BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT BERGZICHT DEVELOPMENT (ERF … · Erf 7562, Portion of Erf 3 (“the...

BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT BERGZICHT DEVELOPMENT (ERF 7562 PORTION ERF 3, ROBERTSON)

REF: E12/2/3/1–B1/11–0346/07

1

Basic Assessment Report in terms of the

National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998), as amended,

and the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations (2006)

Proposed rezoning, subdivision and services infrastructure for the Bergzicht Development, Robertson

Erf 7562 portion of Erf 3, Robertson

Erf 3 Robertson Property Investment (Pty) Ltd

October 2007


REF: E12/2/3/1–B1/11–0346/07

2

Table of Contents

SECTION A: ACTIVITY INFORMATION ................................................................................................................................. 3

1. ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION .......................................................................................................................................... 3 2. ACTIVITY NEED AND DESIRABILITY....................................................................................................................... 8 3. ALTERNATIVES ...................................................................................................................................................... 11 4. ACTIVITY LOCATION .............................................................................................................................................. 12 5. PHYSICAL SIZE OF THE ACTIVITY........................................................................................................................ 13 6. SITE ACCESS .......................................................................................................................................................... 13 7. SITE PHOTOGRAPHS............................................................................................................................................. 14 8. APPLICABLE LEGISLATION, POLICIES AND/OR GUIDELINES ........................................................................... 14

SECTION B: DESCRIPTION OF RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT ........................................................................................... 15

1. GRADIENT OF THE SITE ........................................................................................................................................ 15 2. LOCATION IN LANDSCAPE .................................................................................................................................... 15 3. GROUNDWATER, SOIL AND GEOLOGICAL STABILITY OF THE SITE................................................................ 15 4. SURFACE WATER .................................................................................................................................................. 16 5. VEGETATION / GROUNDCOVER ........................................................................................................................... 16 6. LAND USE CHARACTER OF SURROUNDING AREA ........................................................................................... 17 7. REGIONAL PLANNING CONTEXT ......................................................................................................................... 19 8. SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONTEXT ............................................................................................................................... 20 9. CULTURAL/HISTORICAL FEATURES .................................................................................................................... 21

SECTION C: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ................................................................................................................................ 24 SECTION D: IMPACT ASSESSMENT ................................................................................................................................... 26

1. WASTE, EFFLUENT AND EMISSION MANAGEMENT........................................................................................... 26 2. WATER USE ............................................................................................................................................................ 28 3. POWER SUPPLY ..................................................................................................................................................... 28 4. ENERGY EFFICIENCY ............................................................................................................................................ 29 5. NOISE IMPACTS ..................................................................................................................................................... 29 6. VISUAL IMPACTS .................................................................................................................................................... 29 7. SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS OF THE ACTIVITY… .................................................................................... 30 8. IMPACTS THAT MAY RESULT FROM THE PLANNING, DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION PHASE ..................... 32 9. IMPACTS THAT MAY RESULT FROM THE OPERATIONAL PHASE .................................................................... 39 10. IMPACTS THAT MAY RESULT FROM THE DECOMISSIONING AND CLOSURE PHASE ................................... 46 11. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS .......................................................................................................................................... 46 12. IMPACT SUMMARY OF PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE .......................................................................................... 47 13. RECOMMENDATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PRACTITIONER ................................................... 47

DECLARATIONS ................................................................................................................................................................... 50

List of Appendices

Appendix A: Locality Maps

Appendix B: Site Layout Plans and Contour Maps

Appendix C: Owners Consent Form

Appendix D: Site photographs

Appendix E: Public participation process

Appendix F: Permits, Licenses & Supporting Letters

Appendix G: Specialist Reports

Appendix H: Engineering Reports

Appendix I: Robertson Structure Plan and Urban Edge maps

Appendix J: Socio-Economic Data (Census 2001)


REF: E12/2/3/1–B1/11–0346/07

3

SECTION A: ACTIVITY INFORMATION

1. ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION

(a) Is the project a new development or an upgrade of an existing development? YES �� NO

(b) Clearly describe the activity and associated infrastructure for which you are applying.

Erf 3 Robertson Property Investment (Pty) Ltd (“the Developer”) is proposing the subdivision of Erf 3, Robertson, and the subsequent rezoning and subdivision of a portion thereof, referred to as the proposed Erf 7562, for the purpose of establishing a residential development. Erf 7562, Portion of Erf 3 (“the Subject Property”) is situated within the urban edge of the town of Robertson in the Breede River Winelands Municipality. The Property is situated north of the R60 Worcester-Robertson road, and approximately 1km north-west of the Robertson CBD. The Property comprises the westernmost portion of a larger land parcel, Erf 3. The Property consists of a single land parcel, roughly resembling a flat, north-northeast pointing arrowhead. Residential development (“Erf 3 Robertson”) is proposed for much of the Subject Property topographically suitable for accommodating such development (Appendix A – Locality maps). The Subject Property is currently zoned “Undetermined”. Apart from a functioning earthen irrigation canal and a disused small concrete structure there are no other built structures on the property (Annexure D – Site Photographs). Erf 3 Robertson Property Investment (Pty) Ltd (“the Developer”) is proposing the following:

• The Rezoning of Erf 7562 (Portion of Erf 3) from Undetermined to Subdivisional Area, in order to accommodate the following uses which would constitute the proposed Erf 3 Residential Development (“the Development”):

o Approximately 140 single residential erven, o Public Open Space (4 erven totalling an area of 10 406 m

2),

o Associated service infrastructure, o Associated access and internal roads (totalling an area of approximately 27 000 m

2).

(Appendix B: Site layout plans – Layouts)

Bergzicht Development (“the Development”) , for the purposes of this application, consists of earthworks to prepare the land i.e. grading, trenching and compaction, the construction of an internal road network, and the installation of electric, water, storm water and sewer services. The Developer does not intend constructing any houses. The Developer also intends erecting a perimeter fence along the south-western boundary to Farm 106 Portion 33. Access to the development is proposed as an extension to White Street using existing single lane bridges across the Willem Nels river and a small tributary. The Developer will upgrade the bridges to ensure safe pedestrian crossing and surface approximately 400m of the existing gravel road between the Robertson Cemetery and the gates to neighbouring Wolwekloof Farm. Stormwater generated on the property will be fed via an open canal directly into the Willem Nels River. The earthen irrigation canal which crosses Erf 7562 at approximately the 214m contour is owned by the Willem Nels Water User Association. The canal will either be landscaped, made safe or piped underground.

Specific listed activities applied for: Listed Activity 1(k): The construction of infrastructure, including associated structures or infrastructure for the bulk transportation of sewage and water, including storm water, in pipelines an internal diameter of 0,36 metres or more; or a peak throughput of 120 litres per second or more (GN R 386, April 2006). According to the Bulk Services Report compiled on behalf of the development and for the Breede River Winelands Municipality by Community Engineering Services (CES), the planned water reticulation will utilise pipes with a diameter of between 0.200m to 0.110m. The project engineers plan to however install underground stormwater pipes with a diameter


REF: E12/2/3/1–B1/11–0346/07

4

varying from 0.375 m to 0.450 m. There is also a possibility that the irrigation canal may be piped for the length where it crosses the Subject Property (Appendix H: CES Bulk Water Report November 2006). Listed Activity 1 (m): The construction of facilities or infrastructure, including associated structures or infrastructure for any purpose in the one in ten year floodline of a river or stream, or within 32 metres from the river or stream where the flood line is unknown, excluding purposes associated with existing residential use, but including – (iii). bridges; (GN R 386, April 2006). The Developer intends upgrading the pedestrian facilities on the two single lane bridges crossing the Willem Nels river and a small tributary. The actual bridge infrastructure will not be affected or changed. Listed Activity 12. The transformation or removal of indigenous vegetation of 3 hectares or more or of any size where the transformation or removal would occur within a critically endangered or rare endangered ecosystem listed in terms of section 52 of the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004 (Act No. 10 of 2004) (GN R 386, April 2006). The property is covered by natural Robertson Karoo veld and alien invasive plants. The Robertson Karoo veld type is classified as least threatened (Appendix G: Msasa Bush Surveys, September 2006). Listed Activity 15: The construction of a road that is wider than 4 metres or that has a reserve wider than 6 metres, excluding roads that fall within the ambit of another listed activity or which are access roads of less than 30 metres long (GN R 386, April 2006). The Developer intends constructing roads will be accommodated within a road reserve of 13 m, the cul-de-sacs will be 20 m in diameter (Appendix H: BolandPlan Motivation Report for Rezoning, 2006 & Nortjé & De Villiers Engineering Services Report, 2006). Listed Activity 16: The transformation of undeveloped, vacant or derelict land to - (b) residential, mixed, retail, commercial, industrial or institutional use where such development does not constitute infill and where the total area to be transformed is bigger than 1 hectare; (GN R 386, April 2006). The proposed development will establish a residential use covering an area of 11.5153 ha (Appendix H: BolandPlan, Motivation Report for Rezoning, 2006). Listed Activity 18: The subdivision of portions of land 9 hectares or larger into portions of 5 hectares or less (GN R 386, April 2006). The Developer is applying for the rezoning and subdivision of the Erf 7652 with an area of 11.7759 ha into approximately 140 single residential erven (BolandPlan Motivational Report for Rezoning, 2006). Specific listed activities initially listed in our Notice of Intent to Apply and mentioned in our Background Information Documents and the Public Participation process, however which no longer apply and thus are not part of this application are: Listed Activity 7: The above ground storage of a dangerous good, including …diesel fuel… (GN R 386, April 2006). This activity was mentioned as a possible activity triggered in the Notice of Intent, Information Documents and during the Public Participation process. However, since the Developer no longer intends storing any dangerous good (i.e. fuel) in large quantities on-site, it is no longer necessary to apply for authorisation in this regard (F. Malherbe, pers. comm., 2007). Listed activity 7 is no longer applicable and authorisation is not being applied for.

