brom
169 Ke
ith Barker
170 Ba
rbara Du
puy
171 Tracey Berg
172 Jo Buckland
173 Nicole Ra
smussen
174 Maura Talbo
t
175 He
idi Russell
176 Jenn
y Wyeth
177 Carol Clark
178 An
thon
y Kaufmann
179 Britn
ey Varley
180 Ad
riaan
Haasbroek
181 Moises d
e Gou
veia
182 Martin
Molteno
183 Katie
Huston
184 Marlis Haasbroek
185 Louisa W
illiamson
186 Da
n Neser
187 Louise Jo
nes
188 Carol Cragg
189 Steven
MacFarla
ne
190 Morna
Corne
ll
191 Gareth Leym
an
192 Ch
ristin
e Co
oper
193 John
Traffo
rd
194 Ca
ro de Waal
195 Mark Ab
rahams
196 Co
nrad
Hicks
197 Martha Ho
lmes
198 Aliso
n Ro
omaney
199 Yunu
s Moh
amed
200 Bo
ris Rivett‐Carnac
201 Ch
armaine
Smith
202 Hu
dson
McCom
b
203 Sonja Rivett‐Carnac
204 Kayley Smith
205 John
Lanham
1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
Page 15
Public Stakeholders 206 - 246
Issues:
1 The development is in line with the CoCT MSDF (2018)
2 The development is not entirely aligned with the CoCT MSDF (2018)
3 The development is not in line with the current site zoning
4 We do not support the application for rezoning
5 The proposed development is not in line with the spatial designation of the site in terms of District Plan (2012) / SDP
6 The proposed development is not in line with the principles of the District Plan (2012)
7 Development should not be allowed in Public Open Space
8 We do not support the application for departures from the District Plan /SDP
9The development is not in line with the Two Rivers Urban Park Contextual Framework and Phase One Environmental Management Plan (2003) / not in line with the vision of TRUPA
10A Local Spatial Development Framework for the area is currently being drafted (and the applications should wait for this plan to be finalised)
11The proposed development is not in line with the CoCTs City’s Stormwater Management By‐law, Floodplain and River Corridor Management Policy and Management of Urban Stormwater Impacts Policy
12 The development (/densification) is inappropriate (for the site)
13 The design and layout has not taken account of (potential impacts) and attempted to minimise adverse impacts
14 Development is possible at the site, with less bulk
15 Development is possible at the site, with an improved / better articulated layout
16 There is insufficient open space allocated in the current development proposal
17 There are insufficient recreational / social facilities proposed in the development
18 The development should be a public destination
19 Consider lower density alternatives / alternatives for the public good
20 Retain the canal and rehabilitate the original course of the Liesbeek River
21 Consider a different site
22 The development represents inappropriate built form / layout
23 The Urban Design Framework has failed to take cognisance of the topographic sensitivity of the site / its location in the valley
24 The development footprint, bulk, form, height should be tied to heritage and urban design indicators
25 The development is not the best practicable environmental option for the site
26 The costs of the development to society outweigh the benefits
27 Financial viability not sole consideration for feasibilty / cannot be used as a justification for environmental and cultural impacts
28 The cost of Berkley Road extension should not be used to justify the development / inform the calculation of financial viability
29 There is an opportunity cost to society from developing the site (e.g. stormwater attenuation, park / public open space, agriculture, etc)
30 The development shows no regard to the views of the surrounding community
31Will the development be commercially viable / there is insufficient demand for housing and commercial office space to justify the development / the development will trigger a drop in demand in surrounding areas
32 There will be high dust levels during construction
33 There will be a noise impact on the community during construction
34 There will bo a noise impact on the community during operations
35 Services (General): The proposed use of municipal services at the proposed development will not be sustainable
36 High water demand of construction acitivities during drought
37 Include stormwater harvesting, or greywater treatment
38 Stormwater: The site provides stormwater attenuation function (which would be lost)
39 The development will result in additional flooding (and is therefore not acceptable)
40 The modelled change in flooding is not acceptable
41 Increased level of future floods incorrectly rated as insignificant
42The surface water hydrology study indicates that my house will flood in the 1:20 year return interval flood event, and that it currently does not.
43The Hotel expert expresses concern about the hotel being built on a flood plain / explain potential flood hazard to future residents and users of the site
44 No provision has been made for compensation for reduced property prices or if insurance companies refuse to cover for flood damage
45 Do not support building in the floodplain for hydrological reasons (regardless of the changes in hydrology)
46 Flooding will impact the PRASA railyards
47 Flooding will increase in the Raapenburg Wetland as a result of the development
48 Flooding will impact the SAAO property
49 The Hydrology Assessment is deficient / incorrect / relies on outdated information
Water supply:
Hydrology and Flooding:
Planning:
Project Description:
Urban Design, Design and Layout:
Need and Desirability:
Noise and Dust
206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246
206 Melanie Alperstein
207 Tracy Blue
s
208 Neil H
arrison
209 Eileen
de Klerk
210 Sarah Rice
211 Do
t Feast
212 Cameron
Barne
s
213 Tania Mackenzie
214 Marion Sm
allbon
es
215 Ingrid Coe
tzee
216 Do
rothy Ho
lder
217 An
drew
Light
218 Isabel Nun
es
219 Gill Lanham
220 An
neliese Le‐Breton
221 Ru
dy Nadler‐Nir
222 Ro
elien Theron
223 Ke
lly M
ansfield
224 Virginia M
acKe
nny
225 Aretha
Coo
per
226 Eloise de Klerk
227 Ba
rry Ba
denh
orst
228 Mark Neame
229 Kimen
thrie
Pillay
230 Ke
chil Kirkham
231 Mariette VD
Heever
232 Jeanne
Goo
dall
233 Ha
zel G
ubb
234 Mel Coh
en
235 Bruce Goo
dall
236 Be
ryl Klein
239 Gen
evieve Langenh
ove n
238 Jaqu
i Hew
ett
239 Kirsten Do
uglas
240 He
len Torr
241 Stuart Gormley
242 Carol Ford
243 Lara‐Ann
Ford
244 An
iela Batschari
245 Marco Casati
246 Tony
Drake
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1
1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Page 16
Issues:
50 The Hydrological Assessment should be independently reviewed
51 Increased flooding may mobilise toxic agents found in PRASA soil
52 The surface water hydrology study should take the impacts of climate change into account
53 Climate Change: The development will reduce the resilience of this part of the City to climate change
54 Groundwater: Development will reduce groundwater infiltration (with ecological or water supply impacts)
55 Development at the site will lead to a negative ecological impact
56What guarantees are in place for the funding of a new unlined canal / ecological rehabilitation – i.e. how can the public be sure this will be implemented
57 The development will negatively impact wetlands
58 The impact of infilling the original course of the Liesbeek River is unacceptable
59 There is an opportunity cost of not rehabilitating the original course of the Liesbeek River
60 There will be a negative impact on the Cape Galaxias fish
61 There will be a negative impact on ecological connectivity
62 There will be a significant negative impact on Western Leopard Toads
63 There will be a net loss in breeding habitat for Western Leopard Toads
64 There will be a net loss in terrestrial habitat for the Western Leopard Toad
65 Where would WLTs be kept while construction takes place?
66 Development will cause decrease / loss of pollinators
67 There will be an impact / unacceptable impact on the Cape Clawless Otter
68 Sensitive vegetation / Morea Aristata will be impacted
69 There will be a loss in avifaunal habitat
70 Bird nesting sites along the steep western bank of the Original Course of the Liesbeek River would be lost
71 High rise buildings will disrupt avifaunal flight paths
72 Consider the impacts of noise and light pollution on the fauna
73 Faunal mortalities during construction inevitable
74 Pollution from the development will lead to ecological impacts
75 There will be a loss / decline in public amenity by developing the site
76 The provision of inclusionary housing as proposed would be beneficial
77There is an insufficient allocation of housing / inclusionary housing in the development proposal / allocation too low to qualify as a material social benefit
78 Housing units too small to provide comfortable living space / accommodate family
79 Inclusionary housing should not be reserved for civil servants
80 The development includes no inclusionary housing
81 The use of CoCT owned land for the development will alienate public land (for private gain)
82 The development will cause depreciation of surrounding property values.
83 Housing will diminish opportunities for existing local rental providers
84 The development will diminish the tourism potential of the Two Rivers Urban Park
85 The development will lead to a increase in crime and vagrancy
86 The Socio‐economic study uses outdated information
87 The development proposal would lead to an increase in the reliance on private vehicle use
88 The TIA is outdated / incorrect
89 The TIA shows the traffic model is inaccurate
90 The TIA study area should include the N2
91 Traffic impacts during construction will be significant
92 There will be damage to roads from construction road use
93 Traffic impacts during operations will be significant
94 Public Transport is inadequate / cannot support predicted trip reliance
95 Parking provision is inadequate
96 The TIA does not consider the impact on cyclists sufficiently / does not include NMT
97 The City will not upgrade the Liesbeek Parkway
98 NMT routes will be unsafe and therefore unusable
99 The significance of the cultural landscape of which the site forms part has been overlooked in the HIA
100 The site represents one of the last open space remnants of the Liesbeek River and TRUP area and is of greater value
101 Developing in the valley (of heritage significance) is not supported
Socio‐economic
Biodiversity:
Traffic, Parking, Public Transport and NMT:
206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246
206 Melanie Alperstein
207 Tracy Blue
s
208 Neil H
arrison
209 Eileen
de Klerk
210 Sarah Rice
211 Do
t Feast
212 Cameron
Barne
s
213 Tania Mackenzie
214 Marion Sm
allbon
es
215 Ingrid Coe
tzee
216 Do
rothy Ho
lder
217 An
drew
Light
218 Isabel Nun
es
219 Gill Lanham
220 An
neliese Le‐Breton
221 Ru
dy Nadler‐Nir
222 Ro
elien Theron
223 Ke
lly M
ansfield
224 Virginia M
acKe
nny
225 Aretha
Coo
per
226 Eloise de Klerk
227 Ba
rry Ba
denh
orst
228 Mark Neame
229 Kimen
thrie
Pillay
230 Ke
chil Kirkham
231 Mariette VD
Heever
232 Jeanne
Goo
dall
233 Ha
zel G
ubb
234 Mel Coh
en
235 Bruce Goo
dall
236 Be
ryl Klein
239 Gen
evieve Langenh
ove n
238 Jaqu
i Hew
ett
239 Kirsten Do
uglas
240 He
len Torr
241 Stuart Gormley
242 Carol Ford
243 Lara‐Ann
Ford
244 An
iela Batschari
245 Marco Casati
246 Tony
Drake
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
1
1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
1 1
1 1 1 1 1
Page 17
Issues:
102 The development will lead to an unacceptable impact on the cultural landscape
103 There will be a negative heritage impact from infilling the original course of the Liesbeek River fronting the site
104 The development will negatively impact on historic buildings of Observatory / surrounding the site
105 The SAAO site is of high cultural significance / the SAAO site is given insufficient recognition in the HIA
106 The SAAO will be negatively impacted by the development / current mitigation is insufficient
107 Tall buildings at the confluence of the Liesbeek and Black Rivers will detract from the heritage value of the confluence
108 The site is of great heritage significance to people of the First Nations / the site is sacred
109 There is significant intangible heritage associated with the site
110 There is a great opportunity to celebrate the First Nation people of South Africa on this site
111 The proposed heritage centre is insufficient mitigation
112 The heritage centre is inappropriate to celebrate the First Nations culture
113 Proximity of heritage centre to tallest buildings and Berkley Road extension is inappropriate
114 Object to the destruction of the River Club Building
115 The development is in conflict with the move to declare TRUPA a UNESCO heritage site / NRLHR
116 TRUP is a site of provincial or national heritage significance
117 Site should be surveyed for physical evidence of archaeological value prior to construction
118 Construction at the NRF property on the River Club site is a false assumption
119 Visual and sense of place impacts are unacceptable
120 The proposed buildings are out of scale with the surrounding land use / visually sensitive surrounding environment
121 The development will visually impact surrounding areas (negatively)
122 The development will negatively impact views through the site
123 The development will negatively impact views from the site
124 The development will negatively impact views of the site
125 Light pollution will increase / interfere with operation of SAAO telescope
126 The development will change the sense of place of the site negatively
127 The VIA doesn’t address the (heritage) sensitivity of the site
128 The development will negatively impact on / change a (green) open space network of sub‐metropolitan significance
129 The development will negatively impact on the integrity of the (Two Rivers) Urban Park
130 Extending the open space system along the Liesbeek River will be beneficial
131 We do not support the proposal / we object to the proposal / we are not in favour of the development
132 Main aspects of the Island Concept Alternative can be supported
133 We question the sale of land to the proponent
134 Specialists are not independent
135 The BAR / specialist studies should be rejected / are inadequate
136 The BA is vague and based on too many variables.
137 The application is premature (unfinished consultation)
138 A full EIA process should be followed.
139 The statements that the Canal replaced the Liesbeek River in 1952 are false.
140 How will (e.g.) design, rehabilitaion and maintenance commitments be guaranteed?
141 How would significant height variations in the bedrock layer be addressed?
142 The feasibility calculation is flawed
143 The BAR does not address global warming
144 A full construction EMP should be developed for the project
145 Address the fire risk to the SAAO.
146 No / insufficient consultation with the Khoi leaders
147Your PP notices (incorrectly) refer to "Environmental Authorisation in terms of the NEMA EIA Regulations, 2014 for GN R983 (19); GN R984 (6) and (27); and GN R985 (15) and (18) activities."