References: BolandPlan, October 2006. Voorgestelde aansoek om hersonering en onderverdeling: Erf 3, Robertson gedeelte (voorgestel as nuwe Erf 7562, Robertson), Erf 3 Robertson Property Investment (Pty) Ltd. Community Engineering Services (CES) Report, November 2006. Development of Erf 3, Robertson Bulk Water Services. Streicher J.J. Nortjé & De Villiers Consulting Engineers CC, October 2006. Ontwikkeling van Erf 3, Robertson Diensteverslag vir die Voorsiening van Ingeneursdienste.


REF: E12/2/3/1–B1/11–0346/07

5

Msasa Bush Surveys, September 2006. Specialist vegetation / ecological for Mr F. Malherbe Erf 3 Robertson Property Investment (Pty) Ltd.

(c) Please provide details of all components of the proposed project and attach diagrams (e.g. architectural drawings or perspectives, engineering drawings, process flow charts etc.).

Buildings YES �� NO

Provide brief description:

The Developer intends erecting a perimeter fence along the south-western boundary (Appendix B: Site Layout Plans and Architectural Plans & Sketches). The 140 single residential erven will be sold fully serviced with the owners constructing their own homes over the next 1-3 years.

Infrastructure (e.g. roads, power and water supply/ storage) YES �� NO


Proposed infrastructure: Internal Roads: Internal roads have been designed with a minimum width of 5.5 m, accommodated within a road reserve of 13 m. Cul-de-sacs will have an 20 m diameter turning circle. The maximum road gradient in parts of the development will be ±16%. The internal roads will be sealed with a 30mm asphalt, double seal layer or paved. (Appendix H: Malherbe, pers com, 2007). Roads, including the reserve, will constitute approximately 23% of the total development footprint (Appendix B: Site Layout Plans). Electricity Supply: The Development will be supplied with electricity from the Breede River Winelands Municipality from the Muiskraalkop 66 KV / 11 KV substation. The Muiskraalkop substation will require an upgrade to accommodate the development. A new 11 KV / 0.42 KV substation would be built at the developers cost (Appendix F: Breede River Winelands Municipality – Letter regarding assurance of municipal services capacity). Street Lighting: Appropriate, downward facing street lighting will be provided at suitable intervals in all public streets, at intersections and in all public open spaces within the development (Malherbe, pers.com., 2007). Water: The Development was conceptually taken into consideration in the recently completed Water Reticulation Master Plan which indicated that the development can be accommodated in the existing Reservoir 2 zone (Appendix H: Engineering Reports - CES Report 2006 & Figure 1). The total annual average daily demand for the development was calculated by Community Engineering Services (CES) as follows:

136 Residential Erven @ 1.0 kl / day / unit = 136 kl / day Fire flow criteria = 15 l / s @ 7m (Appendix H: Engineering Reports - CES Report 2006).

The report furthermore states that the development in the present system will require upgrading of the existing system to comply with pressure and fire flow criteria. In addition the “distribution zones must be rezoned according to the master plan to improve pressures and the zones to ensure that the storage capacities in the upper zones are optimised for future demands”. The CES report recommends the Developer install a new booster pump station and make a contribution in the order of


REF: E12/2/3/1–B1/11–0346/07

6

R360,548 towards water infrastructure. The Breede River Winelands Municipality’s Civil Engineering Services state in their letter of 20 July 2007, that “the municipality is able to provide the volumes of water required.” (Appendix F: Breede River Winelands Municipality – Assurance of municipal services capacity). Sewer Network: The Breede River Winelands Municipality’s Civil Engineering Services state in their letter of 20 July 2007, that “the municipality will be able to remove and treat the volumes of sewerage generated by the development, on condition that the complete pump station will be erected by the developer for his cost.” (Appendix F: Breede River Winelands Municipality – Assurance of municipal services capacity). The 140 single residential houses will be built over a period of 1 - 3 years and that sewerage volumes generated will increase gradually over time. It is estimated, from figures given in CES reports compiled for similar housing developments in Worcester area (Barclay Hills, CES October 2006), that approximately 3 075 m3 per month sewerage (estimated at 0.73 kl/d/unit) will be generated by the proposed housing development on proposed Erf 7562, Robertson. It is proposed that the sewer pipeline route follow the White Road extension, crossing the Willem Nels river and small tributary at the existing bridges. Internal Storm Water System: The Subject Property slopes eastward. The Willem Nels river abuts Erf 7652 directly, but is located approximately 100 further eastward where it flows from the north to the south. Storm water run-off generated within the development will be accommodated within the internal storm water networks consisting of underground pipes (0.375m – 0.45m in diameter), concrete manholes and kerb inlets. The pipes will be sized to cater for a storm with a recurrence of 1:2 years. Larger runoffs will be catered for by overland escape routes along tarred kerbed roads and will not damage any property (Appendix H: Nortjé & De Villiers, 2006). External Storm Water System: Excessive storm water leaving the development will be fed into the Willem Nels river via an open unlined channel. The Breede River Winelands Municipality’s Civil Engineering Services state in their letter of 20 July 2007, that “stormwater run-off within the development can be discharged into the Willem Nels River” (Appendix F: Breede River Winelands Municipality – Assurance of municipal services capacity). References: Community Engineering Services (CES) Report, November 2006. Development of Erf 3, Robertson Bulk Water Services. Streicher J.J. Nortjé & De Villiers Consulting Engineers CC, October 2006. Ontwikkeling van Erf 3, Robertson Diensteverslag vir die Voorsiening van Ingeneursdienste. Breede River Winelands Municipality, December 2006. Internal Memo – Water, Sewerage, Roads and Stormwater comments, NJ Koegelenberg. Breede River Winelands Municipality, December 2006. Internal Memo – Power supply comments – HC de Wet. Breede River Winelands Municipality, July 2007. Environmental Authorisation for Erf 3 Robertson Development – Confirmation of Municipal Services Capacity – Effluent / Sewerage removal & treatment, Stormwater and Water Supply. NJ Koegelenberg. Breede River Winelands Municipality, August 2007. Environmental Authorisation for Erf 3 Robertson Development – Confirmation of Municipal Services Capacity – Solid Waste and Power Supply. NJ Koegelenberg.

Processing activities (e.g. manufacturing, storage, distribution) YES NO ��



REF: E12/2/3/1–B1/11–0346/07

7

Not applicable.

Storage facilities for raw materials and products (e.g. volume and substances to be stored)

Provide brief description YES NO ��

Not applicable.

Storage and treatment facilities for solid waste and effluent generated by the project YES NO ��

Provide brief description

Municipal household solid waste will be stored at each household and removed once a week as per the usual municipal collection and dumping of solid domestic waste.

Other activities (e.g. water abstraction activities, crop planting activities) YES NO ��

Provide brief description

Not applicable.


REF: E12/2/3/1–B1/11–0346/07

8

2. ACTIVITY NEED AND DESIRABILITY (a) Describe the need and desirability of the activity:

(a). Describe the need and desirability of the activity: The following aspects are linked to the need of the proposed development: � Provision of impetus to local employment creation.

Employment creation has been identified as an urgent priority by the Breede River Winelands IDP. With regard to Robertson, data from the 2001 Census indicate that the significantly sized local historically disadvantaged community of Nkqubela has an extremely high unemployment rate of 36.5% - more than twice that of the Provincial average at the time, and significantly higher than the most recent national estimated rate of 26.5% (mid 2006). According to the findings of the study entitled Growth Potential of Towns in the Western Cape (University of Stellenbosch, 2004), Robertson has a high development potential, coupled to high social investment need. In this regard, the proposed development would yield an estimated 30 construction opportunities for at least a 6 month period during the construction (development of civils infrastructure) phase. A further significant, albeit unquantified number of potential employment opportunities are also associated with the subsequent construction of 140 private dwellings on the associated erven. In view of a well-established construction sector in the Robertson area, it may be assumed that contractors and building suppliers from within the local area will be made use of. A further number (conservatively estimated at 112) of direct employment opportunities associated with provision of gardening and domestic cleaning services are associated with the operational phase. Indications from local estate agents are that the development would attract an inflow of new residents and associated capital into the area (S. Attenborough, Steenkamp – pers. comm).