148 Provided evidence of a site notice at the entrance to Erf 151832
149 Insufficent public advertisement of BA Process / public meeting
150 Previous concerns raised by commenters not systematically addressed
Public Consultation:
Visual and Sense of Place:
Heritage:
General:
206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246
206 Melanie Alperstein
207 Tracy Blue
s
208 Neil H
arrison
209 Eileen
de Klerk
210 Sarah Rice
211 Do
t Feast
212 Cameron
Barne
s
213 Tania Mackenzie
214 Marion Sm
allbon
es
215 Ingrid Coe
tzee
216 Do
rothy Ho
lder
217 An
drew
Light
218 Isabel Nun
es
219 Gill Lanham
220 An
neliese Le‐Breton
221 Ru
dy Nadler‐Nir
222 Ro
elien Theron
223 Ke
lly M
ansfield
224 Virginia M
acKe
nny
225 Aretha
Coo
per
226 Eloise de Klerk
227 Ba
rry Ba
denh
orst
228 Mark Neame
229 Kimen
thrie
Pillay
230 Ke
chil Kirkham
231 Mariette VD
Heever
232 Jeanne
Goo
dall
233 Ha
zel G
ubb
234 Mel Coh
en
235 Bruce Goo
dall
236 Be
ryl Klein
239 Gen
evieve Langenh
ove n
238 Jaqu
i Hew
ett
239 Kirsten Do
uglas
240 He
len Torr
241 Stuart Gormley
242 Carol Ford
243 Lara‐Ann
Ford
244 An
iela Batschari
245 Marco Casati
246 Tony
Drake
1 1 1 1
1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Page 18
Public Stakeholders 247 - 287
Issues:
1 The development is in line with the CoCT MSDF (2018)
2 The development is not entirely aligned with the CoCT MSDF (2018)
3 The development is not in line with the current site zoning
4 We do not support the application for rezoning
5 The proposed development is not in line with the spatial designation of the site in terms of District Plan (2012) / SDP
6 The proposed development is not in line with the principles of the District Plan (2012)
7 Development should not be allowed in Public Open Space
8 We do not support the application for departures from the District Plan /SDP
9The development is not in line with the Two Rivers Urban Park Contextual Framework and Phase One Environmental Management Plan (2003) / not in line with the vision of TRUPA
10A Local Spatial Development Framework for the area is currently being drafted (and the applications should wait for this plan to be finalised)
11The proposed development is not in line with the CoCTs City’s Stormwater Management By‐law, Floodplain and River Corridor Management Policy and Management of Urban Stormwater Impacts Policy
12 The development (/densification) is inappropriate (for the site)
13 The design and layout has not taken account of (potential impacts) and attempted to minimise adverse impacts
14 Development is possible at the site, with less bulk
15 Development is possible at the site, with an improved / better articulated layout
16 There is insufficient open space allocated in the current development proposal
17 There are insufficient recreational / social facilities proposed in the development
18 The development should be a public destination
19 Consider lower density alternatives / alternatives for the public good
20 Retain the canal and rehabilitate the original course of the Liesbeek River
21 Consider a different site
22 The development represents inappropriate built form / layout
23 The Urban Design Framework has failed to take cognisance of the topographic sensitivity of the site / its location in the valley
24 The development footprint, bulk, form, height should be tied to heritage and urban design indicators
25 The development is not the best practicable environmental option for the site
26 The costs of the development to society outweigh the benefits
27 Financial viability not sole consideration for feasibilty / cannot be used as a justification for environmental and cultural impacts
28 The cost of Berkley Road extension should not be used to justify the development / inform the calculation of financial viability
29 There is an opportunity cost to society from developing the site (e.g. stormwater attenuation, park / public open space, agriculture, etc)
30 The development shows no regard to the views of the surrounding community
31Will the development be commercially viable / there is insufficient demand for housing and commercial office space to justify the development / the development will trigger a drop in demand in surrounding areas
32 There will be high dust levels during construction
33 There will be a noise impact on the community during construction
34 There will bo a noise impact on the community during operations
35 Services (General): The proposed use of municipal services at the proposed development will not be sustainable
36 High water demand of construction acitivities during drought
37 Include stormwater harvesting, or greywater treatment
38 Stormwater: The site provides stormwater attenuation function (which would be lost)
39 The development will result in additional flooding (and is therefore not acceptable)
40 The modelled change in flooding is not acceptable
41 Increased level of future floods incorrectly rated as insignificant
42The surface water hydrology study indicates that my house will flood in the 1:20 year return interval flood event, and that it currently does not.
43The Hotel expert expresses concern about the hotel being built on a flood plain / explain potential flood hazard to future residents and users of the site
44 No provision has been made for compensation for reduced property prices or if insurance companies refuse to cover for flood damage
45 Do not support building in the floodplain for hydrological reasons (regardless of the changes in hydrology)
46 Flooding will impact the PRASA railyards
47 Flooding will increase in the Raapenburg Wetland as a result of the development
48 Flooding will impact the SAAO property
49 The Hydrology Assessment is deficient / incorrect / relies on outdated information
Water supply:
Hydrology and Flooding:
Planning:
Project Description:
Urban Design, Design and Layout:
Need and Desirability:
Noise and Dust
247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287
247 Co
rlea Viljoen
248 Toby
Atw
ell
249 Riad
Davids
250 Juanita
de Villers
251 Mike Be
rg
252 Camilla Sw
art
253 An
war Davids
254 Ch
loe Ho
eben
255 Lind
a Co
dron
256 Ce
lvin Bruton
257 Lucy Ker
258 Ro
bert Ja
cot‐Guillarm
o d
259 Moray M
cGregor
260 Catherine Theron
261 Mel Gub
ic
262 Cand
a Kinces
263 Jane
t Cronje
264 Ab
i Case
265 Bryn
Divey
266 Ernie Au
toplastics
267 Ho
ward Richman
268 De
on du Plessis
269 Jean
Cow
en
270 Ce
cilia du Plessis
271 Michael Koker
272 Nancy Dorrat
273 Jenn
ifer C
herry
274 Da
niel Steyn
275 Pierre du Preez
276 Ru
ssell Jarvis
277 Lizet K
oen
278 Mary Ke
et
279 Bridget S
imon
s
280 Leslie Lond
on
281 Alex Ven
ter
282 Brian Klop
per
283 Simon
Scott
284 Grie
tje Zakarian
285 Da
nielle Albertyn
286 Matthew
Kretzschm
ar
287 Kirk Dom
an
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
Page 19
Issues:
50 The Hydrological Assessment should be independently reviewed
51 Increased flooding may mobilise toxic agents found in PRASA soil
52 The surface water hydrology study should take the impacts of climate change into account
53 Climate Change: The development will reduce the resilience of this part of the City to climate change
54 Groundwater: Development will reduce groundwater infiltration (with ecological or water supply impacts)
55 Development at the site will lead to a negative ecological impact
56What guarantees are in place for the funding of a new unlined canal / ecological rehabilitation – i.e. how can the public be sure this will be implemented
57 The development will negatively impact wetlands
58 The impact of infilling the original course of the Liesbeek River is unacceptable
59 There is an opportunity cost of not rehabilitating the original course of the Liesbeek River
60 There will be a negative impact on the Cape Galaxias fish
61 There will be a negative impact on ecological connectivity
62 There will be a significant negative impact on Western Leopard Toads
63 There will be a net loss in breeding habitat for Western Leopard Toads
64 There will be a net loss in terrestrial habitat for the Western Leopard Toad
65 Where would WLTs be kept while construction takes place?
66 Development will cause decrease / loss of pollinators
67 There will be an impact / unacceptable impact on the Cape Clawless Otter
68 Sensitive vegetation / Morea Aristata will be impacted
69 There will be a loss in avifaunal habitat
70 Bird nesting sites along the steep western bank of the Original Course of the Liesbeek River would be lost
71 High rise buildings will disrupt avifaunal flight paths
72 Consider the impacts of noise and light pollution on the fauna
73 Faunal mortalities during construction inevitable
74 Pollution from the development will lead to ecological impacts
75 There will be a loss / decline in public amenity by developing the site
76 The provision of inclusionary housing as proposed would be beneficial
77There is an insufficient allocation of housing / inclusionary housing in the development proposal / allocation too low to qualify as a material social benefit
78 Housing units too small to provide comfortable living space / accommodate family
79 Inclusionary housing should not be reserved for civil servants
80 The development includes no inclusionary housing
81 The use of CoCT owned land for the development will alienate public land (for private gain)
82 The development will cause depreciation of surrounding property values.
83 Housing will diminish opportunities for existing local rental providers
84 The development will diminish the tourism potential of the Two Rivers Urban Park
85 The development will lead to a increase in crime and vagrancy
86 The Socio‐economic study uses outdated information
87 The development proposal would lead to an increase in the reliance on private vehicle use
88 The TIA is outdated / incorrect
89 The TIA shows the traffic model is inaccurate
90 The TIA study area should include the N2
91 Traffic impacts during construction will be significant
92 There will be damage to roads from construction road use
93 Traffic impacts during operations will be significant
94 Public Transport is inadequate / cannot support predicted trip reliance
95 Parking provision is inadequate
96 The TIA does not consider the impact on cyclists sufficiently / does not include NMT
97 The City will not upgrade the Liesbeek Parkway
98 NMT routes will be unsafe and therefore unusable
99 The significance of the cultural landscape of which the site forms part has been overlooked in the HIA
100 The site represents one of the last open space remnants of the Liesbeek River and TRUP area and is of greater value
101 Developing in the valley (of heritage significance) is not supported
Socio‐economic
Biodiversity:
Traffic, Parking, Public Transport and NMT:
247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287
247 Co
rlea Viljoen
248 Toby
Atw
ell
249 Riad
Davids
250 Juanita
de Villers
251 Mike Be
rg
252 Camilla Sw
art
253 An
war Davids
254 Ch
loe Ho
eben
255 Lind
a Co
dron
256 Ce
lvin Bruton
257 Lucy Ker
258 Ro
bert Ja
cot‐Guillarm
o d
259 Moray M
cGregor
260 Catherine Theron
261 Mel Gub
ic
262 Cand
a Kinces
263 Jane
t Cronje
264 Ab
i Case
265 Bryn
Divey
266 Ernie Au
toplastics
267 Ho
ward Richman
268 De
on du Plessis
269 Jean
Cow
en
270 Ce
cilia du Plessis
271 Michael Koker
272 Nancy Dorrat
273 Jenn
ifer C
herry
274 Da
niel Steyn
275 Pierre du Preez
276 Ru
ssell Jarvis
277 Lizet K
oen
278 Mary Ke
et
279 Bridget S
imon
s
280 Leslie Lond
on
281 Alex Ven
ter
282 Brian Klop
per
283 Simon
Scott
284 Grie
tje Zakarian
285 Da
nielle Albertyn
286 Matthew
Kretzschm
ar
287 Kirk Dom
an
1
1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1
1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1
1
1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Page 20
Issues:
102 The development will lead to an unacceptable impact on the cultural landscape
103 There will be a negative heritage impact from infilling the original course of the Liesbeek River fronting the site
104 The development will negatively impact on historic buildings of Observatory / surrounding the site
105 The SAAO site is of high cultural significance / the SAAO site is given insufficient recognition in the HIA
106 The SAAO will be negatively impacted by the development / current mitigation is insufficient
107 Tall buildings at the confluence of the Liesbeek and Black Rivers will detract from the heritage value of the confluence
108 The site is of great heritage significance to people of the First Nations / the site is sacred
109 There is significant intangible heritage associated with the site
110 There is a great opportunity to celebrate the First Nation people of South Africa on this site
111 The proposed heritage centre is insufficient mitigation
112 The heritage centre is inappropriate to celebrate the First Nations culture
113 Proximity of heritage centre to tallest buildings and Berkley Road extension is inappropriate
114 Object to the destruction of the River Club Building
115 The development is in conflict with the move to declare TRUPA a UNESCO heritage site / NRLHR
116 TRUP is a site of provincial or national heritage significance
117 Site should be surveyed for physical evidence of archaeological value prior to construction
118 Construction at the NRF property on the River Club site is a false assumption
119 Visual and sense of place impacts are unacceptable
120 The proposed buildings are out of scale with the surrounding land use / visually sensitive surrounding environment
121 The development will visually impact surrounding areas (negatively)
122 The development will negatively impact views through the site
123 The development will negatively impact views from the site
124 The development will negatively impact views of the site
125 Light pollution will increase / interfere with operation of SAAO telescope
126 The development will change the sense of place of the site negatively
127 The VIA doesn’t address the (heritage) sensitivity of the site
128 The development will negatively impact on / change a (green) open space network of sub‐metropolitan significance
129 The development will negatively impact on the integrity of the (Two Rivers) Urban Park
130 Extending the open space system along the Liesbeek River will be beneficial
131 We do not support the proposal / we object to the proposal / we are not in favour of the development
132 Main aspects of the Island Concept Alternative can be supported
133 We question the sale of land to the proponent
134 Specialists are not independent
135 The BAR / specialist studies should be rejected / are inadequate
136 The BA is vague and based on too many variables.
137 The application is premature (unfinished consultation)
138 A full EIA process should be followed.
139 The statements that the Canal replaced the Liesbeek River in 1952 are false.
140 How will (e.g.) design, rehabilitaion and maintenance commitments be guaranteed?
141 How would significant height variations in the bedrock layer be addressed?
142 The feasibility calculation is flawed
143 The BAR does not address global warming
144 A full construction EMP should be developed for the project
145 Address the fire risk to the SAAO.
146 No / insufficient consultation with the Khoi leaders
147Your PP notices (incorrectly) refer to "Environmental Authorisation in terms of the NEMA EIA Regulations, 2014 for GN R983 (19); GN R984 (6) and (27); and GN R985 (15) and (18) activities."