The following aspects are linked to the desirability of the proposed development: � Development will not displace any established productive land uses:

The Property is currently zoned as “undetermined zone”. Due to factors of topography and poor soils, the property has traditionally been considered unsuitable for cultivation. No current or recent formal historic land uses are associated with the Property. No built structures are located on the Property. The Property is mainly covered with natural vegetation, but progressive future intrusion of alien growth from the heavily infested proposed Remainder portion of Erf 3 towards the east, seems likely. Evidence of historic rubble dumping is visible in the centre of the Property. As such, the Property should be considered as effectively derelict, and in danger of progressive degradation.

� Residential land use supported by relevant planning documents: The current planning document for the subject area, the Robertson Structure Plan (1985) has identified the general area in which the Property is situated, as suitable for accommodating lower density residential development. Currently, the Breede River Winelands SDF is being updated and the subject land lies within the proposed urban edge (Appendix I: Robertson Structure Plans and proposed Urban Edge). In this regard, the current proposal is for the development of 140 single residential erven ranging in size from 463 m² to 1042 m².

� Density gradient in line with Provincial planning guidelines:

The proposed development falls outside the current built edge of Robertson. The proposed lay-out however reflects sensitivity to the graded density approach in respect to the urban edge, as outlined in the Provincial Spatial Development Framework (PSDF). Specifically, the proposed lay-out places lower density land use furthest away from the built edge, and high density land use closest to the edge. In this way higher density portions are in closer proximity to existing services infrastructure, and a more coherent urban environment is achieved, specifically with regard to the transition from urban to non-urban.

� Contribution towards municipal service provision capacity:

The proposed development will not put any strain on existing municipal service provision capacity. In this regard, written confirmation of sufficient capacity has been provided by the Breede River Winelands Municipality. An agreement was reached between the local authorities and the developer whereby the developer will make a financial


REF: E12/2/3/1–B1/11–0346/07

9

contribution of R1.6 million (= R7500 per erf (x 140 erven = R1 050 000), plus an additional R550 000 (pipe infrastructure)) towards the implementation of Robertson Water and Sewerage Master plans in the relevant area (Malherbe – e-mail).

� Additional contribution towards municipal coffers

In addition to contributing towards the implementation of Master plan items, a further agreement was reached between the developer and the Municipality whereby 1% of the selling price of every erf sold would accrue to Municipal coffers. The initial contribution is estimated at R500 000. In addition, 1% of the selling price would again accrue to the Municipality every time a given property changes ownership. Provision for this arrangement will be stipulated in original contracts of sale (Malherbe – e-mail).

� Removal of vagrancy and associated security and fire risks:

The subject property has never been developed or farmed, and is overgrown with vegetation. The owners of adjacent properties have indicated that the site is currently much used by vagrants (J. Attenborough, Treurnicht – pers. comm). The chairman of the local Ratepayer’s Association has gone so far as to call it a “vagrants’ nest” (Joubert – pers. comm). Ms. Attenborough has indicated that frequent trespassing onto their plum farm (Wolwekloof), vandalism and theft are an ongoing problem. Ms. Treurnicht – a woman living on her own – has indicated that the issue raises some security concerns. Both adjacent landowners have indicated that the issue of vagrancy is exacerbated by an associated fire risk on the overgrown site, fringed by dense alien tree growth. Against this background, Ms. Attenborough has indicated that she and her husband are emphatically in favor of the proposed development. The chairman of the RPA has indicated that in this regard, “the sooner the site gets developed, the better” (Joubert, pers. comm).

References: Personal sources

• Attenborough, Ms. Jenny (Telephonic: 17/08/07). Owner: site-adjacent Wolwekloof farm.

• Attenborough, Ms. Shelley (Telephonic: 17/08/07). Remax Estates, Robertson.

• Burger, Mr. Kosie (Telephonic: 27/08/07). Ward Councillor, Robertson.

• Forster, Mr. Eric (Telephonic: 17/08/07). Project traffic specialist.

• Joubert, Mr. Deon (Telephonic: 29/08/07). Chairman: Robertson Ratepayers’ Association.

• Steenkamp, Mr. Johnny (Telephonic: 23/08/07). Propmart, Robertson.

• Treurnicht, Ms. A (Telephonic: 17/08/07). Owner: site-adjacent Olive Grove. Correspondence

• (24/08/07) E-mail from Mr. Febbie Malherbe (developer) to BolandEnviro (Schalk van der Merwe) with regard to financial inputs and municipal service contributions associated with proposed development.

• (20/07/07): Letter from Breede River Winelands Municipality (Civil Engineering Services) to BolandEnviro, re. “Environmental authorisation for the Erf 3, Robertson Development – Confirmation of Municipal Services Capacity”;

• (24/01/07): Letter from EFG to BolandPlan re “Erf 3, Robertson: kommentaar op besware insake verkeersaspekte van die ontwikkelling”;

• (28/11/06): Letter from CES to Nortjé and de Villiers (project consulting engineers) re. “Development of Erf 3, Robertson Bulk water services”;

Printed sources

• BolandPlan (Oktober 2006). Motiveringsverslag: Voorgestelde aansoek om hersonering en onderverdeling Erf 3, Robertson.

• Centre for Geographical Research, University of Stellenbosch (2004). Growth Potential of Towns in the Western Cape. Prepared for the Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning, Western Cape.

• EFG Engineers (January 2007 revision). Verkeersimpakstelling: Erf nr. 3, Gedeelte (Voorgestel as nuwe Erf 7562, Robertson).

• Breede River Conditions of Sale by Public Auction Internet sources

• www.capegaetway.gov.za (Municipal profile).

• www.demarcation.org.za (Census 2001 data).


REF: E12/2/3/1–B1/11–0346/07

10

(b) Indicate the benefits that the activity will have for society in general and also indicate the benefits that the activity will have for the local communities where the activity will be located:

i). Benefits for society in general are associated with the following:

• No specific benefits for society in general are associated with the proposed development. ii). Benefits for the receiving communities are associated with the following:

• Formalization of land use would remove current security risks and nuisance factors associated with informal use of the land parcel by vagrants.

iii). Benefits for the larger Robertson community are associated with the following:

• Contribution towards municipal service provision capacity: The developer will make a financial contribution of R7500 per erf (x 120 erven = R1 050 000) plus an additional R550 000 contribution (pipe infrastructure) towards the implementation of items of the Robertson Water and Sewerage Master plans in the relevant area i.e. R 1.6 million in total (Appendix C: Conditions of Sale).

• Additional contribution to Municipal coffers through sale of erven In addition to contributing towards the implementation of Master plan items, a further agreement was reached between the developer and the Municipality whereby 1% of the selling price of every erf sold would accrue to Municipal coffers. The initial contribution is estimated at R500 000. In addition, 1% of the selling price would again accrue to the Municipality every time a given property changes ownership. Provision for this arrangement will be stipulated in original contracts of sale (Appendix C: Conditions of Sale).

• Employment opportunities during the construction phase. The developer has indicated that tenders for civils contractors will only be solicited on the basis of an Authorisation. He has further indicated that local BEE-compliant firms will be invited to tender (Malherbe – e-mail). It may be assumed that the labor force associated with local civils firms will be largely constituted of members of local communities.

• Additional employment opportunities are associated with the subsequent construction of residential units (not part of the current application). A total number of 140 single residential erven are proposed. The developer does not intend to construct any houses itself. Buyers of single residential erven will be able to design their own structures At a conservative estimate of 120 m² per single residential unit, at current local building costs of R4000/ m², construction of 140 units would entail a capital outlay of around R67,2 million. Within the local building trade, a figure of 30% of total cost is generally accepted as a reasonable fraction for labor expenses. A subsequent R20,16 million (at current value) in terms of labor is therefore associated with the proposed development. In order for the Robertson community to benefit from this opportunity.

• Stimulus to local building supplies manufacturing industry: A number of building supplies manufacturers – including the regionally significant AH Marais and Sons - are located in Robertson. In as far as transportation costs are a significant factor in construction, it may be assumed that purely out of economic motives, local suppliers will be made use of.

• Contribution to rates and taxes base: The 140 residential units would contribute to the local rates and taxes base. Each completed unit is expected to contribute between R3000 and R4000 annually at current value. The resulting yield would entail an amount of between R420 000 and R560 000 per year.