148 Provided evidence of a site notice at the entrance to Erf 151832
149 Insufficent public advertisement of BA Process / public meeting
150 Previous concerns raised by commenters not systematically addressed
Public Consultation:
Visual and Sense of Place:
Heritage:
General:
247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287
247 Co
rlea Viljoen
248 Toby
Atw
ell
249 Riad
Davids
250 Juanita
de Villers
251 Mike Be
rg
252 Camilla Sw
art
253 An
war Davids
254 Ch
loe Ho
eben
255 Lind
a Co
dron
256 Ce
lvin Bruton
257 Lucy Ker
258 Ro
bert Ja
cot‐Guillarm
o d
259 Moray M
cGregor
260 Catherine Theron
261 Mel Gub
ic
262 Cand
a Kinces
263 Jane
t Cronje
264 Ab
i Case
265 Bryn
Divey
266 Ernie Au
toplastics
267 Ho
ward Richman
268 De
on du Plessis
269 Jean
Cow
en
270 Ce
cilia du Plessis
271 Michael Koker
272 Nancy Dorrat
273 Jenn
ifer C
herry
274 Da
niel Steyn
275 Pierre du Preez
276 Ru
ssell Jarvis
277 Lizet K
oen
278 Mary Ke
et
279 Bridget S
imon
s
280 Leslie Lond
on
281 Alex Ven
ter
282 Brian Klop
per
283 Simon
Scott
284 Grie
tje Zakarian
285 Da
nielle Albertyn
286 Matthew
Kretzschm
ar
287 Kirk Dom
an
1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
Page 21
Public Stakeholders 288 - 328
Issues:
1 The development is in line with the CoCT MSDF (2018)
2 The development is not entirely aligned with the CoCT MSDF (2018)
3 The development is not in line with the current site zoning
4 We do not support the application for rezoning
5 The proposed development is not in line with the spatial designation of the site in terms of District Plan (2012) / SDP
6 The proposed development is not in line with the principles of the District Plan (2012)
7 Development should not be allowed in Public Open Space
8 We do not support the application for departures from the District Plan /SDP
9The development is not in line with the Two Rivers Urban Park Contextual Framework and Phase One Environmental Management Plan (2003) / not in line with the vision of TRUPA
10A Local Spatial Development Framework for the area is currently being drafted (and the applications should wait for this plan to be finalised)
11The proposed development is not in line with the CoCTs City’s Stormwater Management By‐law, Floodplain and River Corridor Management Policy and Management of Urban Stormwater Impacts Policy
12 The development (/densification) is inappropriate (for the site)
13 The design and layout has not taken account of (potential impacts) and attempted to minimise adverse impacts
14 Development is possible at the site, with less bulk
15 Development is possible at the site, with an improved / better articulated layout
16 There is insufficient open space allocated in the current development proposal
17 There are insufficient recreational / social facilities proposed in the development
18 The development should be a public destination
19 Consider lower density alternatives / alternatives for the public good
20 Retain the canal and rehabilitate the original course of the Liesbeek River
21 Consider a different site
22 The development represents inappropriate built form / layout
23 The Urban Design Framework has failed to take cognisance of the topographic sensitivity of the site / its location in the valley
24 The development footprint, bulk, form, height should be tied to heritage and urban design indicators
25 The development is not the best practicable environmental option for the site
26 The costs of the development to society outweigh the benefits
27 Financial viability not sole consideration for feasibilty / cannot be used as a justification for environmental and cultural impacts
28 The cost of Berkley Road extension should not be used to justify the development / inform the calculation of financial viability
29 There is an opportunity cost to society from developing the site (e.g. stormwater attenuation, park / public open space, agriculture, etc)
30 The development shows no regard to the views of the surrounding community
31Will the development be commercially viable / there is insufficient demand for housing and commercial office space to justify the development / the development will trigger a drop in demand in surrounding areas
32 There will be high dust levels during construction
33 There will be a noise impact on the community during construction
34 There will bo a noise impact on the community during operations
35 Services (General): The proposed use of municipal services at the proposed development will not be sustainable
36 High water demand of construction acitivities during drought
37 Include stormwater harvesting, or greywater treatment
38 Stormwater: The site provides stormwater attenuation function (which would be lost)
39 The development will result in additional flooding (and is therefore not acceptable)
40 The modelled change in flooding is not acceptable
41 Increased level of future floods incorrectly rated as insignificant
42The surface water hydrology study indicates that my house will flood in the 1:20 year return interval flood event, and that it currently does not.
43The Hotel expert expresses concern about the hotel being built on a flood plain / explain potential flood hazard to future residents and users of the site
44 No provision has been made for compensation for reduced property prices or if insurance companies refuse to cover for flood damage
45 Do not support building in the floodplain for hydrological reasons (regardless of the changes in hydrology)
46 Flooding will impact the PRASA railyards
47 Flooding will increase in the Raapenburg Wetland as a result of the development
48 Flooding will impact the SAAO property
49 The Hydrology Assessment is deficient / incorrect / relies on outdated information
Water supply:
Hydrology and Flooding:
Planning:
Project Description:
Urban Design, Design and Layout:
Need and Desirability:
Noise and Dust
288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328
288 Liza Groen
ewald
289 Nolan
Clark
290 Karen White
291 James Garraway
292 Werne
r Steyn
293 Leigh Ferreira
294 Da
rryl Torr
295 Britt M
acLaughlin
296 Jenn
y Grin
stead
297 Da
wn Bo
lton
298 An
n Turner
299 Re
ne Lotter
300 Jarred
Tilanu
s
301 Lauren
Gormley
302 Re
ne Spammer
303 Leigh King
304 Lyne
tte Mun
ro
305 Frank Schu
itemaker
306 Farzeen Ba
nderker
307 Karim
a Loghde
y
308 Shaheema Ba
nderker
309 Lisa Stacey
310 Hu
ssein Ba
nderker
311 Catherine Palm
er
312 Marie‐Lou
ise Kellet
313 Zahe
er M
oosa
314 Jenn
ifer T
ruter
315 Lind
a Oosthuizen
316 Miriam
Breyten
bach
317 Lynn
e Shanno
n
318 Sind
ile M
khabela
319 Ce
cily van
Gen
d
320 Lind
a Gibson
321 Va
un Corne
ll
322 Jacque
s Verster
323 Em
ma Ra
smussen
324 Ro
b Co
bban
325 An
drea Cou
vert
326 Peter B
arrett
327 Maud Malan
328 Ru
th Hall
1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Page 22
Issues:
50 The Hydrological Assessment should be independently reviewed
51 Increased flooding may mobilise toxic agents found in PRASA soil
52 The surface water hydrology study should take the impacts of climate change into account
53 Climate Change: The development will reduce the resilience of this part of the City to climate change
54 Groundwater: Development will reduce groundwater infiltration (with ecological or water supply impacts)
55 Development at the site will lead to a negative ecological impact
56What guarantees are in place for the funding of a new unlined canal / ecological rehabilitation – i.e. how can the public be sure this will be implemented
57 The development will negatively impact wetlands
58 The impact of infilling the original course of the Liesbeek River is unacceptable
59 There is an opportunity cost of not rehabilitating the original course of the Liesbeek River
60 There will be a negative impact on the Cape Galaxias fish
61 There will be a negative impact on ecological connectivity
62 There will be a significant negative impact on Western Leopard Toads
63 There will be a net loss in breeding habitat for Western Leopard Toads
64 There will be a net loss in terrestrial habitat for the Western Leopard Toad
65 Where would WLTs be kept while construction takes place?
66 Development will cause decrease / loss of pollinators
67 There will be an impact / unacceptable impact on the Cape Clawless Otter
68 Sensitive vegetation / Morea Aristata will be impacted
69 There will be a loss in avifaunal habitat
70 Bird nesting sites along the steep western bank of the Original Course of the Liesbeek River would be lost
71 High rise buildings will disrupt avifaunal flight paths
72 Consider the impacts of noise and light pollution on the fauna
73 Faunal mortalities during construction inevitable
74 Pollution from the development will lead to ecological impacts
75 There will be a loss / decline in public amenity by developing the site
76 The provision of inclusionary housing as proposed would be beneficial
77There is an insufficient allocation of housing / inclusionary housing in the development proposal / allocation too low to qualify as a material social benefit
78 Housing units too small to provide comfortable living space / accommodate family
79 Inclusionary housing should not be reserved for civil servants
80 The development includes no inclusionary housing
81 The use of CoCT owned land for the development will alienate public land (for private gain)
82 The development will cause depreciation of surrounding property values.
83 Housing will diminish opportunities for existing local rental providers
84 The development will diminish the tourism potential of the Two Rivers Urban Park
85 The development will lead to a increase in crime and vagrancy
86 The Socio‐economic study uses outdated information
87 The development proposal would lead to an increase in the reliance on private vehicle use
88 The TIA is outdated / incorrect
89 The TIA shows the traffic model is inaccurate
90 The TIA study area should include the N2
91 Traffic impacts during construction will be significant
92 There will be damage to roads from construction road use
93 Traffic impacts during operations will be significant
94 Public Transport is inadequate / cannot support predicted trip reliance
95 Parking provision is inadequate
96 The TIA does not consider the impact on cyclists sufficiently / does not include NMT
97 The City will not upgrade the Liesbeek Parkway
98 NMT routes will be unsafe and therefore unusable
99 The significance of the cultural landscape of which the site forms part has been overlooked in the HIA
100 The site represents one of the last open space remnants of the Liesbeek River and TRUP area and is of greater value
101 Developing in the valley (of heritage significance) is not supported
Socio‐economic
Biodiversity:
Traffic, Parking, Public Transport and NMT:
288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328
288 Liza Groen
ewald
289 Nolan
Clark
290 Karen White
291 James Garraway
292 Werne
r Steyn
293 Leigh Ferreira
294 Da
rryl Torr
295 Britt M
acLaughlin
296 Jenn
y Grin
stead
297 Da
wn Bo
lton
298 An
n Turner
299 Re
ne Lotter
300 Jarred
Tilanu
s
301 Lauren
Gormley
302 Re
ne Spammer
303 Leigh King
304 Lyne
tte Mun
ro
305 Frank Schu
itemaker
306 Farzeen Ba
nderker
307 Karim
a Loghde
y
308 Shaheema Ba
nderker
309 Lisa Stacey
310 Hu
ssein Ba
nderker
311 Catherine Palm
er
312 Marie‐Lou
ise Kellet
313 Zahe
er M
oosa
314 Jenn
ifer T
ruter
315 Lind
a Oosthuizen
316 Miriam
Breyten
bach
317 Lynn
e Shanno
n
318 Sind
ile M
khabela
319 Ce
cily van
Gen
d
320 Lind
a Gibson
321 Va
un Corne
ll
322 Jacque
s Verster
323 Em
ma Ra
smussen
324 Ro
b Co
bban
325 An
drea Cou
vert
326 Peter B
arrett
327 Maud Malan
328 Ru
th Hall
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1
1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1
1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Page 23
Issues:
102 The development will lead to an unacceptable impact on the cultural landscape
103 There will be a negative heritage impact from infilling the original course of the Liesbeek River fronting the site
104 The development will negatively impact on historic buildings of Observatory / surrounding the site
105 The SAAO site is of high cultural significance / the SAAO site is given insufficient recognition in the HIA
106 The SAAO will be negatively impacted by the development / current mitigation is insufficient
107 Tall buildings at the confluence of the Liesbeek and Black Rivers will detract from the heritage value of the confluence
108 The site is of great heritage significance to people of the First Nations / the site is sacred
109 There is significant intangible heritage associated with the site
110 There is a great opportunity to celebrate the First Nation people of South Africa on this site
111 The proposed heritage centre is insufficient mitigation
112 The heritage centre is inappropriate to celebrate the First Nations culture
113 Proximity of heritage centre to tallest buildings and Berkley Road extension is inappropriate
114 Object to the destruction of the River Club Building
115 The development is in conflict with the move to declare TRUPA a UNESCO heritage site / NRLHR
116 TRUP is a site of provincial or national heritage significance
117 Site should be surveyed for physical evidence of archaeological value prior to construction
118 Construction at the NRF property on the River Club site is a false assumption
119 Visual and sense of place impacts are unacceptable
120 The proposed buildings are out of scale with the surrounding land use / visually sensitive surrounding environment
121 The development will visually impact surrounding areas (negatively)
122 The development will negatively impact views through the site
123 The development will negatively impact views from the site
124 The development will negatively impact views of the site
125 Light pollution will increase / interfere with operation of SAAO telescope
126 The development will change the sense of place of the site negatively
127 The VIA doesn’t address the (heritage) sensitivity of the site
128 The development will negatively impact on / change a (green) open space network of sub‐metropolitan significance
129 The development will negatively impact on the integrity of the (Two Rivers) Urban Park
130 Extending the open space system along the Liesbeek River will be beneficial
131 We do not support the proposal / we object to the proposal / we are not in favour of the development
132 Main aspects of the Island Concept Alternative can be supported
133 We question the sale of land to the proponent
134 Specialists are not independent
135 The BAR / specialist studies should be rejected / are inadequate
136 The BA is vague and based on too many variables.
137 The application is premature (unfinished consultation)
138 A full EIA process should be followed.
139 The statements that the Canal replaced the Liesbeek River in 1952 are false.
140 How will (e.g.) design, rehabilitaion and maintenance commitments be guaranteed?
141 How would significant height variations in the bedrock layer be addressed?
142 The feasibility calculation is flawed
143 The BAR does not address global warming
144 A full construction EMP should be developed for the project
145 Address the fire risk to the SAAO.
146 No / insufficient consultation with the Khoi leaders
147Your PP notices (incorrectly) refer to "Environmental Authorisation in terms of the NEMA EIA Regulations, 2014 for GN R983 (19); GN R984 (6) and (27); and GN R985 (15) and (18) activities."