• Operational phase employment:


REF: E12/2/3/1–B1/11–0346/07

11

During the operational phase, a number of permanent employment opportunities (conservatively estimated at 112) will be available gardening and domestic cleaning personnel. References: See sources listed above in Section 2(a).

3. ALTERNATIVES Describe alternatives that are considered in this application. Please Note: 1. This report only provides space for 3 alternatives. The required information must however be provided for all alternatives being

considered. Alternatives should include a consideration of all possible means by which the purpose and need of the proposed activity could be accomplished. The determination of whether the site or activity (including different processes etc.) or both is appropriate needs to be informed by the specific circumstances of the activity and its environment. The no-go option must in all cases be included in the assessment phase as the baseline against which the impacts of all alternatives are assessed.

2. After receipt of this report the competent authority may also request the applicant to assess additional alternatives that could possibly accomplish the purpose and need of the proposed activity if it is clear that realistic alternatives have not been considered to a reasonable extent.

3. Consult the Department’s Guideline on Alternatives prior to completing this section.

3(a) Site alternatives: Please indicate the number of site alternatives assessed: One site

Describe site alternative 1 (S1) (preferred or only site alternative), for the activity described above, or for any other activity alternative:

The Erf 7562 Robertson is the preferred site for the development as it lies within the demarcated town boundary of Robertson, close to an existing residential area. The site represents one of the last remaining unbuilt erven earmarked for residential landuse (Appendix I: Robertson Guide Plan, 1985). The preferred site is currently zoned “Undetermined” and rated as low in terms of agricultural potential (Appendix I: Robertson Guide Plan, 1985). The Breede River Winelands Municipality placed the Subject Property on public tender with the condition that the “Purchaser must purchase the total area as per subdivided area and submit an application for rezoning together with subdivision plan for approval to develop the area as residential area, within a period of 8 months from signing of this agreement.” (Appendix C: Conditions of Sale by Public Auction – Portion of Erf 3, Robertson).

Describe site alternative 2 (S2), if any, for the activity described above, or for any other activity alternative:

None

3(b) Activity alternatives: Two (One plus the No-go Option)

Describe activity alternative 1 (A1), if any, for any or all of the site alternatives as appropriate:


REF: E12/2/3/1–B1/11–0346/07

12

The preferred option is to rezone Erf 7562, Robertson to a sub-divisional area for the establishment of 140 single residential erven and related infrastructure (roads and municipal services) (Appendix B: Site Layout - Figure B1). The preferred Subject Property is located within the town boundary of Robertson, and the rezoning proposal for residential use is not in conflict with the current Robertson Scheme Regulations or the Robertson Structure Plan). Furthermore, the proposed residential development would be in accordance with the principles of urban infill and densification, as outlined in the Western Cape Provincial Spatial Development Framework (Western Cape Provincial SDF, 2005). The Development will have a density of 17 dwelling units per net developed hectare.

Describe activity alternative 2 (A2), if any, for any or all of the site alternatives as appropriate:

The No-go Option would result in the nullifying Sale by Public Auction, which had an expressed condition that the land was to be used only for the development of the residential housing. The Developer has indicated that he would seek compensation for all his expenses incurred (Appendix C: Conditions of Sale by Public Auction). Zoning would remain Undetermined and it is likely that the Subject Property would degrade further as illegal dumping of rubbish and infestation of alien invasive plants continues. Vagrancy would also continue.

3(c) Other alternatives (e.g. layout, technological, timing, process etc):

Describe the alternative

Preferred Layout Option The preferred layout caters for 140 single residential erven, giving a density of 17 dwelling units per net developed hectare and a single entrance from extension of White Street – Wolwekloof Road. The development will not exceed the 240 m contour level.

Alternative Layout Options: The alternative layout option consists of 93 single residential erven and 80 townhouse erven clustered into two areas. This layout yields a higher density of 22 dwelling units per net developed hectare. The group-housing erven range in size from approximately 275 m

2 on average (Appendix B: Site Layout Plans – Figure B2).

Visual impact in this option is mitigated in that the higher density group-housing is clustered on the lower, less visible slopes.

4. ACTIVITY LOCATION

Indicate the position of the activity using the latitude and longitude of the centre point of the site for each alternative site. The co-ordinates must be in degrees, minutes and seconds. The minutes should be given to at least three decimals to ensure adequate accuracy. The projection that must be used in all cases is the WGS84 spheroid in a national or local projection.

Alternative: Latitude (S): Longitude (E):

Alternative S1 (preferred or only site alternative) 33o

47‘ 51.87“ 19o 52 ‘ 19.10“

Alternative S2 (if any) o ‘ “

o ‘ “

Alternative S3 (if any) o ‘ “

o ‘ “

or, for linear activities:

Alternative: Latitude (S): Longitude (E):

Alternative S1 (preferred or only route alternative) Not applicable.


REF: E12/2/3/1–B1/11–0346/07

13

• Starting point of the activity o ‘ “

o ‘ “

• Middle point of the activity o ‘ “

o ‘ “

• End point of the activity o

‘ “ o

‘ “

Alternative S2 (if any) Not applicable.

• Starting point of the activity o

‘ “ o

‘ “

• Middle point of the activity o

‘ “ o

‘ “


‘ “ o

‘ “

Alternative S3 (if any) Not applicable.

• Starting point of the activity o

‘ “ o

‘ “

• Middle point of the activity o

‘ “ o

‘ “


‘ “ o

‘ “

Please Note: For route alternatives that are longer than 500m, please provide and addendum with co-ordinates taken every 100 meters along the route for each alternative.

5. PHYSICAL SIZE OF THE ACTIVITY Indicate the physical size of the preferred activity as well as alternative activities and its associated infrastructure (footprints):

Alternative: Size of the activity:

Alternative A1 (Preferred Activity Option) +- 107 353 m2

Alternative A2 (Alternative Option) +- 107 353 m2

Alternative A3 (No-go Option) +- 117 759 m2

or, for linear activities:

Alternative: Length of the activity:

Alternative A1 (preferred activity alternative) m

Alternative A2 (if any) m

Alternative A3 (if any) m

Indicate the size of the alternative sites or servitudes (within which the above footprints will occur):

Alternative: Size of the site/servitude:

Alternative A1 (preferred activity alternative) m2

Alternative A2 (if any) m2


Associated Infrastructure: Indicate the size of the alternative sites or servitudes (within which the above associated infrastructure footprints will occur):

Alternative: Size of the site/servitude:

Alternative A1 (preferred activity alternative) m2



6. SITE ACCESS

Is there an existing access road? YES NO ��

If NO, what is the distance over which a new access road will be built? < 20 m

Describe the type of access road planned:

In the preferred and alternative layout options a single access road is proposed. The development will gain access from the extension of White Street – Wolwekloof Road. The development will upgrade approximately 400m of gravel road to acceptable engineering standards. The road will be tarred.


REF: E12/2/3/1–B1/11–0346/07

14

Two existing bridges will be upgraded to ensure safe passing of pedestrians. The Traffic Impact study recommended the single lane bridges should not be widened as they currently act as traffic calming mechanisms (Appendix B: Site Layout Plans and Appendix G: Traffic Impact Statement). Please Note: indicate the position of the proposed access road on the site plan (See Section 7 below)

7. SITE PHOTOGRAPHS

Colour photographs of the site and its surroundings (taken of the site and from the site) with a description of each photograph. The vantage points from which the photographs were taken must be indicated on the site plan, or locality plan as applicable. If available, please also provide a recent aerial photograph. Photographs must be attached under Appendix D to this form. It should be supplemented with additional photographs of relevant features on the site. Date of photographs must be included. Please note that the above requirements must be duplicated for all alternative sites.

8. APPLICABLE LEGISLATION, POLICIES AND/OR GUIDELINES

Please list all legislation, policies and/or guidelines that have or will be considered in the preparation of this application.

LEGISLATION ADMINISTERING AUTHORITY TYPE

Permit/ license/ Authorisation/comment DATE

(if already obtained):

National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998

Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism

Considered legislation, this application

Regulations in terms of Chapter 5 of the National Environmental , GN R 385, R 386 and R 387 2006

Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism / DEA&DP Chief Directorate Environment and Land Management

Considered legislation, this application

National Heritage Resources Act 25 of 1999: Section 38

South African Heritage Resources Agency (SAHRA) / Heritage Western Cape

Record of Decision / Authorisation (Appendix F: Permits, Licenses and Supporting Letters – Figure F1 & F2)

27 March and 11 July 2007

POLICY/ GUIDELINES ADMINISTERING AUTHORITY

Guideline on Public Participation (2007) Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning

Guideline on Alternatives (2007) Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning

Provincial Guideline on Biodiversity Offsets (2007) Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning

Guideline on the Interpretation of the Listed Activities (2006)

Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning

Provincial Urban Edge Guideline (2005)


Guideline for Involving Heritage Specialists in EIA Processes (2005)


Guideline for Involving Visual and Aesthetic Specialists in EIA Processes (2005)


Guideline for involving Biodiversity Specialists in EIA Processes (2005)


Western Cape Provincial Spatial Development Framework (2005)


Guideline for the Management of Development on Mountains, Hills and Ridges of the Western Cape (2002)


Ecosystem Guidelines for Environmental Impact Assessment in the Western Cape (2005)

Botanical Society of South Africa

Robertson Structure Plan (1985) Breede River Winelands Municipality


REF: E12/2/3/1–B1/11–0346/07

15

SECTION B: DESCRIPTION OF RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT Site/Area Description For linear activities (pipelines etc) as well as activities that cover very large sites, it may be necessary to complete copies of this section for each part of the site that has a significantly different environment. In such cases please complete copies of Section C and indicate the area which is covered by each copy No. on the Site Plan.