148 Provided evidence of a site notice at the entrance to Erf 151832
149 Insufficent public advertisement of BA Process / public meeting
150 Previous concerns raised by commenters not systematically addressed
Public Consultation:
Visual and Sense of Place:
Heritage:
General:
288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328
288 Liza Groen
ewald
289 Nolan
Clark
290 Karen White
291 James Garraway
292 Werne
r Steyn
293 Leigh Ferreira
294 Da
rryl Torr
295 Britt M
acLaughlin
296 Jenn
y Grin
stead
297 Da
wn Bo
lton
298 An
n Turner
299 Re
ne Lotter
300 Jarred
Tilanu
s
301 Lauren
Gormley
302 Re
ne Spammer
303 Leigh King
304 Lyne
tte Mun
ro
305 Frank Schu
itemaker
306 Farzeen Ba
nderker
307 Karim
a Loghde
y
308 Shaheema Ba
nderker
309 Lisa Stacey
310 Hu
ssein Ba
nderker
311 Catherine Palm
er
312 Marie‐Lou
ise Kellet
313 Zahe
er M
oosa
314 Jenn
ifer T
ruter
315 Lind
a Oosthuizen
316 Miriam
Breyten
bach
317 Lynn
e Shanno
n
318 Sind
ile M
khabela
319 Ce
cily van
Gen
d
320 Lind
a Gibson
321 Va
un Corne
ll
322 Jacque
s Verster
323 Em
ma Ra
smussen
324 Ro
b Co
bban
325 An
drea Cou
vert
326 Peter B
arrett
327 Maud Malan
328 Ru
th Hall
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1 1
1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Page 24
Public Stakeholders 329 - 369
Issues:
1 The development is in line with the CoCT MSDF (2018)
2 The development is not entirely aligned with the CoCT MSDF (2018)
3 The development is not in line with the current site zoning
4 We do not support the application for rezoning
5 The proposed development is not in line with the spatial designation of the site in terms of District Plan (2012) / SDP
6 The proposed development is not in line with the principles of the District Plan (2012)
7 Development should not be allowed in Public Open Space
8 We do not support the application for departures from the District Plan /SDP
9The development is not in line with the Two Rivers Urban Park Contextual Framework and Phase One Environmental Management Plan (2003) / not in line with the vision of TRUPA
10A Local Spatial Development Framework for the area is currently being drafted (and the applications should wait for this plan to be finalised)
11The proposed development is not in line with the CoCTs City’s Stormwater Management By‐law, Floodplain and River Corridor Management Policy and Management of Urban Stormwater Impacts Policy
12 The development (/densification) is inappropriate (for the site)
13 The design and layout has not taken account of (potential impacts) and attempted to minimise adverse impacts
14 Development is possible at the site, with less bulk
15 Development is possible at the site, with an improved / better articulated layout
16 There is insufficient open space allocated in the current development proposal
17 There are insufficient recreational / social facilities proposed in the development
18 The development should be a public destination
19 Consider lower density alternatives / alternatives for the public good
20 Retain the canal and rehabilitate the original course of the Liesbeek River
21 Consider a different site
22 The development represents inappropriate built form / layout
23 The Urban Design Framework has failed to take cognisance of the topographic sensitivity of the site / its location in the valley
24 The development footprint, bulk, form, height should be tied to heritage and urban design indicators
25 The development is not the best practicable environmental option for the site
26 The costs of the development to society outweigh the benefits
27 Financial viability not sole consideration for feasibilty / cannot be used as a justification for environmental and cultural impacts
28 The cost of Berkley Road extension should not be used to justify the development / inform the calculation of financial viability
29 There is an opportunity cost to society from developing the site (e.g. stormwater attenuation, park / public open space, agriculture, etc)
30 The development shows no regard to the views of the surrounding community
31Will the development be commercially viable / there is insufficient demand for housing and commercial office space to justify the development / the development will trigger a drop in demand in surrounding areas
32 There will be high dust levels during construction
33 There will be a noise impact on the community during construction
34 There will bo a noise impact on the community during operations
35 Services (General): The proposed use of municipal services at the proposed development will not be sustainable
36 High water demand of construction acitivities during drought
37 Include stormwater harvesting, or greywater treatment
38 Stormwater: The site provides stormwater attenuation function (which would be lost)
39 The development will result in additional flooding (and is therefore not acceptable)
40 The modelled change in flooding is not acceptable
41 Increased level of future floods incorrectly rated as insignificant
42The surface water hydrology study indicates that my house will flood in the 1:20 year return interval flood event, and that it currently does not.
43The Hotel expert expresses concern about the hotel being built on a flood plain / explain potential flood hazard to future residents and users of the site
44 No provision has been made for compensation for reduced property prices or if insurance companies refuse to cover for flood damage
45 Do not support building in the floodplain for hydrological reasons (regardless of the changes in hydrology)
46 Flooding will impact the PRASA railyards
47 Flooding will increase in the Raapenburg Wetland as a result of the development
48 Flooding will impact the SAAO property
49 The Hydrology Assessment is deficient / incorrect / relies on outdated information
Water supply:
Hydrology and Flooding:
Planning:
Project Description:
Urban Design, Design and Layout:
Need and Desirability:
Noise and Dust
329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369
329 Julie VD Vlugt
330 De
Vos Rabie
331 Kirstin
Mackenzie
332 Hilary Hen
derson
333 Frances T
aylor
334 Tracey Hafen
335 Kim Cloete
336 Geo
rge VD
Schyff
337 Craig Stockden
338 Kimbe
rley Ston
e
339 Martin
Crawford
340 Ad
riaan
Myburgh
341 Sand
y Pien
aar
342 Gaby Stadler
343 Hilary Den
nis
344 Jonah Sack
345 An
drew
Rand
346 An
tony
Brutus
347 An
drew
Whaley
348 Jenn
ifer S
kibb
349 Jerome Sheed
350 Alicia Chamaille
351 Wesley Eccles
352 An
n Ro
ese
353 Janine
Titley
354 Cand
ice Re
ddy
355 Mark Jacobs
356 Ke
ndre Allies
357 Geo
rgie Raven
scroft
358 Johan Be
aurain
359 Martin
Dou
glas‐Jon
es
360 Re
becca Da
vies
361 Edwin Angless
362 De
bbie W
all Smith
363 Louise Baden
horst
364 Ru
th Sack
365 Obs Pets
366 Am
iena
Davids
367 Nikki Hen
dricks
368 Parker Ju
naid
369 Werne
r Meyer
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1
1
1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1
1
1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
1
1
Page 25
Issues:
50 The Hydrological Assessment should be independently reviewed
51 Increased flooding may mobilise toxic agents found in PRASA soil
52 The surface water hydrology study should take the impacts of climate change into account
53 Climate Change: The development will reduce the resilience of this part of the City to climate change
54 Groundwater: Development will reduce groundwater infiltration (with ecological or water supply impacts)
55 Development at the site will lead to a negative ecological impact
56What guarantees are in place for the funding of a new unlined canal / ecological rehabilitation – i.e. how can the public be sure this will be implemented
57 The development will negatively impact wetlands
58 The impact of infilling the original course of the Liesbeek River is unacceptable
59 There is an opportunity cost of not rehabilitating the original course of the Liesbeek River
60 There will be a negative impact on the Cape Galaxias fish
61 There will be a negative impact on ecological connectivity
62 There will be a significant negative impact on Western Leopard Toads
63 There will be a net loss in breeding habitat for Western Leopard Toads
64 There will be a net loss in terrestrial habitat for the Western Leopard Toad
65 Where would WLTs be kept while construction takes place?
66 Development will cause decrease / loss of pollinators
67 There will be an impact / unacceptable impact on the Cape Clawless Otter
68 Sensitive vegetation / Morea Aristata will be impacted
69 There will be a loss in avifaunal habitat
70 Bird nesting sites along the steep western bank of the Original Course of the Liesbeek River would be lost
71 High rise buildings will disrupt avifaunal flight paths
72 Consider the impacts of noise and light pollution on the fauna
73 Faunal mortalities during construction inevitable
74 Pollution from the development will lead to ecological impacts
75 There will be a loss / decline in public amenity by developing the site
76 The provision of inclusionary housing as proposed would be beneficial
77There is an insufficient allocation of housing / inclusionary housing in the development proposal / allocation too low to qualify as a material social benefit
78 Housing units too small to provide comfortable living space / accommodate family
79 Inclusionary housing should not be reserved for civil servants
80 The development includes no inclusionary housing
81 The use of CoCT owned land for the development will alienate public land (for private gain)
82 The development will cause depreciation of surrounding property values.
83 Housing will diminish opportunities for existing local rental providers
84 The development will diminish the tourism potential of the Two Rivers Urban Park
85 The development will lead to a increase in crime and vagrancy
86 The Socio‐economic study uses outdated information
87 The development proposal would lead to an increase in the reliance on private vehicle use
88 The TIA is outdated / incorrect
89 The TIA shows the traffic model is inaccurate
90 The TIA study area should include the N2
91 Traffic impacts during construction will be significant
92 There will be damage to roads from construction road use
93 Traffic impacts during operations will be significant
94 Public Transport is inadequate / cannot support predicted trip reliance
95 Parking provision is inadequate
96 The TIA does not consider the impact on cyclists sufficiently / does not include NMT
97 The City will not upgrade the Liesbeek Parkway
98 NMT routes will be unsafe and therefore unusable
99 The significance of the cultural landscape of which the site forms part has been overlooked in the HIA
100 The site represents one of the last open space remnants of the Liesbeek River and TRUP area and is of greater value
101 Developing in the valley (of heritage significance) is not supported
Socio‐economic
Biodiversity:
Traffic, Parking, Public Transport and NMT:
329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369
329 Julie VD Vlugt
330 De
Vos Rabie
331 Kirstin
Mackenzie
332 Hilary Hen
derson
333 Frances T
aylor
334 Tracey Hafen
335 Kim Cloete
336 Geo
rge VD
Schyff
337 Craig Stockden
338 Kimbe
rley Ston
e
339 Martin
Crawford
340 Ad
riaan
Myburgh
341 Sand
y Pien
aar
342 Gaby Stadler
343 Hilary Den
nis
344 Jonah Sack
345 An
drew
Rand
346 An
tony
Brutus
347 An
drew
Whaley
348 Jenn
ifer S
kibb
349 Jerome Sheed
350 Alicia Chamaille
351 Wesley Eccles
352 An
n Ro
ese
353 Janine
Titley
354 Cand
ice Re
ddy
355 Mark Jacobs
356 Ke
ndre Allies
357 Geo
rgie Raven
scroft
358 Johan Be
aurain
359 Martin
Dou
glas‐Jon
es
360 Re
becca Da
vies
361 Edwin Angless
362 De
bbie W
all Smith
363 Louise Baden
horst
364 Ru
th Sack
365 Obs Pets
366 Am
iena
Davids
367 Nikki Hen
dricks
368 Parker Ju
naid
369 Werne
r Meyer
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1
1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1
1
1
1 1 1
1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Page 26
Issues:
102 The development will lead to an unacceptable impact on the cultural landscape
103 There will be a negative heritage impact from infilling the original course of the Liesbeek River fronting the site
104 The development will negatively impact on historic buildings of Observatory / surrounding the site
105 The SAAO site is of high cultural significance / the SAAO site is given insufficient recognition in the HIA
106 The SAAO will be negatively impacted by the development / current mitigation is insufficient
107 Tall buildings at the confluence of the Liesbeek and Black Rivers will detract from the heritage value of the confluence
108 The site is of great heritage significance to people of the First Nations / the site is sacred
109 There is significant intangible heritage associated with the site
110 There is a great opportunity to celebrate the First Nation people of South Africa on this site
111 The proposed heritage centre is insufficient mitigation
112 The heritage centre is inappropriate to celebrate the First Nations culture
113 Proximity of heritage centre to tallest buildings and Berkley Road extension is inappropriate
114 Object to the destruction of the River Club Building
115 The development is in conflict with the move to declare TRUPA a UNESCO heritage site / NRLHR
116 TRUP is a site of provincial or national heritage significance
117 Site should be surveyed for physical evidence of archaeological value prior to construction
118 Construction at the NRF property on the River Club site is a false assumption
119 Visual and sense of place impacts are unacceptable
120 The proposed buildings are out of scale with the surrounding land use / visually sensitive surrounding environment
121 The development will visually impact surrounding areas (negatively)
122 The development will negatively impact views through the site
123 The development will negatively impact views from the site
124 The development will negatively impact views of the site
125 Light pollution will increase / interfere with operation of SAAO telescope
126 The development will change the sense of place of the site negatively
127 The VIA doesn’t address the (heritage) sensitivity of the site
128 The development will negatively impact on / change a (green) open space network of sub‐metropolitan significance
129 The development will negatively impact on the integrity of the (Two Rivers) Urban Park
130 Extending the open space system along the Liesbeek River will be beneficial
131 We do not support the proposal / we object to the proposal / we are not in favour of the development
132 Main aspects of the Island Concept Alternative can be supported
133 We question the sale of land to the proponent
134 Specialists are not independent
135 The BAR / specialist studies should be rejected / are inadequate
136 The BA is vague and based on too many variables.
137 The application is premature (unfinished consultation)
138 A full EIA process should be followed.
139 The statements that the Canal replaced the Liesbeek River in 1952 are false.
140 How will (e.g.) design, rehabilitaion and maintenance commitments be guaranteed?
141 How would significant height variations in the bedrock layer be addressed?
142 The feasibility calculation is flawed
143 The BAR does not address global warming
144 A full construction EMP should be developed for the project
145 Address the fire risk to the SAAO.
146 No / insufficient consultation with the Khoi leaders
147Your PP notices (incorrectly) refer to "Environmental Authorisation in terms of the NEMA EIA Regulations, 2014 for GN R983 (19); GN R984 (6) and (27); and GN R985 (15) and (18) activities."