Section C Copy No. (e.g. A): 1/1

1. GRADIENT OF THE SITE Indicate the general gradient of the sites (tick the appropriate box) Alternative S1:

Flat Flatter than 1:10 1:10 – 1:5 �� (lower & middle slopes)

Steeper than 1:5 �� (upper slopes)

Alternative S2: Not applicable

Flat Flatter than 1:10 1:10 – 1:5 Steeper than 1:5


Flat Flatter than 1:10 1:10 – 1:5 Steeper than 1:5

2. LOCATION IN LANDSCAPE Indicate the landform(s) that best describes the site (tick (“�“) the appropriate box(es). Alternative S1:

Ridgeline Plateau

Side slope of hill/mountain

��

Closed valley

Open valley

Plain Undulating

plain/low hills Dune

Sea- front

Other


Ridgeline Plateau Side slope of hill/mountain

Closed valley

Open valley

Plain Undulating


Sea- front

Other


Ridgeline Plateau Side slope of hill/mountain

Closed valley

Open valley

Plain Undulating


Sea- front

Other

If other, please describe

3. GROUNDWATER, SOIL AND GEOLOGICAL STABILITY OF THE SITE Is the site(s) located on or near any of the following (tick (“�”) the appropriate boxes)?

Alternative S1 Alternative S2 Alternative S3

Shallow water table (less than 1.5m deep)

YES NO �� UNSURE YES NO UNSURE YES NO UNSURE

Seasonally wet soils (often close to water bodies) YES �� NO UNSURE YES NO UNSURE YES NO UNSURE

Unstable rocky slopes or steep slopes with loose soil


Dispersive soils (soils that dissolve in water)


Soils with high clay content YES NO �� UNSURE YES NO UNSURE YES NO UNSURE


REF: E12/2/3/1–B1/11–0346/07

16

Any other unstable soil or geological feature


An area sensitive to erosion YES �� NO UNSURE YES NO UNSURE YES NO UNSURE

If any of the answers to the above are “YES” or “unsure”, specialist input may be requested by the Department. (Information in respect of the above will often be available at the planning sections of local authorities. Where it exists, the 1:50 000 scale Regional Geotechnical Maps prepared by Geological Survey may also be used).

Seasonally wet soils (often close to water bodies): A small wet area appears just below a disused dam situated outside the Subject Property’s southern boundary. The dam is dry during summer months but contains some water in winter. The layout plan makes allowance for this area, locating a public open space in this area. Any excessive water would be fed into the underground stormwater system. There is a remote risk associated with the dam wall collapsing should the water levels rise to high or overflow due to an abnormal rain downpour or the canal breaking. The dam is not very large and and damage would be limited to a few houses immediately below the wall. An area sensitive to erosion: A localised area in the central part of the Subject Property appears to be sensitive to erosion, and a few shallow dongas have forme. It appears that some erosion control was attempted in that this area has become a dumping ground for building rubble.

4. SURFACE WATER Indicate the surface water present on and or adjacent to the site and alternative sites (tick (“�”) the appropriate boxes)?

Alternative S1 Alternative S2 Alternative S3

Perennial River YES NO �� UNSURE YES NO UNSURE YES NO UNSURE

Non-Perennial River YES NO �� UNSURE YES NO UNSURE YES NO UNSURE

Permanent Wetland YES NO �� UNSURE YES NO UNSURE YES NO UNSURE

Seasonal Wetland YES NO �� UNSURE YES NO UNSURE YES NO UNSURE

Artificial Wetland YES NO �� UNSURE YES NO UNSURE YES NO UNSURE

Estuarine / Lagoonal wetland YES NO �� UNSURE YES NO UNSURE YES NO UNSURE

5. VEGETATION / GROUNDCOVER Tick (“�”) and describe (where required) the vegetation types / groundcover present on the site. Alternative S1:

Indigenous Vegetation - good condition

Indigenous Vegetation with scattered aliens

YES��

Indigenous Vegetation with heavy alien infestation

Identify the vegetation type above:

Identify the vegetation type above: Robertson Karoo (95%)

Breede Shale Renosterveld (5%)


Provide ecosystem status for above:

Provide ecosystem status for above: Robertson Karoo – Least Threatened

Breede Shale Renosterveld - Vulnerable

Provide Ecosystem status for above:

Indigenous Vegetation in an ecological corridor or along a soil boundary /

interface

Veld dominated by alien species

Distinctive soil conditions (e.g. Sand over shale, quartz patches, limestone, alluvial deposits,

termitaria etc.) – describe


REF: E12/2/3/1–B1/11–0346/07

17

Bare soil

Building or other structure

Sport field

Paved surface

Cultivated land

Other (describe)












interface




Bare soil


Sport field

Paved surface

Cultivated land

Other (describe)






Identify the vegetation type above: Identify the vegetation type above:





interface




Bare soil


Sport field

Paved surface

Cultivated land

Other (describe)

Please note: The Department may request specialist input/studies depending on the nature of the vegetation type / groundcover and potential impact(s) of the proposed activity/ies. To assist with the identification of the vegetation type and ecosystem status consult http://bgis.sanbi.org or [email protected]. Information is also available on compact disc (cd) from the Biodiversity-GIS Unit, Ph (021) 799 8698. This information may be updated from time to time and it is the applicant/ EAP’s responsibility to ensure that the latest version is used.

6. LAND USE CHARACTER OF SURROUNDING AREA

Tick (“�”) the current land uses and/or prominent features that occur within +/- 500m radius of the site and neighbouring properties if these are located beyond 500m of the site. Please note: The Department may request specialist input/studies depending on the nature of the land use character of the area and potential impact(s) of the proposed activity/ies. Alternative S1:

Untransformed area �� Low density

residential ��

Medium density

residential �� High density residential Informal residential

Retail Commercial & warehousing

Light industrial Medium industrial Heavy industrial


REF: E12/2/3/1–B1/11–0346/07

18

Power station Office/consulting

room Military or police

base/station/compound Casino/entertainment

complex Tourism &

Hospitality facility

Open cast mine Underground mine Spoil heap or slimes dam Quarry, sand or borrow

pit

Dam or reservoir

��

Hospital/medical center School Tertiary education facility Church Old age home

Sewage treatment plant Train station or shunting yard

Railway line Major road (4 lanes or

more) Airport

Harbour

Sport facilities Golf course Polo fields Filling station

Landfill or waste treatment site Plantation �� Agriculture �� River, stream or

wetland ��

Nature conservation area

Mountain, koppie or ridge �� Museum Historical building �� Graveyard �� Archeological site

Other land uses (describe):


Untransformed area Low density residential Medium density residential High density residential Informal residential



Power station Office/consulting room Military or police


complex Tourism & Hospitality

facility


pit Dam or reservoir




more) Airport

Harbour


Landfill or waste treatment site

Plantation Agriculture River, stream or wetland Nature conservation

area

Mountain, koppie or ridge Museum Historical building Graveyard Archeological site


Alternative S3: Not Applicable

Untransformed area Low density residential Medium density residential High density residential Informal residential



Power station Office/consulting room Military or police


complex Tourism & Hospitality

facility


pit Dam or reservoir




more) Airport

Harbour


Landfill or waste treatment site

Plantation Agriculture River, stream or wetland Nature conservation

area

Mountain, koppie or ridge Museum Historical building Graveyard Archeological site



REF: E12/2/3/1–B1/11–0346/07

19

7. REGIONAL PLANNING CONTEXT

Is the activity permitted in terms of the property’s existing land use rights? Please explain

No, an application for rezoning from Undetermined Zone to a Subdivision Area, rezoning further subdivision to single residential erven is in process (BolandPlan, 2006).

Will the activity be in line with the following?

Provincial Spatial Development Framework (PSDF) YES �� NO Please explain

Robertson is identified in the Provincial SDF as having a High Composite Development Index and a Priority Fixed Investment Urban Settlement, and forms part of the strategic Breede River Corridor between Tulbagh and Swellendam. The current economic growth experienced in the region is resulting in an unprecedented demand for erven and houses (Western Cape Provincial Spatial Development Framework, 2005).

Urban edge / Edge of Built environment for the area YES �� NO Please explain

The proposed Erf 3 Development lies approximately 1 km from the CBD of Robertson, within the defined town boundary. (Appendix I: Robertson Structure Plan and Urban Edge).

Integrated Development Plan of the Local Municipality YES �� NO Please explain

The current IDP document (2007 – 2011) identifies the housing need, the delivery of quality basic services and local economic development as the three most critical strategic objectives. The proposed Erf 3 Development aims to contribute, while improving the availability of services and increasing the municipality’s tax base (Breede River Winelands Municipality, IDP 2007 / 2011).

Spatial Development Framework of the Local Municipality YES �� NO Please explain

The Breede River Winelands Municipality is in the process of compiling a Spatial Development Framework.

Approved Structure Plan of the Municipality YES �� NO Please explain

Erf 7562, Robertson is identified and earmarked for Township Development in the Robertson Structure Plan (Appendix I: Robertson Structure Plan and proposed Urban Edge).

Any other Plans YES NO �� Please explain


REF: E12/2/3/1–B1/11–0346/07

20

8. SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONTEXT

Describe the existing social and economic characteristics of the community in order to provide baseline information.

The residential settlement of Robertson constitutes the direct receiving community. The nearest significant Historically Disadvantaged (HD) community is that of Nkqubela, situated approximately 3 km south-east of the subject property. Figures provided below are derived from the most recent (2001) Census count. It is assumed that trends – if not overall numbers – have remained reasonably constant. Census 2001 does not provide a geographical breakdown of Robertson (i.e. on a suburban level). As a result, historically non-White, historically disadvantaged portions of Robertson are not listed separately. In order to rectify this, the discussion below has, where relevant, disaggregated data for the White and non-White population groups – with the latter effectively meaning the predominantly Coloured population group of Robertson. Tables summarizing Census data with regard to relevant socio-economic indicators for the relevant communities (and in some instances, the Breede River/ Winelands Municipality) are included in Appendix J of this report. i) The Robertson receiving community: According to Census data, the Robertson community consisted of 18335 people in 2001 – representing 22.5% of the total population of the Breede River/ Winelands Municipality (BR/WM). It may be described as an overwhelmingly Coloured (<72.5%), with a significant White component (20.5%) and a much smaller Black component (6.5%). Afrikaans is by far the most commonly spoken first language (92.5%), followed by isiXhosa (5%) and English (2%). The gender breakdown is skewed towards females over males (52% over 48% respectively) – slightly more so than for the as a whole BR/WM (51.5% over 48.5% respectively). Household sizes for Robertson averaged around 3.89 people per household – comparable to the figure of 3.84 for the BR/WM. However, when disaggregated, White household sizes are significantly smaller (2.43) than non-White ones (4.61). Approximately 38.5% of the Robertson population was under 20 years of age, and around 7.5% older than retirement age (65). Education rates display a marked divergence with regard to the White and non-White groups. Of the population fraction of people aged 20 and older, 2% of the White group had no schooling or failed to complete their primary schooling. In contrast, this figure for the non-White group is a very significant 34.5% - including 8.5% which had never had any formal schooling. While these figures are better than for the largely rural BR/WM as a whole (40.5% and 12% resp), they are significantly worse than Provincial averages (20.5% and 5.5% resp). At the other end of the spectrum, while an estimated 64.5% of the White group had obtained a senior certificate (including 21% with a tertiary qualification), only 19.5% of the non-White group had obtained a senior certificate (inclusive of 3.5% tertiary). Relevant Provincial averages in this regard are 23.5% and 11%. Household income rates also display a clear racial divergence. Thus while around 5% of White heads of households had no formal income, this figure is more than double (13%) for the non-White group. Approximately 9% of White household heads earning income earned less than the poverty datum figure of R800/ month. While this figure is significant, that for the non-White group is more than double that (19.5%). The relevant Provincial average is 13.5%. The most significant clustering with regard to the White group occurs in the high lower to lower middle-income bracket – with 60.5% earning between R1600 and R12800 per month. In comparison, the greatest clustering for the non-White group is in the R400-R3200 per month bracket (61.5%). Only an estimated 13% of White households had a formal monthly income of more than R12800 per month – compared to less than 2% for the non-White group. Racial divergence is also displayed with regards to estimated unemployment rates. In that regard, the rate for the White group was around 3.5%, and that for the non-White group 11.5%. Respective rates for the BR/WM and Province were 7% and 17%. The national unemployment rate was estimated at around 26.5% in 2006. The fraction of the White Robertson community not economically active was estimated at 46.5%; that for the non-White group at a significantly higher 52%.


REF: E12/2/3/1–B1/11–0346/07

21

The sectoral employment profile for the community once more displayed some divergence, with the White group predominantly employed in the tertiary sector, while the primary sector played a significant role alongside the tertiary one with regard to the non-White group. With regard to the White group, the most important sectors were wholesale, retail and trade (29.5%), community, social and personal services (23.5%), and financial, real estate and business (15.5%). Around 6.5% was employed in the primary sector. Within the secondary sector, manufacturing (14.5%) and construction (7%) represented the most significant subsectors. With regard to the non-White group, the most important sectors were community, social and personal services (24%), wholesale retail and trade (21%) and agriculture (20.5%). Manufacturing represented only 10.5% of employment opportunities, and construction 7.5%. Employment in private households (domestic servants, gardening) provided for 10% of opportunities. In summary: In terms of 2001 Census data, the Robertson direct receiving community displayed a clear differentiation in socio-economic profiles with regard to the White and non-White population groups – with the latter predominantly constituted by the Coloured population group, and the non-White group representing almost 80% of the town’s population. Afrikaans is by far the most dominant language in the community as a whole, followed by isiXhosa and English – the latter two together constituting around 7% of first language speakers. The White population group may be described as predominantly lower to middle middle-income, with relatively low poverty rates, fair education rates and a relatively low unemployment rate. The largest portion of employed household heads are active in the tertiary sector. Household sizes are at around 2.43 people per household. In contrast, the non-White group may be described as predominantly lower-income. An estimated 32.5% of households had no formal income or earned less than the poverty datum of R800/ month. Education rates are higher than for the BR/WM, but lower than Provincial averages – with around 34.5% of the population fraction older than 20 having less than a primary qualification. Unemployment rates compare favorably with Provincial and national estimated averages, but the rate of 11.5% is still significant, and may besides hide seasonal unemployment, as is often the case in areas in the Western Cape where intensive agriculture play a major role in the local economy. Significantly, 20.5% of the group were employed in the agricultural sector. ii). Nkqubela Historically Disadvantaged Community According to 2001 Census data, the Nkqubela community (approximately 5 km from the proposed development) was overwhelmingly Black (approximately 88%) and isiXhosa speaking (83%). Nkqubela also contains a significant Coloured minority (12%), mainly accounting for Afrikaans being the second most commonly spoken first language (13.5%). Gender breakdown was skewed towards a preponderance of females (3%). Approximately 40.5% of Nkqubela’s population was younger than 20, and only around 3% 65 or older. This testifies to a community consisting mostly of nuclear families with parents of working age. Average household sizes were 3.55 persons per household – higher than for the White Robertson population group (2.43), but lower than for the non-White Robertson group (4.61). Eucation levels were extremely low, with approximately 37.5% of people 20 years and older never having received any formal education, and a further 20% having received only some primary education. These figures are extremely low – much lower than respective figures for the Province (5.5% and 13%) and country (18% and 16%). Only around 9.5% of the same population fraction (i.e. 20 or older) had completed their secondary education. Only around 3.5% had obtained a tertiary qualification. Income levels were extremely low, with a staggering 35.5% of household heads earning no formal income, and a further 26% earning less than R800/ month. This effectively means that around 61.5% of households formally live below the poverty datum of R800/ month. The bulk of households were clustered in the lower to mid low-income category, with an only an estimated 20.5% having had an income of more than R1600 per month, and of that 14% earning less than R3200/month. The estimated unemployment rate (36.5%) was significantly higher than for Robertson (10%), the Robertson non-White group (11.5%), the BR/WM (7%), as well as Provincial (17%) and national (24%) averages for 2001. The same figure (36.5%) of the population was economically non-active – significantly lower than for Robertson (51%). This reinforces the conclusion of a predominantly young, family-based population with parents of working age.