148 Provided evidence of a site notice at the entrance to Erf 151832
149 Insufficent public advertisement of BA Process / public meeting
150 Previous concerns raised by commenters not systematically addressed
Public Consultation:
Visual and Sense of Place:
Heritage:
General:
329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369
329 Julie VD Vlugt
330 De
Vos Rabie
331 Kirstin
Mackenzie
332 Hilary Hen
derson
333 Frances T
aylor
334 Tracey Hafen
335 Kim Cloete
336 Geo
rge VD
Schyff
337 Craig Stockden
338 Kimbe
rley Ston
e
339 Martin
Crawford
340 Ad
riaan
Myburgh
341 Sand
y Pien
aar
342 Gaby Stadler
343 Hilary Den
nis
344 Jonah Sack
345 An
drew
Rand
346 An
tony
Brutus
347 An
drew
Whaley
348 Jenn
ifer S
kibb
349 Jerome Sheed
350 Alicia Chamaille
351 Wesley Eccles
352 An
n Ro
ese
353 Janine
Titley
354 Cand
ice Re
ddy
355 Mark Jacobs
356 Ke
ndre Allies
357 Geo
rgie Raven
scroft
358 Johan Be
aurain
359 Martin
Dou
glas‐Jon
es
360 Re
becca Da
vies
361 Edwin Angless
362 De
bbie W
all Smith
363 Louise Baden
horst
364 Ru
th Sack
365 Obs Pets
366 Am
iena
Davids
367 Nikki Hen
dricks
368 Parker Ju
naid
369 Werne
r Meyer
1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
1
Page 27
Public Stakeholders 370 - 410
Issues:
1 The development is in line with the CoCT MSDF (2018)
2 The development is not entirely aligned with the CoCT MSDF (2018)
3 The development is not in line with the current site zoning
4 We do not support the application for rezoning
5 The proposed development is not in line with the spatial designation of the site in terms of District Plan (2012) / SDP
6 The proposed development is not in line with the principles of the District Plan (2012)
7 Development should not be allowed in Public Open Space
8 We do not support the application for departures from the District Plan /SDP
9The development is not in line with the Two Rivers Urban Park Contextual Framework and Phase One Environmental Management Plan (2003) / not in line with the vision of TRUPA
10A Local Spatial Development Framework for the area is currently being drafted (and the applications should wait for this plan to be finalised)
11The proposed development is not in line with the CoCTs City’s Stormwater Management By‐law, Floodplain and River Corridor Management Policy and Management of Urban Stormwater Impacts Policy
12 The development (/densification) is inappropriate (for the site)
13 The design and layout has not taken account of (potential impacts) and attempted to minimise adverse impacts
14 Development is possible at the site, with less bulk
15 Development is possible at the site, with an improved / better articulated layout
16 There is insufficient open space allocated in the current development proposal
17 There are insufficient recreational / social facilities proposed in the development
18 The development should be a public destination
19 Consider lower density alternatives / alternatives for the public good
20 Retain the canal and rehabilitate the original course of the Liesbeek River
21 Consider a different site
22 The development represents inappropriate built form / layout
23 The Urban Design Framework has failed to take cognisance of the topographic sensitivity of the site / its location in the valley
24 The development footprint, bulk, form, height should be tied to heritage and urban design indicators
25 The development is not the best practicable environmental option for the site
26 The costs of the development to society outweigh the benefits
27 Financial viability not sole consideration for feasibilty / cannot be used as a justification for environmental and cultural impacts
28 The cost of Berkley Road extension should not be used to justify the development / inform the calculation of financial viability
29 There is an opportunity cost to society from developing the site (e.g. stormwater attenuation, park / public open space, agriculture, etc)
30 The development shows no regard to the views of the surrounding community
31Will the development be commercially viable / there is insufficient demand for housing and commercial office space to justify the development / the development will trigger a drop in demand in surrounding areas
32 There will be high dust levels during construction
33 There will be a noise impact on the community during construction
34 There will bo a noise impact on the community during operations
35 Services (General): The proposed use of municipal services at the proposed development will not be sustainable
36 High water demand of construction acitivities during drought
37 Include stormwater harvesting, or greywater treatment
38 Stormwater: The site provides stormwater attenuation function (which would be lost)
39 The development will result in additional flooding (and is therefore not acceptable)
40 The modelled change in flooding is not acceptable
41 Increased level of future floods incorrectly rated as insignificant
42The surface water hydrology study indicates that my house will flood in the 1:20 year return interval flood event, and that it currently does not.
43The Hotel expert expresses concern about the hotel being built on a flood plain / explain potential flood hazard to future residents and users of the site
44 No provision has been made for compensation for reduced property prices or if insurance companies refuse to cover for flood damage
45 Do not support building in the floodplain for hydrological reasons (regardless of the changes in hydrology)
46 Flooding will impact the PRASA railyards
47 Flooding will increase in the Raapenburg Wetland as a result of the development
48 Flooding will impact the SAAO property
49 The Hydrology Assessment is deficient / incorrect / relies on outdated information
Water supply:
Hydrology and Flooding:
Planning:
Project Description:
Urban Design, Design and Layout:
Need and Desirability:
Noise and Dust
370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410
370 Tracy Hy
de
371 De
on Erasm
us
372 Karen Ha
rris
373 Mojo Da
vids
374 Alice Da
vids
375 Steven
Sack
376 Simon
e le Fevre
377 Muffie
Welch
378 Lind
say Craw
ford
379 Leigh Co
bban
380 Ro
b Faulkner
381 Ha
ns W
aals
382 Caroline Marx
383 Ch
arles H
art
384 Erica VD
Red
e
385 Alexandra Fraser
386 Jason Ra
de
387 Bron
wen
Bow
mer
388 He
athe
r Marco
389 Mira
nda Madikane
390 Shirley Crawford
391 Da
le Trow
392 Da
n Sleigh
393 Pieter Ode
ndaal
394 Gerd Gade
395 Da
vid Sm
ith
396 Tony
Green
woo
d
397 Be
ss Reitz
398 Nashima Ba
dsha
399 Farzanah
Badsha
400 Jeanne
Pienaar
401 S McCall
402 Thurza M
unro
403 Viv King
404 Katrin Coe
tzer
405 Kari Co
usins
406 Kathleen
Heibe
rg
407 Marilynn
McN
amara
408 Kath Hall
409 Marc Privett
410 Joy Ro
binson
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
1
1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
1
1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Page 28
Issues:
50 The Hydrological Assessment should be independently reviewed
51 Increased flooding may mobilise toxic agents found in PRASA soil
52 The surface water hydrology study should take the impacts of climate change into account
53 Climate Change: The development will reduce the resilience of this part of the City to climate change
54 Groundwater: Development will reduce groundwater infiltration (with ecological or water supply impacts)
55 Development at the site will lead to a negative ecological impact
56What guarantees are in place for the funding of a new unlined canal / ecological rehabilitation – i.e. how can the public be sure this will be implemented
57 The development will negatively impact wetlands
58 The impact of infilling the original course of the Liesbeek River is unacceptable
59 There is an opportunity cost of not rehabilitating the original course of the Liesbeek River
60 There will be a negative impact on the Cape Galaxias fish
61 There will be a negative impact on ecological connectivity
62 There will be a significant negative impact on Western Leopard Toads
63 There will be a net loss in breeding habitat for Western Leopard Toads
64 There will be a net loss in terrestrial habitat for the Western Leopard Toad
65 Where would WLTs be kept while construction takes place?
66 Development will cause decrease / loss of pollinators
67 There will be an impact / unacceptable impact on the Cape Clawless Otter
68 Sensitive vegetation / Morea Aristata will be impacted
69 There will be a loss in avifaunal habitat
70 Bird nesting sites along the steep western bank of the Original Course of the Liesbeek River would be lost
71 High rise buildings will disrupt avifaunal flight paths
72 Consider the impacts of noise and light pollution on the fauna
73 Faunal mortalities during construction inevitable
74 Pollution from the development will lead to ecological impacts
75 There will be a loss / decline in public amenity by developing the site
76 The provision of inclusionary housing as proposed would be beneficial
77There is an insufficient allocation of housing / inclusionary housing in the development proposal / allocation too low to qualify as a material social benefit
78 Housing units too small to provide comfortable living space / accommodate family
79 Inclusionary housing should not be reserved for civil servants
80 The development includes no inclusionary housing
81 The use of CoCT owned land for the development will alienate public land (for private gain)
82 The development will cause depreciation of surrounding property values.
83 Housing will diminish opportunities for existing local rental providers
84 The development will diminish the tourism potential of the Two Rivers Urban Park
85 The development will lead to a increase in crime and vagrancy
86 The Socio‐economic study uses outdated information
87 The development proposal would lead to an increase in the reliance on private vehicle use
88 The TIA is outdated / incorrect
89 The TIA shows the traffic model is inaccurate
90 The TIA study area should include the N2
91 Traffic impacts during construction will be significant
92 There will be damage to roads from construction road use
93 Traffic impacts during operations will be significant
94 Public Transport is inadequate / cannot support predicted trip reliance
95 Parking provision is inadequate
96 The TIA does not consider the impact on cyclists sufficiently / does not include NMT
97 The City will not upgrade the Liesbeek Parkway
98 NMT routes will be unsafe and therefore unusable
99 The significance of the cultural landscape of which the site forms part has been overlooked in the HIA
100 The site represents one of the last open space remnants of the Liesbeek River and TRUP area and is of greater value
101 Developing in the valley (of heritage significance) is not supported
Socio‐economic
Biodiversity:
Traffic, Parking, Public Transport and NMT:
370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410
370 Tracy Hy
de
371 De
on Erasm
us
372 Karen Ha
rris
373 Mojo Da
vids
374 Alice Da
vids
375 Steven
Sack
376 Simon
e le Fevre
377 Muffie
Welch
378 Lind
say Craw
ford
379 Leigh Co
bban
380 Ro
b Faulkner
381 Ha
ns W
aals
382 Caroline Marx
383 Ch
arles H
art
384 Erica VD
Red
e
385 Alexandra Fraser
386 Jason Ra
de
387 Bron
wen
Bow
mer
388 He
athe
r Marco
389 Mira
nda Madikane
390 Shirley Crawford
391 Da
le Trow
392 Da
n Sleigh
393 Pieter Ode
ndaal
394 Gerd Gade
395 Da
vid Sm
ith
396 Tony
Green
woo
d
397 Be
ss Reitz
398 Nashima Ba
dsha
399 Farzanah
Badsha
400 Jeanne
Pienaar
401 S McCall
402 Thurza M
unro
403 Viv King
404 Katrin Coe
tzer
405 Kari Co
usins
406 Kathleen
Heibe
rg
407 Marilynn
McN
amara
408 Kath Hall
409 Marc Privett
410 Joy Ro
binson
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
1
1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1
1
1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
1
1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Page 29
Issues:
102 The development will lead to an unacceptable impact on the cultural landscape
103 There will be a negative heritage impact from infilling the original course of the Liesbeek River fronting the site
104 The development will negatively impact on historic buildings of Observatory / surrounding the site
105 The SAAO site is of high cultural significance / the SAAO site is given insufficient recognition in the HIA
106 The SAAO will be negatively impacted by the development / current mitigation is insufficient
107 Tall buildings at the confluence of the Liesbeek and Black Rivers will detract from the heritage value of the confluence
108 The site is of great heritage significance to people of the First Nations / the site is sacred
109 There is significant intangible heritage associated with the site
110 There is a great opportunity to celebrate the First Nation people of South Africa on this site
111 The proposed heritage centre is insufficient mitigation
112 The heritage centre is inappropriate to celebrate the First Nations culture
113 Proximity of heritage centre to tallest buildings and Berkley Road extension is inappropriate
114 Object to the destruction of the River Club Building
115 The development is in conflict with the move to declare TRUPA a UNESCO heritage site / NRLHR
116 TRUP is a site of provincial or national heritage significance
117 Site should be surveyed for physical evidence of archaeological value prior to construction
118 Construction at the NRF property on the River Club site is a false assumption
119 Visual and sense of place impacts are unacceptable
120 The proposed buildings are out of scale with the surrounding land use / visually sensitive surrounding environment
121 The development will visually impact surrounding areas (negatively)
122 The development will negatively impact views through the site
123 The development will negatively impact views from the site
124 The development will negatively impact views of the site
125 Light pollution will increase / interfere with operation of SAAO telescope
126 The development will change the sense of place of the site negatively
127 The VIA doesn’t address the (heritage) sensitivity of the site
128 The development will negatively impact on / change a (green) open space network of sub‐metropolitan significance
129 The development will negatively impact on the integrity of the (Two Rivers) Urban Park
130 Extending the open space system along the Liesbeek River will be beneficial
131 We do not support the proposal / we object to the proposal / we are not in favour of the development
132 Main aspects of the Island Concept Alternative can be supported
133 We question the sale of land to the proponent
134 Specialists are not independent
135 The BAR / specialist studies should be rejected / are inadequate
136 The BA is vague and based on too many variables.
137 The application is premature (unfinished consultation)
138 A full EIA process should be followed.
139 The statements that the Canal replaced the Liesbeek River in 1952 are false.
140 How will (e.g.) design, rehabilitaion and maintenance commitments be guaranteed?
141 How would significant height variations in the bedrock layer be addressed?
142 The feasibility calculation is flawed
143 The BAR does not address global warming
144 A full construction EMP should be developed for the project
145 Address the fire risk to the SAAO.
146 No / insufficient consultation with the Khoi leaders
147Your PP notices (incorrectly) refer to "Environmental Authorisation in terms of the NEMA EIA Regulations, 2014 for GN R983 (19); GN R984 (6) and (27); and GN R985 (15) and (18) activities."
148 Provided evidence of a site notice at the entrance to Erf 151832
149 Insufficent public advertisement of BA Process / public meeting
150 Previous concerns raised by commenters not systematically addressed
Public Consultation:
Visual and Sense of Place:
Heritage:
General:
370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410
370 Tracy Hy
de
371 De
on Erasm
us
372 Karen Ha
rris
373 Mojo Da
vids
374 Alice Da
vids
375 Steven
Sack
376 Simon
e le Fevre
377 Muffie
Welch
378 Lind
say Craw
ford
379 Leigh Co
bban
380 Ro
b Faulkner
381 Ha
ns W
aals
382 Caroline Marx
383 Ch
arles H
art
384 Erica VD
Red
e
385 Alexandra Fraser
386 Jason Ra
de
387 Bron
wen
Bow
mer
388 He
athe
r Marco
389 Mira
nda Madikane
390 Shirley Crawford
391 Da
le Trow
392 Da
n Sleigh
393 Pieter Ode
ndaal
394 Gerd Gade
395 Da
vid Sm
ith
396 Tony
Green
woo
d
397 Be
ss Reitz
398 Nashima Ba
dsha
399 Farzanah
Badsha
400 Jeanne
Pienaar
401 S McCall
402 Thurza M
unro
403 Viv King
404 Katrin Coe
tzer
405 Kari Co
usins
406 Kathleen
Heibe
rg
407 Marilynn
McN
amara
408 Kath Hall
409 Marc Privett
410 Joy Ro
binson
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Page 30
Public Stakeholders 411 - 451
Issues:
1 The development is in line with the CoCT MSDF (2018)
2 The development is not entirely aligned with the CoCT MSDF (2018)
3 The development is not in line with the current site zoning
4 We do not support the application for rezoning
5 The proposed development is not in line with the spatial designation of the site in terms of District Plan (2012) / SDP
6 The proposed development is not in line with the principles of the District Plan (2012)
7 Development should not be allowed in Public Open Space
8 We do not support the application for departures from the District Plan /SDP
9The development is not in line with the Two Rivers Urban Park Contextual Framework and Phase One Environmental Management Plan (2003) / not in line with the vision of TRUPA
10A Local Spatial Development Framework for the area is currently being drafted (and the applications should wait for this plan to be finalised)
11The proposed development is not in line with the CoCTs City’s Stormwater Management By‐law, Floodplain and River Corridor Management Policy and Management of Urban Stormwater Impacts Policy
12 The development (/densification) is inappropriate (for the site)
13 The design and layout has not taken account of (potential impacts) and attempted to minimise adverse impacts
14 Development is possible at the site, with less bulk
15 Development is possible at the site, with an improved / better articulated layout
16 There is insufficient open space allocated in the current development proposal
17 There are insufficient recreational / social facilities proposed in the development
18 The development should be a public destination
19 Consider lower density alternatives / alternatives for the public good
20 Retain the canal and rehabilitate the original course of the Liesbeek River
21 Consider a different site
22 The development represents inappropriate built form / layout
23 The Urban Design Framework has failed to take cognisance of the topographic sensitivity of the site / its location in the valley
24 The development footprint, bulk, form, height should be tied to heritage and urban design indicators
25 The development is not the best practicable environmental option for the site
26 The costs of the development to society outweigh the benefits
27 Financial viability not sole consideration for feasibilty / cannot be used as a justification for environmental and cultural impacts
28 The cost of Berkley Road extension should not be used to justify the development / inform the calculation of financial viability
29 There is an opportunity cost to society from developing the site (e.g. stormwater attenuation, park / public open space, agriculture, etc)
30 The development shows no regard to the views of the surrounding community
31Will the development be commercially viable / there is insufficient demand for housing and commercial office space to justify the development / the development will trigger a drop in demand in surrounding areas
32 There will be high dust levels during construction
33 There will be a noise impact on the community during construction
34 There will bo a noise impact on the community during operations
35 Services (General): The proposed use of municipal services at the proposed development will not be sustainable
36 High water demand of construction acitivities during drought
37 Include stormwater harvesting, or greywater treatment
38 Stormwater: The site provides stormwater attenuation function (which would be lost)
39 The development will result in additional flooding (and is therefore not acceptable)
40 The modelled change in flooding is not acceptable
41 Increased level of future floods incorrectly rated as insignificant
42The surface water hydrology study indicates that my house will flood in the 1:20 year return interval flood event, and that it currently does not.
43The Hotel expert expresses concern about the hotel being built on a flood plain / explain potential flood hazard to future residents and users of the site
44 No provision has been made for compensation for reduced property prices or if insurance companies refuse to cover for flood damage
45 Do not support building in the floodplain for hydrological reasons (regardless of the changes in hydrology)
46 Flooding will impact the PRASA railyards
47 Flooding will increase in the Raapenburg Wetland as a result of the development
48 Flooding will impact the SAAO property
49 The Hydrology Assessment is deficient / incorrect / relies on outdated information
Water supply:
Hydrology and Flooding:
Planning:
Project Description:
Urban Design, Design and Layout:
Need and Desirability:
Noise and Dust
411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451
411 De
bbie Crawford
412 Peter Ibb
otson
413 Dy
lan Green
woo
d
414 Leon
Abahams
415 Do
nna Wills
416 Tessa Ke
nned
y
417 Lorraine
Ward
418 Margot Lynn
419 Re
agan
du Plessis
420 Ke
vin Gordo
n
421 Lind
say Ke
nned
y
422 Co
nor R
alph
s
423 Kirsten Bu
rgess
424 Neville Wills
425 Gorken Golbasi
426 Jane
Levinson
427 June
Bam
‐Hutchinson
428 Marijke Alblas
429 Jacque
line Po
king
430 Ra
ven Naido
o
431 John
Green
e
432 Ro
ger B
urgess
433 Lisa Strachan
434 Pene
lope
Rose
435 Lorraine
Tanne
r
436 Kimbe
rlyn Green
woo
k
437 Marijke Ba
rnard
438 Re
becca Sher
439 Frankie Murrey
440 Ad
am M
arshall
441 Da
vid VD
Want
442 Lind
a McIntosh
443 Cand
ice He
nley
444 Ariana
MacPh
erson
445 Lucind
a Ba
te
446 Gareth Bo
wers
447 Liz Blum
enthal
448 Ro
fhiwa Nthangeni
449 Sue Kingma
450 Janine
Steph
en
451 Mickie Birkett
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Page 31
Issues:
50 The Hydrological Assessment should be independently reviewed
51 Increased flooding may mobilise toxic agents found in PRASA soil
52 The surface water hydrology study should take the impacts of climate change into account
53 Climate Change: The development will reduce the resilience of this part of the City to climate change
54 Groundwater: Development will reduce groundwater infiltration (with ecological or water supply impacts)
55 Development at the site will lead to a negative ecological impact
56What guarantees are in place for the funding of a new unlined canal / ecological rehabilitation – i.e. how can the public be sure this will be implemented
57 The development will negatively impact wetlands
58 The impact of infilling the original course of the Liesbeek River is unacceptable
59 There is an opportunity cost of not rehabilitating the original course of the Liesbeek River
60 There will be a negative impact on the Cape Galaxias fish
61 There will be a negative impact on ecological connectivity
62 There will be a significant negative impact on Western Leopard Toads
63 There will be a net loss in breeding habitat for Western Leopard Toads
64 There will be a net loss in terrestrial habitat for the Western Leopard Toad
65 Where would WLTs be kept while construction takes place?
66 Development will cause decrease / loss of pollinators
67 There will be an impact / unacceptable impact on the Cape Clawless Otter
68 Sensitive vegetation / Morea Aristata will be impacted
69 There will be a loss in avifaunal habitat
70 Bird nesting sites along the steep western bank of the Original Course of the Liesbeek River would be lost
71 High rise buildings will disrupt avifaunal flight paths
72 Consider the impacts of noise and light pollution on the fauna
73 Faunal mortalities during construction inevitable
74 Pollution from the development will lead to ecological impacts
75 There will be a loss / decline in public amenity by developing the site
76 The provision of inclusionary housing as proposed would be beneficial
77There is an insufficient allocation of housing / inclusionary housing in the development proposal / allocation too low to qualify as a material social benefit
78 Housing units too small to provide comfortable living space / accommodate family
79 Inclusionary housing should not be reserved for civil servants
80 The development includes no inclusionary housing
81 The use of CoCT owned land for the development will alienate public land (for private gain)
82 The development will cause depreciation of surrounding property values.
83 Housing will diminish opportunities for existing local rental providers
84 The development will diminish the tourism potential of the Two Rivers Urban Park
85 The development will lead to a increase in crime and vagrancy
86 The Socio‐economic study uses outdated information
87 The development proposal would lead to an increase in the reliance on private vehicle use
88 The TIA is outdated / incorrect
89 The TIA shows the traffic model is inaccurate
90 The TIA study area should include the N2
91 Traffic impacts during construction will be significant
92 There will be damage to roads from construction road use
93 Traffic impacts during operations will be significant
94 Public Transport is inadequate / cannot support predicted trip reliance
95 Parking provision is inadequate
96 The TIA does not consider the impact on cyclists sufficiently / does not include NMT
97 The City will not upgrade the Liesbeek Parkway
98 NMT routes will be unsafe and therefore unusable
99 The significance of the cultural landscape of which the site forms part has been overlooked in the HIA
100 The site represents one of the last open space remnants of the Liesbeek River and TRUP area and is of greater value
101 Developing in the valley (of heritage significance) is not supported
Socio‐economic
Biodiversity:
Traffic, Parking, Public Transport and NMT:
411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451
411 De
bbie Crawford
412 Peter Ibb
otson
413 Dy
lan Green
woo
d
414 Leon
Abahams
415 Do
nna Wills
416 Tessa Ke
nned
y
417 Lorraine
Ward
418 Margot Lynn
419 Re
agan
du Plessis
420 Ke
vin Gordo
n
421 Lind
say Ke
nned
y
422 Co
nor R
alph
s
423 Kirsten Bu
rgess
424 Neville Wills
425 Gorken Golbasi
426 Jane
Levinson
427 June
Bam
‐Hutchinson
428 Marijke Alblas
429 Jacque
line Po
king
430 Ra
ven Naido
o
431 John
Green
e
432 Ro
ger B
urgess
433 Lisa Strachan
434 Pene
lope
Rose
435 Lorraine
Tanne
r
436 Kimbe
rlyn Green
woo
k
437 Marijke Ba
rnard
438 Re
becca Sher
439 Frankie Murrey
440 Ad
am M
arshall
441 Da
vid VD
Want
442 Lind
a McIntosh
443 Cand
ice He
nley
444 Ariana
MacPh
erson
445 Lucind
a Ba
te
446 Gareth Bo
wers
447 Liz Blum
enthal
448 Ro
fhiwa Nthangeni
449 Sue Kingma
450 Janine
Steph
en
451 Mickie Birkett
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1
1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1
1
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Page 32
Issues:
102 The development will lead to an unacceptable impact on the cultural landscape
103 There will be a negative heritage impact from infilling the original course of the Liesbeek River fronting the site
104 The development will negatively impact on historic buildings of Observatory / surrounding the site
105 The SAAO site is of high cultural significance / the SAAO site is given insufficient recognition in the HIA
106 The SAAO will be negatively impacted by the development / current mitigation is insufficient
107 Tall buildings at the confluence of the Liesbeek and Black Rivers will detract from the heritage value of the confluence
108 The site is of great heritage significance to people of the First Nations / the site is sacred
109 There is significant intangible heritage associated with the site
110 There is a great opportunity to celebrate the First Nation people of South Africa on this site
111 The proposed heritage centre is insufficient mitigation
112 The heritage centre is inappropriate to celebrate the First Nations culture
113 Proximity of heritage centre to tallest buildings and Berkley Road extension is inappropriate
114 Object to the destruction of the River Club Building
115 The development is in conflict with the move to declare TRUPA a UNESCO heritage site / NRLHR
116 TRUP is a site of provincial or national heritage significance
117 Site should be surveyed for physical evidence of archaeological value prior to construction
118 Construction at the NRF property on the River Club site is a false assumption
119 Visual and sense of place impacts are unacceptable
120 The proposed buildings are out of scale with the surrounding land use / visually sensitive surrounding environment
121 The development will visually impact surrounding areas (negatively)
122 The development will negatively impact views through the site
123 The development will negatively impact views from the site
124 The development will negatively impact views of the site
125 Light pollution will increase / interfere with operation of SAAO telescope
126 The development will change the sense of place of the site negatively
127 The VIA doesn’t address the (heritage) sensitivity of the site
128 The development will negatively impact on / change a (green) open space network of sub‐metropolitan significance
129 The development will negatively impact on the integrity of the (Two Rivers) Urban Park
130 Extending the open space system along the Liesbeek River will be beneficial
131 We do not support the proposal / we object to the proposal / we are not in favour of the development
132 Main aspects of the Island Concept Alternative can be supported
133 We question the sale of land to the proponent
134 Specialists are not independent
135 The BAR / specialist studies should be rejected / are inadequate
136 The BA is vague and based on too many variables.
137 The application is premature (unfinished consultation)
138 A full EIA process should be followed.
139 The statements that the Canal replaced the Liesbeek River in 1952 are false.
140 How will (e.g.) design, rehabilitaion and maintenance commitments be guaranteed?
141 How would significant height variations in the bedrock layer be addressed?
142 The feasibility calculation is flawed
143 The BAR does not address global warming
144 A full construction EMP should be developed for the project
145 Address the fire risk to the SAAO.
146 No / insufficient consultation with the Khoi leaders
147Your PP notices (incorrectly) refer to "Environmental Authorisation in terms of the NEMA EIA Regulations, 2014 for GN R983 (19); GN R984 (6) and (27); and GN R985 (15) and (18) activities."