REF: E12/2/3/1–B1/11–0346/07

22

9. CULTURAL/HISTORICAL FEATURES Please be advised that if section 38 of the National Heritage Resources Act 25 of 1999 is applicable to your proposed development, then you are requested to furnish this Department with written comment from Heritage Western Cape as part of your public participation process. Section 38 of the Act states as follows: 38. (1) Subject to the provisions of subsections (7), (8) and (9), any person who intends to undertake a development categorised as- (a) the construction of a road, wall, power line, pipeline, canal or other similar form of linear development or barrier exceeding 300m in

length; (b) the construction of a bridge or similar structure exceeding 50m in length; (c) any development or other activity which will change the character of a site- (i) exceeding 5 000 m2 in extent; or (ii) involving three or more existing erven or subdivisions thereof; or (iii) involving three or more erven or divisions thereof which have been consolidated within the past five years; or (iv) the costs of which will exceed a sum set in terms of regulations by SAHRA or a provincial heritage resources

authority; (d) the re-zoning of a site exceeding 10 000 m2 in extent; or (e) any other category of development provided for in regulations by SAHRA or a provincial heritage resources authority, must at the very

earliest stages of initiating such a development, notify the responsible heritage resources authority and furnish it with details regarding the location, nature and extent of the proposed development.

Alternative S1:

Are there any signs of culturally or historically significant elements including archaeological or palaeontological sites, on or in close proximity to the site?

YES �� NO

UNCERTAIN

If YES, explain:

A gun powder house built in 1911 and a national monument is located just outside the south-eastern boundary of the subject property.

If uncertain, the Department may request that specialist input be provided to establish whether there is such a feature(s) present on or close to the site.

Briefly explain the findings of the specialist if one was already appointed:

Will any building or structure older than 60 years be affected in any way? YES NO ��

Is it necessary to apply for a permit in terms of the National Heritage Resources Act, 1999 (Act 25 of 1999)?

YES �� NO

If yes, please submit or, make sure that the applicant or a specialist submit the necessary application to SAHRA or the relevant provincial heritage agency and attach proof thereof to this application.

Please find the attached Record of Decision obtained from Heritage Western Cape (March and July 2007). Appendix F: Permits, Licenses & Supporting Letters – Figure F1 & F2: Copy of Heritage Western Cape ROD.

Alternative S2: Not applicable.

With regard to the sectoral employment profile, the manufacturing sector was the most significant (27.5%), followed by wholesale retail and trade (20%) and agriculture (14%). The construction industry provided for 10.5% of opportunities, and employment in private households (domestic servants, gardening) 7.5%. In summary: In terms of Census 2001 data, Nkqubela may be described as predominantly isi-Xhosa speaking Black community, with a significant Afrikaans speaking Coloured (12%) minority group. The community is relatively youthful. Poverty rates are extremely high, and income, education and formal employment rates extremely low. Of significance, these rates are well below municipal, provincial and national averages.


REF: E12/2/3/1–B1/11–0346/07

23

Are there any signs of culturally or historically significant elements, as defined in section 2 of the National Heritage Resources Act, 1999, (Act No. 25 of 1999), including archaeological or palaeontological sites, on or close (within 20m) to the site?

YES NO

UNCERTAIN

If YES, explain:



Will any building or structure older than 60 years be affected in any way? YES NO


YES NO



Are there any signs of culturally or historically significant elements, as defined in section 2 of the National Heritage Resources Act, 1999, (Act No. 25 of 1999), including archaeological or palaeontological sites, on or close (within 20m) to the site?

YES NO

UNCERTAIN

If YES, explain:



Will any building or structure older than 60 years be affected in any way? YES NO


YES NO


Please note: Heritage Western Cape / South African Heritage Resource Agency (which ever is the competent authority under the circumstance) comments needs to be submitted along with this Basic Assessment Report.


REF: E12/2/3/1–B1/11–0346/07

24

SECTION C: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

The person conducting the public participation process must fulfil the requirements outlined in Regulation 56 and also take

into account this Department’s guideline on Public participation.

Please tick (“��”) the appropriate box to indicate whether the specific requirement was undertaken or whether

exemption has been applied for.

1. Were all potential interested and affected parties notified of the application by –

(a) having fixed a notice board at a place conspicuous to the public at the boundary or on the fence of -

(i) the site where the activity to which the application relates is or is to be undertaken

and

YES

�� NO EXEMPTION

(ii) any alternative site mentioned in the application YES

�� NO EXEMPTION

(b) having given written notice to –

(i) the owners and occupiers of land adjacent to the site where the activity is or is to

be undertaken or to any alternative site

YES

�� NO EXEMPTION

(ii) the owners and occupiers of land within 100 metres of the boundary of the site or

alternative site who are or may be directly affected by the activity

YES

�� NO EXEMPTION

(iii) the municipal councillor of the ward in which the site or alternative site is situated

and any organisation of ratepayers that represents the community in the area

YES

�� NO EXEMPTION

(iv) the municipality which has jurisdiction in the area; and YES

�� NO EXEMPTION

(v) any organ of state having jurisdiction in respect of any aspect of the activity YES

�� NO EXEMPTION

(c) having placed an advertisement in –

(i) one local newspaper, or YES

�� NO EXEMPTION

(ii) the official EIA Gazette (Not applicable) YES NO EXEMPTION

(d) having placed an advertisement in at least one provincial newspaper or national

newspaper, if the activity has or may have an impact that extends beyond the

boundaries of the metropolitan or local municipality in which it is or will be undertaken.

(This requirement need not be complied with if an advertisement has been placed in

the official EIA Gazette referred to in (c)(ii) above. (Not applicable)

YES NO EXEMPTION

2. Was a register of interested and affected parties opened, maintained and made

available to any person requesting access to the register in writing? (copy of register to

be included in appendix E)

YES

�� NO EXEMPTION

3. Were all registered interested and affected parties given access to this application

form and basic assessment report and any other report(s) compiled in relation to this

application and was an opportunity for interested and affected parties to comment on

the report(s) in writing provided?

YES

�� NO EXEMPTION


REF: E12/2/3/1–B1/11–0346/07

25

4. Were stakeholders that have direct interests in the site or property, such as servitude

holders and service providers, informed of the application at least 30 (thirty) calendar

days before the submission of this application and were they provided with the

opportunity to comment. (Comments to be included in the comments and response

report as described below)

YES

�� NO EXEMPTION

5. Were Municipalities and other organs of state notified and given an opportunity to

comment? (This information must also be included in the comments and response

report)

YES

�� NO EXEMPTION

Please note: Proof of all of the above must be submitted as part of the public participation information to be attached to this basic

assessment report as Appendix E. Should any of the responses be “No” and no application for exemption from that requirement was

applied for, the Department will not proceed with evaluating / processing the application until that specific requirement is undertaken. Any

exemption application must be brought to the attention of all interest and affected parties through the public participation process.

The practitioner must record all comments and respond to each comment of the public / interested and affected party before the application

is submitted. The comments and responses must be captured in a Comments and Responses Report as prescribed in the regulations

and must also include a description of the public participation process followed and this report must also be included in the public

participation information to be attached to this basic assessment report as Appendix E.

If an application is for a linear or ocean-based activity and strict compliance with the above requirements is inappropriate, the person

conducting the public participation process may deviate from the requirements to the extent and in the manner as may be agreed to by this

Department.


REF: E12/2/3/1–B1/11–0346/07

26

SECTION D: IMPACT ASSESSMENT Please note: The information in this section must be duplicated for all the alternatives (where relevant).

1. WASTE, EFFLUENT AND EMISSION MANAGEMENT

(a) Solid waste management

Will the activity produce solid waste (including rubble) during the construction phase? YES ��

NO

If yes, what estimated quantity during the construction period? ± 200 m3

Where and how will the construction solid waste be treated / disposed of (describe)?

Solid waste, primarily building rubble and small quantities of road asphalt generated by the construction activities, will be transported to the Municipal Landfill Site in Ashton and disposed of there.

Will the activity produce solid waste during its operational phase? YES ��

NO

If Yes, what estimated quantity will be produced per month? ± 170 m3

Where and how will the solid waste be treated / disposed of (describe)?

Solid waste consisting of household and garden waste will be collected and disposed of weekly as per the normal Municipal Cleansing procedure.

Has the municipality or relevant authority confirmed that sufficient capacity exist for treating / disposing of the solid waste to be generated by this activity(ies)? If yes, provide written confirmation from Municipality or relevant authority

YES ��

NO

Will the activity produce solid waste that will be treated and/or disposed of at another facility other than into a municipal waste stream?

YES NO ��

If yes, has this facility confirmed that sufficient capacity exist for treating / disposing of the solid waste to be generated by this activity(ies)? Provide written confirmation from the facility and provide the following particulars of the facility:

YES NO

Does the facility have an operating license? (If yes, please attach a copy of the license.) YES NO

Facility name:

Contact person:

Postal address:

Postal code:

Telephone: Cell:

E-mail: Fax:

(b) Effluent

Will the activity produce sewage and or any other effluent? YES ��

NO

Normal domestic / household sewage will be produced.