148 Provided evidence of a site notice at the entrance to Erf 151832
149 Insufficent public advertisement of BA Process / public meeting
150 Previous concerns raised by commenters not systematically addressed
Public Consultation:
Visual and Sense of Place:
Heritage:
General:
411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451
411 De
bbie Crawford
412 Peter Ibb
otson
413 Dy
lan Green
woo
d
414 Leon
Abahams
415 Do
nna Wills
416 Tessa Ke
nned
y
417 Lorraine
Ward
418 Margot Lynn
419 Re
agan
du Plessis
420 Ke
vin Gordo
n
421 Lind
say Ke
nned
y
422 Co
nor R
alph
s
423 Kirsten Bu
rgess
424 Neville Wills
425 Gorken Golbasi
426 Jane
Levinson
427 June
Bam
‐Hutchinson
428 Marijke Alblas
429 Jacque
line Po
king
430 Ra
ven Naido
o
431 John
Green
e
432 Ro
ger B
urgess
433 Lisa Strachan
434 Pene
lope
Rose
435 Lorraine
Tanne
r
436 Kimbe
rlyn Green
woo
k
437 Marijke Ba
rnard
438 Re
becca Sher
439 Frankie Murrey
440 Ad
am M
arshall
441 Da
vid VD
Want
442 Lind
a McIntosh
443 Cand
ice He
nley
444 Ariana
MacPh
erson
445 Lucind
a Ba
te
446 Gareth Bo
wers
447 Liz Blum
enthal
448 Ro
fhiwa Nthangeni
449 Sue Kingma
450 Janine
Steph
en
451 Mickie Birkett
1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Page 33
Public Stakeholders 452 - 492
Issues:
1 The development is in line with the CoCT MSDF (2018)
2 The development is not entirely aligned with the CoCT MSDF (2018)
3 The development is not in line with the current site zoning
4 We do not support the application for rezoning
5 The proposed development is not in line with the spatial designation of the site in terms of District Plan (2012) / SDP
6 The proposed development is not in line with the principles of the District Plan (2012)
7 Development should not be allowed in Public Open Space
8 We do not support the application for departures from the District Plan /SDP
9The development is not in line with the Two Rivers Urban Park Contextual Framework and Phase One Environmental Management Plan (2003) / not in line with the vision of TRUPA
10A Local Spatial Development Framework for the area is currently being drafted (and the applications should wait for this plan to be finalised)
11The proposed development is not in line with the CoCTs City’s Stormwater Management By‐law, Floodplain and River Corridor Management Policy and Management of Urban Stormwater Impacts Policy
12 The development (/densification) is inappropriate (for the site)
13 The design and layout has not taken account of (potential impacts) and attempted to minimise adverse impacts
14 Development is possible at the site, with less bulk
15 Development is possible at the site, with an improved / better articulated layout
16 There is insufficient open space allocated in the current development proposal
17 There are insufficient recreational / social facilities proposed in the development
18 The development should be a public destination
19 Consider lower density alternatives / alternatives for the public good
20 Retain the canal and rehabilitate the original course of the Liesbeek River
21 Consider a different site
22 The development represents inappropriate built form / layout
23 The Urban Design Framework has failed to take cognisance of the topographic sensitivity of the site / its location in the valley
24 The development footprint, bulk, form, height should be tied to heritage and urban design indicators
25 The development is not the best practicable environmental option for the site
26 The costs of the development to society outweigh the benefits
27 Financial viability not sole consideration for feasibilty / cannot be used as a justification for environmental and cultural impacts
28 The cost of Berkley Road extension should not be used to justify the development / inform the calculation of financial viability
29 There is an opportunity cost to society from developing the site (e.g. stormwater attenuation, park / public open space, agriculture, etc)
30 The development shows no regard to the views of the surrounding community
31Will the development be commercially viable / there is insufficient demand for housing and commercial office space to justify the development / the development will trigger a drop in demand in surrounding areas
32 There will be high dust levels during construction
33 There will be a noise impact on the community during construction
34 There will bo a noise impact on the community during operations
35 Services (General): The proposed use of municipal services at the proposed development will not be sustainable
36 High water demand of construction acitivities during drought
37 Include stormwater harvesting, or greywater treatment
38 Stormwater: The site provides stormwater attenuation function (which would be lost)
39 The development will result in additional flooding (and is therefore not acceptable)
40 The modelled change in flooding is not acceptable
41 Increased level of future floods incorrectly rated as insignificant
42The surface water hydrology study indicates that my house will flood in the 1:20 year return interval flood event, and that it currently does not.
43The Hotel expert expresses concern about the hotel being built on a flood plain / explain potential flood hazard to future residents and users of the site
44 No provision has been made for compensation for reduced property prices or if insurance companies refuse to cover for flood damage
45 Do not support building in the floodplain for hydrological reasons (regardless of the changes in hydrology)
46 Flooding will impact the PRASA railyards
47 Flooding will increase in the Raapenburg Wetland as a result of the development
48 Flooding will impact the SAAO property
49 The Hydrology Assessment is deficient / incorrect / relies on outdated information
Water supply:
Hydrology and Flooding:
Planning:
Project Description:
Urban Design, Design and Layout:
Need and Desirability:
Noise and Dust
452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492
452 Mark Ch
ong
453 Mira
nda du
Toit
454 Trevor Lea
455 Farzaneh
Beh
roozi
456 Shelly Im
men
ga
457 Da
vid Aitchison
458 Fairo
ze Daniels
459 Bridget C
alde
r
460 Johan du
Toit
461 Liz Ba
rnett
462 Liz Sparg
463 Tasm
in Faraghe
r
464 Sue Jowell
465 K Co
oney / H le Rou
x
466 Justine Quince
467 Ludvig Heibe
rg
468 Paolo Israel
469 Ce
inwen
Smith
470 Pam Sykes
471 Marine Leblon
d
472 Ro
salyn Ro
we
473 Marjolein Gam
ble
474 Ebeline de
Villiers
475 Laura Myers
476 Em
ma Side
rsky
477 Ch
loe De
rbyshire
478 Paula Du
gmore
479 Jean
Sleigh
480 Ch
antal Fou
rie
481 Jerome v Ro
oij
482 John
Crawford
483 Kathleen
Maw
son
484 Trevor Hughe
s
485 Ce
line Graveno
r
486 Ke
vin Green
berg
487 M
ischa
Blecher
488 Ch
eryl Davis
489 Ke
rshan Pancham
490 Terry Ad
dison
491 Em
ily Gam
mon
492 Tanya Woo
lf
1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
1 1
1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
1
1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Page 34
Issues:
50 The Hydrological Assessment should be independently reviewed
51 Increased flooding may mobilise toxic agents found in PRASA soil
52 The surface water hydrology study should take the impacts of climate change into account
53 Climate Change: The development will reduce the resilience of this part of the City to climate change
54 Groundwater: Development will reduce groundwater infiltration (with ecological or water supply impacts)
55 Development at the site will lead to a negative ecological impact
56What guarantees are in place for the funding of a new unlined canal / ecological rehabilitation – i.e. how can the public be sure this will be implemented
57 The development will negatively impact wetlands
58 The impact of infilling the original course of the Liesbeek River is unacceptable
59 There is an opportunity cost of not rehabilitating the original course of the Liesbeek River
60 There will be a negative impact on the Cape Galaxias fish
61 There will be a negative impact on ecological connectivity
62 There will be a significant negative impact on Western Leopard Toads
63 There will be a net loss in breeding habitat for Western Leopard Toads
64 There will be a net loss in terrestrial habitat for the Western Leopard Toad
65 Where would WLTs be kept while construction takes place?
66 Development will cause decrease / loss of pollinators
67 There will be an impact / unacceptable impact on the Cape Clawless Otter
68 Sensitive vegetation / Morea Aristata will be impacted
69 There will be a loss in avifaunal habitat
70 Bird nesting sites along the steep western bank of the Original Course of the Liesbeek River would be lost
71 High rise buildings will disrupt avifaunal flight paths
72 Consider the impacts of noise and light pollution on the fauna
73 Faunal mortalities during construction inevitable
74 Pollution from the development will lead to ecological impacts
75 There will be a loss / decline in public amenity by developing the site
76 The provision of inclusionary housing as proposed would be beneficial
77There is an insufficient allocation of housing / inclusionary housing in the development proposal / allocation too low to qualify as a material social benefit
78 Housing units too small to provide comfortable living space / accommodate family
79 Inclusionary housing should not be reserved for civil servants
80 The development includes no inclusionary housing
81 The use of CoCT owned land for the development will alienate public land (for private gain)
82 The development will cause depreciation of surrounding property values.
83 Housing will diminish opportunities for existing local rental providers
84 The development will diminish the tourism potential of the Two Rivers Urban Park
85 The development will lead to a increase in crime and vagrancy
86 The Socio‐economic study uses outdated information
87 The development proposal would lead to an increase in the reliance on private vehicle use
88 The TIA is outdated / incorrect
89 The TIA shows the traffic model is inaccurate
90 The TIA study area should include the N2
91 Traffic impacts during construction will be significant
92 There will be damage to roads from construction road use
93 Traffic impacts during operations will be significant
94 Public Transport is inadequate / cannot support predicted trip reliance
95 Parking provision is inadequate
96 The TIA does not consider the impact on cyclists sufficiently / does not include NMT
97 The City will not upgrade the Liesbeek Parkway
98 NMT routes will be unsafe and therefore unusable
99 The significance of the cultural landscape of which the site forms part has been overlooked in the HIA
100 The site represents one of the last open space remnants of the Liesbeek River and TRUP area and is of greater value
101 Developing in the valley (of heritage significance) is not supported
Socio‐economic
Biodiversity:
Traffic, Parking, Public Transport and NMT:
452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492
452 Mark Ch
ong
453 Mira
nda du
Toit
454 Trevor Lea
455 Farzaneh
Beh
roozi
456 Shelly Im
men
ga
457 Da
vid Aitchison
458 Fairo
ze Daniels
459 Bridget C
alde
r
460 Johan du
Toit
461 Liz Ba
rnett
462 Liz Sparg
463 Tasm
in Faraghe
r
464 Sue Jowell
465 K Co
oney / H le Rou
x
466 Justine Quince
467 Ludvig Heibe
rg
468 Paolo Israel
469 Ce
inwen
Smith
470 Pam Sykes
471 Marine Leblon
d
472 Ro
salyn Ro
we
473 Marjolein Gam
ble
474 Ebeline de
Villiers
475 Laura Myers
476 Em
ma Side
rsky
477 Ch
loe De
rbyshire
478 Paula Du
gmore
479 Jean
Sleigh
480 Ch
antal Fou
rie
481 Jerome v Ro
oij
482 John
Crawford
483 Kathleen
Maw
son
484 Trevor Hughe
s
485 Ce
line Graveno
r
486 Ke
vin Green
berg
487 M
ischa
Blecher
488 Ch
eryl Davis
489 Ke
rshan Pancham
490 Terry Ad
dison
491 Em
ily Gam
mon
492 Tanya Woo
lf
1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
1
1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
1
1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
1 1 1
1
1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Page 35
Issues:
102 The development will lead to an unacceptable impact on the cultural landscape
103 There will be a negative heritage impact from infilling the original course of the Liesbeek River fronting the site
104 The development will negatively impact on historic buildings of Observatory / surrounding the site
105 The SAAO site is of high cultural significance / the SAAO site is given insufficient recognition in the HIA
106 The SAAO will be negatively impacted by the development / current mitigation is insufficient
107 Tall buildings at the confluence of the Liesbeek and Black Rivers will detract from the heritage value of the confluence
108 The site is of great heritage significance to people of the First Nations / the site is sacred
109 There is significant intangible heritage associated with the site
110 There is a great opportunity to celebrate the First Nation people of South Africa on this site
111 The proposed heritage centre is insufficient mitigation
112 The heritage centre is inappropriate to celebrate the First Nations culture
113 Proximity of heritage centre to tallest buildings and Berkley Road extension is inappropriate
114 Object to the destruction of the River Club Building
115 The development is in conflict with the move to declare TRUPA a UNESCO heritage site / NRLHR
116 TRUP is a site of provincial or national heritage significance
117 Site should be surveyed for physical evidence of archaeological value prior to construction
118 Construction at the NRF property on the River Club site is a false assumption
119 Visual and sense of place impacts are unacceptable
120 The proposed buildings are out of scale with the surrounding land use / visually sensitive surrounding environment
121 The development will visually impact surrounding areas (negatively)
122 The development will negatively impact views through the site
123 The development will negatively impact views from the site
124 The development will negatively impact views of the site
125 Light pollution will increase / interfere with operation of SAAO telescope
126 The development will change the sense of place of the site negatively
127 The VIA doesn’t address the (heritage) sensitivity of the site
128 The development will negatively impact on / change a (green) open space network of sub‐metropolitan significance
129 The development will negatively impact on the integrity of the (Two Rivers) Urban Park
130 Extending the open space system along the Liesbeek River will be beneficial
131 We do not support the proposal / we object to the proposal / we are not in favour of the development
132 Main aspects of the Island Concept Alternative can be supported
133 We question the sale of land to the proponent
134 Specialists are not independent
135 The BAR / specialist studies should be rejected / are inadequate
136 The BA is vague and based on too many variables.
137 The application is premature (unfinished consultation)
138 A full EIA process should be followed.
139 The statements that the Canal replaced the Liesbeek River in 1952 are false.
140 How will (e.g.) design, rehabilitaion and maintenance commitments be guaranteed?
141 How would significant height variations in the bedrock layer be addressed?
142 The feasibility calculation is flawed
143 The BAR does not address global warming
144 A full construction EMP should be developed for the project
145 Address the fire risk to the SAAO.
146 No / insufficient consultation with the Khoi leaders
147Your PP notices (incorrectly) refer to "Environmental Authorisation in terms of the NEMA EIA Regulations, 2014 for GN R983 (19); GN R984 (6) and (27); and GN R985 (15) and (18) activities."
148 Provided evidence of a site notice at the entrance to Erf 151832
149 Insufficent public advertisement of BA Process / public meeting
150 Previous concerns raised by commenters not systematically addressed
Public Consultation:
Visual and Sense of Place:
Heritage:
General:
452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492
452 Mark Ch
ong
453 Mira
nda du
Toit
454 Trevor Lea
455 Farzaneh
Beh
roozi
456 Shelly Im
men
ga
457 Da
vid Aitchison
458 Fairo
ze Daniels
459 Bridget C
alde
r
460 Johan du
Toit
461 Liz Ba
rnett
462 Liz Sparg
463 Tasm
in Faraghe
r
464 Sue Jowell
465 K Co
oney / H le Rou
x
466 Justine Quince
467 Ludvig Heibe
rg
468 Paolo Israel
469 Ce
inwen
Smith
470 Pam Sykes
471 Marine Leblon
d
472 Ro
salyn Ro
we
473 Marjolein Gam
ble
474 Ebeline de
Villiers
475 Laura Myers
476 Em
ma Side
rsky
477 Ch
loe De
rbyshire
478 Paula Du
gmore
479 Jean
Sleigh
480 Ch
antal Fou
rie
481 Jerome v Ro
oij
482 John
Crawford
483 Kathleen
Maw
son
484 Trevor Hughe
s
485 Ce
line Graveno
r
486 Ke
vin Green
berg
487 M
ischa
Blecher
488 Ch
eryl Davis
489 Ke
rshan Pancham
490 Terry Ad
dison
491 Em
ily Gam
mon
492 Tanya Woo
lf
1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
1
Page 36
Public Stakeholders 493 – 494 and totals
Issues:
1 The development is in line with the CoCT MSDF (2018)
2 The development is not entirely aligned with the CoCT MSDF (2018)
3 The development is not in line with the current site zoning
4 We do not support the application for rezoning
5 The proposed development is not in line with the spatial designation of the site in terms of District Plan (2012) / SDP
6 The proposed development is not in line with the principles of the District Plan (2012)
7 Development should not be allowed in Public Open Space
8 We do not support the application for departures from the District Plan /SDP
9The development is not in line with the Two Rivers Urban Park Contextual Framework and Phase One Environmental Management Plan (2003) / not in line with the vision of TRUPA
10A Local Spatial Development Framework for the area is currently being drafted (and the applications should wait for this plan to be finalised)
11The proposed development is not in line with the CoCTs City’s Stormwater Management By‐law, Floodplain and River Corridor Management Policy and Management of Urban Stormwater Impacts Policy
12 The development (/densification) is inappropriate (for the site)
13 The design and layout has not taken account of (potential impacts) and attempted to minimise adverse impacts
14 Development is possible at the site, with less bulk
15 Development is possible at the site, with an improved / better articulated layout
16 There is insufficient open space allocated in the current development proposal
17 There are insufficient recreational / social facilities proposed in the development
18 The development should be a public destination
19 Consider lower density alternatives / alternatives for the public good
20 Retain the canal and rehabilitate the original course of the Liesbeek River
21 Consider a different site
22 The development represents inappropriate built form / layout
23 The Urban Design Framework has failed to take cognisance of the topographic sensitivity of the site / its location in the valley
24 The development footprint, bulk, form, height should be tied to heritage and urban design indicators
25 The development is not the best practicable environmental option for the site
26 The costs of the development to society outweigh the benefits
27 Financial viability not sole consideration for feasibilty / cannot be used as a justification for environmental and cultural impacts
28 The cost of Berkley Road extension should not be used to justify the development / inform the calculation of financial viability
29 There is an opportunity cost to society from developing the site (e.g. stormwater attenuation, park / public open space, agriculture, etc)
30 The development shows no regard to the views of the surrounding community
31Will the development be commercially viable / there is insufficient demand for housing and commercial office space to justify the development / the development will trigger a drop in demand in surrounding areas
32 There will be high dust levels during construction
33 There will be a noise impact on the community during construction
34 There will bo a noise impact on the community during operations
35 Services (General): The proposed use of municipal services at the proposed development will not be sustainable
36 High water demand of construction acitivities during drought
37 Include stormwater harvesting, or greywater treatment
38 Stormwater: The site provides stormwater attenuation function (which would be lost)
39 The development will result in additional flooding (and is therefore not acceptable)
40 The modelled change in flooding is not acceptable
41 Increased level of future floods incorrectly rated as insignificant
42The surface water hydrology study indicates that my house will flood in the 1:20 year return interval flood event, and that it currently does not.
43The Hotel expert expresses concern about the hotel being built on a flood plain / explain potential flood hazard to future residents and users of the site
44 No provision has been made for compensation for reduced property prices or if insurance companies refuse to cover for flood damage
45 Do not support building in the floodplain for hydrological reasons (regardless of the changes in hydrology)
46 Flooding will impact the PRASA railyards
47 Flooding will increase in the Raapenburg Wetland as a result of the development
48 Flooding will impact the SAAO property
49 The Hydrology Assessment is deficient / incorrect / relies on outdated information
Water supply:
Hydrology and Flooding:
Planning:
Project Description:
Urban Design, Design and Layout:
Need and Desirability:
Noise and Dust
493 494
493 Ad
am Coo
ke
494 Ro
ger S
aner
1 750
1
1 1 279
11
1 1 255
1
1 135
1 54
9
2
2
1 1 199 839
1
7
4
6
1 164
6
1 149
2
1 1 301
14 28
2
12
5 516
1 175
1 1 298
6
1
9
22
2 101
2
1 97
87 87
1 3
2
90 90
1 1 326 716
4
1 1 209
1
1
4
152
7
6
1
2
Page 37
Issues:
50 The Hydrological Assessment should be independently reviewed
51 Increased flooding may mobilise toxic agents found in PRASA soil
52 The surface water hydrology study should take the impacts of climate change into account
53 Climate Change: The development will reduce the resilience of this part of the City to climate change
54 Groundwater: Development will reduce groundwater infiltration (with ecological or water supply impacts)
55 Development at the site will lead to a negative ecological impact
56What guarantees are in place for the funding of a new unlined canal / ecological rehabilitation – i.e. how can the public be sure this will be implemented
57 The development will negatively impact wetlands
58 The impact of infilling the original course of the Liesbeek River is unacceptable
59 There is an opportunity cost of not rehabilitating the original course of the Liesbeek River
60 There will be a negative impact on the Cape Galaxias fish
61 There will be a negative impact on ecological connectivity
62 There will be a significant negative impact on Western Leopard Toads
63 There will be a net loss in breeding habitat for Western Leopard Toads
64 There will be a net loss in terrestrial habitat for the Western Leopard Toad
65 Where would WLTs be kept while construction takes place?
66 Development will cause decrease / loss of pollinators
67 There will be an impact / unacceptable impact on the Cape Clawless Otter
68 Sensitive vegetation / Morea Aristata will be impacted
69 There will be a loss in avifaunal habitat
70 Bird nesting sites along the steep western bank of the Original Course of the Liesbeek River would be lost
71 High rise buildings will disrupt avifaunal flight paths
72 Consider the impacts of noise and light pollution on the fauna
73 Faunal mortalities during construction inevitable
74 Pollution from the development will lead to ecological impacts
75 There will be a loss / decline in public amenity by developing the site
76 The provision of inclusionary housing as proposed would be beneficial
77There is an insufficient allocation of housing / inclusionary housing in the development proposal / allocation too low to qualify as a material social benefit
78 Housing units too small to provide comfortable living space / accommodate family
79 Inclusionary housing should not be reserved for civil servants
80 The development includes no inclusionary housing
81 The use of CoCT owned land for the development will alienate public land (for private gain)
82 The development will cause depreciation of surrounding property values.
83 Housing will diminish opportunities for existing local rental providers
84 The development will diminish the tourism potential of the Two Rivers Urban Park
85 The development will lead to a increase in crime and vagrancy
86 The Socio‐economic study uses outdated information
87 The development proposal would lead to an increase in the reliance on private vehicle use
88 The TIA is outdated / incorrect
89 The TIA shows the traffic model is inaccurate
90 The TIA study area should include the N2
91 Traffic impacts during construction will be significant
92 There will be damage to roads from construction road use
93 Traffic impacts during operations will be significant
94 Public Transport is inadequate / cannot support predicted trip reliance
95 Parking provision is inadequate
96 The TIA does not consider the impact on cyclists sufficiently / does not include NMT
97 The City will not upgrade the Liesbeek Parkway
98 NMT routes will be unsafe and therefore unusable
99 The significance of the cultural landscape of which the site forms part has been overlooked in the HIA
100 The site represents one of the last open space remnants of the Liesbeek River and TRUP area and is of greater value
101 Developing in the valley (of heritage significance) is not supported
Socio‐economic
Biodiversity:
Traffic, Parking, Public Transport and NMT:
493 494
493 Ad
am Coo
ke
494 Ro
ger S
aner
1
1
1
1 1 299 299
1 184 184
1 222 1398
1
50
13
3
2
13
1 1 295
1 155
1
1
1
1 200
1 1 303
11
3
1
3
1
1 119
1 1 303 924
2
1 1 315
9
2
2
1 1 268
12
1
6
3
1
2 209
4
1
1
17
4
1 158
5
5
8
1
3
9 1748
9
93
Page 38
Issues:
102 The development will lead to an unacceptable impact on the cultural landscape
103 There will be a negative heritage impact from infilling the original course of the Liesbeek River fronting the site
104 The development will negatively impact on historic buildings of Observatory / surrounding the site
105 The SAAO site is of high cultural significance / the SAAO site is given insufficient recognition in the HIA
106 The SAAO will be negatively impacted by the development / current mitigation is insufficient
107 Tall buildings at the confluence of the Liesbeek and Black Rivers will detract from the heritage value of the confluence
108 The site is of great heritage significance to people of the First Nations / the site is sacred
109 There is significant intangible heritage associated with the site
110 There is a great opportunity to celebrate the First Nation people of South Africa on this site
111 The proposed heritage centre is insufficient mitigation
112 The heritage centre is inappropriate to celebrate the First Nations culture
113 Proximity of heritage centre to tallest buildings and Berkley Road extension is inappropriate
114 Object to the destruction of the River Club Building
115 The development is in conflict with the move to declare TRUPA a UNESCO heritage site / NRLHR
116 TRUP is a site of provincial or national heritage significance
117 Site should be surveyed for physical evidence of archaeological value prior to construction
118 Construction at the NRF property on the River Club site is a false assumption
119 Visual and sense of place impacts are unacceptable
120 The proposed buildings are out of scale with the surrounding land use / visually sensitive surrounding environment
121 The development will visually impact surrounding areas (negatively)
122 The development will negatively impact views through the site
123 The development will negatively impact views from the site
124 The development will negatively impact views of the site
125 Light pollution will increase / interfere with operation of SAAO telescope
126 The development will change the sense of place of the site negatively
127 The VIA doesn’t address the (heritage) sensitivity of the site
128 The development will negatively impact on / change a (green) open space network of sub‐metropolitan significance
129 The development will negatively impact on the integrity of the (Two Rivers) Urban Park
130 Extending the open space system along the Liesbeek River will be beneficial
131 We do not support the proposal / we object to the proposal / we are not in favour of the development
132 Main aspects of the Island Concept Alternative can be supported
133 We question the sale of land to the proponent
134 Specialists are not independent
135 The BAR / specialist studies should be rejected / are inadequate
136 The BA is vague and based on too many variables.
137 The application is premature (unfinished consultation)
138 A full EIA process should be followed.
139 The statements that the Canal replaced the Liesbeek River in 1952 are false.
140 How will (e.g.) design, rehabilitaion and maintenance commitments be guaranteed?
141 How would significant height variations in the bedrock layer be addressed?
142 The feasibility calculation is flawed
143 The BAR does not address global warming
144 A full construction EMP should be developed for the project
145 Address the fire risk to the SAAO.
146 No / insufficient consultation with the Khoi leaders
147Your PP notices (incorrectly) refer to "Environmental Authorisation in terms of the NEMA EIA Regulations, 2014 for GN R983 (19); GN R984 (6) and (27); and GN R985 (15) and (18) activities."
148 Provided evidence of a site notice at the entrance to Erf 151832
149 Insufficent public advertisement of BA Process / public meeting
150 Previous concerns raised by commenters not systematically addressed
Public Consultation:
Visual and Sense of Place:
Heritage:
General:
493 494
493 Ad
am Coo
ke
494 Ro
ger S
aner
57
1
1
1 131
1 1 252
1
1 241
1 1 198
2
1 1 183
79
1 1 233
4
1 1 250
2
1
1
1 1 260 1201
1 1 306
95
1 1 219
9
1 147
77
46
1
28
11
2
1 1 484 1049
1
15
1 1 268
3
1
5
4
1
1
1
1 1 262
1
1
1
3 8
1
1
2
1
Page 39