What estimated quantity will be produced per month? ± 3109 m3

Will the effluent be treated and/or disposed of in a municipal system? YES ��

NO


REF: E12/2/3/1–B1/11–0346/07

27

If Yes, has the municipality or relevant authority confirmed that sufficient unallocated capacity exist for treating / disposing of the sewage or any other effluent to be generated by this activity(ies)? Provide written confirmation from the Municipality or relevant authority The Breede River Winelands Municipality’s Civil Engineering Services state in their letter of 20 July 2007, that “the municipality will be able to remove and treat the volumes of sewerage generated by the development, on condition that the complete pump station will be erected by the developer for his cost.” (Appendix F: Breede River Winelands Municipality – Assurance of municipal services capacity). The 140 single residential houses will be built over a period of 1 - 3 years and that sewerage volumes generated will increase gradually over time. It is estimated, from figures given in CES reports compiled for similar housing developments in Worcester area (Barclay Hills, CES October 2006), that approximately 3 075 m3 per month sewerage (estimated at 0.73 kl/d/unit) will be generated by the proposed housing development on proposed Erf 7562, Robertson. It is proposed that the sewer pipeline route follow the White Road extension, crossing the Willem Nels river and small tributary at the existing bridges. Appendix F: Permits, Licenses & Supporting Letters

Will any effluent produced be treated and/or disposed of on site? YES NO ��

If yes, briefly describe the nature of the effluent and how it will be disposed of:

Will the activity produce effluent that will be treated and/or disposed of at another facility? YES NO ��

If yes, has this facility confirmed that sufficient capacity exist for treating / disposing of the liquid effluent to be generated by this activity(ies)? Provide written confirmation from the facility and provide the following particulars of the facility:

YES NO

Does the facility have an operating license? (If yes, please attach a copy of the license.) YES NO

Facility name:

Contact person:

Postal address:

Postal code:

Telephone: Cell:

E-mail: Fax:

Describe the measures that will be taken to ensure the optimal reuse or recycling of waste water, if any:

Water use to keep dust levels down during the construction phase will be kept to a minimum by spraying water only when necessary. In terms of the operational phase, the Developer intends planting water wise, indigenous plants in open spaces and public areas. Individual homeowners and their building contractors will be responsible for the final design and construction of the houses, they will be encouraged to conserve water where possible, including creating awareness of grey water re-use systems, water wise gardens and water-efficient irrigation systems.

(c) Emissions into the atmosphere

Will the activity produce emissions that will be disposed of into the atmosphere? YES NO ��

If yes, does it require approval in terms of relevant legislation? YES NO ��

Describe the emissions in terms of type and concentration and how it will be treated/mitigated:

The initial clearing of grasses and earthmoving for the construction of internal roads and laying of pipes may result in


REF: E12/2/3/1–B1/11–0346/07

28

higher dust levels than usual. The Developer undertakes to keep dust levels down by applying water regularly and exposing the least area possible during clearing.

2. WATER USE Please indicate the source(s) of water for the activity by ticking (“�”) the appropriate box(es)

Municipal ��

Water board Groundwater River, Stream, Dam or

Lake Other The activity will not use water

If water is to be extracted from a groundwater source, river, stream, dam, lake or any other natural feature, please indicate the volume that will be extracted per month:

m3

Please provide proof of assurance of water supply e.g. letter of confirmation from municipality / water user associations, yield of borehole

Does the activity require a water use permit / license from DWAF? YES NO ��

If yes, please submit the necessary application to Department of Water Affairs and Forestry and attach proof thereof to this application. The Development was conceptually taken into consideration in the recently completed Water Reticulation Master Plan which indicated that the development can be accommodated in the existing Reservoir 2 zone (Appendix H: Engineering Reports - CES Report 2006 & Figure 1). The total annual average daily demand for the development was calculated by Community Engineering Services (CES) as follows:

136 (140) Residential Erven @ 1.0 kl / day / unit = 136 kl / day (140 kl / day) Fire flow criteria = 15 l / s @ 7m (Appendix H: Engineering Reports - CES Report 2006).

It is calculated that the 140 residential development will use approximately 4258 m3/month The report furthermore states that the development in the present system will require upgrading of the existing system to comply with pressure and fire flow criteria. In addition the “distribution zones must be rezoned according to the master plan to improve pressures and the zones to ensure that the storage capacities in the upper zones are optimised for future demands”. The CES report recommends the Developer install a new booster pump station and make a contribution in the order of R360,548 towards water infrastructure. The Breede River Winelands Municipality’s Civil Engineering Services state in their letter of 20 July 2007, that “the municipality is able to provide the volumes of water required.” (Appendix F: Breede River Winelands Municipality – Assurance of municipal services capacity). The letters regarding assurance of water supply from the Breede River Winelands Municipality are attached in Appendix F: Permits, Licenses & Supporting Letters.

3. POWER SUPPLY Please indicate the source of power supply e.g. Municipality / Eskom / Renewable energy source.

The Development will be supplied with electricity from the Breede River Winelands Municipality from the Muiskraalkop 66 KV / 11 KV substation. The Muiskraalkop substation will require an upgrade to accommodate the development. A new 11 KV / 0.42 KV substation would be built at the developers cost (Appendix F: Breede River Winelands Municipality – Letter regarding assurance of municipal services capacity).


REF: E12/2/3/1–B1/11–0346/07

29

If power supply is not available, where will power be sourced from?

Not applicable

4. ENERGY EFFICIENCY

Describe the design measures, if any, that have been taken to ensure that the activity is energy efficient:

The Developer intends utilizing the latest technology in energy efficient lighting for street lighting.

Describe how alternative energy sources have been taken into account or been built into the design of the activity, if any:

Not applicable

5. NOISE IMPACTS

Will the activity result in any noise impacts during the construction phase? YES ��

NO

If yes, please describe and indicate the measures proposed to mitigate and manage these impacts?

Normal levels of noise, associated with heavy earth moving and construction vehicles are anticipated. Apart from the usual mitigating effects of well maintained exhaust silencers, the Developer also will restrict work to normal day-time hours (i.e. 08h00 – 17h00). No heavy machinery should operate on Saturdays, Sundays, or on public holidays.

Will the activity result in any noise impacts during its operational phase? YES NO ��


Comment was received from Interested and Affected Parties related to the possible noise and vibration disturbances caused by traffic travelling along White Street. This concern was mainly raised by residents along White street. The concern relates to the fact that traffic flows associated with the proposed development are likely to detract from the current peaceful atmosphere and historic character of the street. Specifically, concerned parties are proposing the construction of a second, alternative entrance to the development in order to split traffic flows. In response, the project Traffic specialist has indicated that, together with additional projected trips generated by the development, the expected peak time yield in both directions combined would be less than 300 vehicles per hour in total. This total is only approximately one third of the designed carrying capacity of White street. As a result, the Traffic specialist has concluded that neither upgrades to White street, nor the creation of an additional access road would be necessary (EFG Engineers – letter to Boland Plan 2007/01/24). Furthermore, judging by current settlement trends, it may be assumed that a substantial component of new home owners associated with the proposed development are likely to be retirees or virtual office users, who would thus not contribute towards peak-hour trip generation. Finally, it may be pointed out that the current peace and tranquility enjoyed by residents along White street is as a result of substantial under-capacity use of the street. It thus entails a privilege and not a right. White street remains a public road, and in as far as the development will not lead to any congestion or the generation of unsafe traffic conditions, proposed public use of the road is not unreasonable. See Appendices E: Public Participation Process and G: Traffic Impact Statement

Please note: The Department may request specialist input/studies depending on the nature of the land use character of the area and potential noise impact(s) of the proposed activity/ies.

6. VISUAL IMPACTS

Will the activity result in any visual impacts? YES ��

NO


REF: E12/2/3/1–B1/11–0346/07

30


The Subject Property is bounded on the eastern side by a Eucalyptus plantation, the Willem Nels river and a residential suburb of Robertson. The property slopes at a moderate incline toward the east, flattening out toward the floodplain of the Willem Nels river. A viewshed running north-south, roughly along the western boundary, and shelters the proposed development from views along the R62 Road approximately 1 km to the south of the development. In terms of the Guideline for Involving Visual and Aesthetic Specialists (DEA&DP Guidelines Series 2005), the only indicator triggered in terms of the receiving environment is “Areas with a visually prominent ridgelines or skylines”. In addition the “change in the land use from the prevailing use” is triggered in terms of nature of the project. The low to medium density residential type development (Category 3 to 4) occurs in an “area of low scenic, cultural, historical significance / disturbed” and thus a “Minimal to Moderate visual impact is expected”. A Visual Impact Assessment was thus carried out in order to determine the possible level of intrusions on the landscape and scenic resources, the change in visual character of the area and recommend possible mitigation to lessen impact. The study found that the potential visual impact of the development is of low to medium significance and recommended the following mitigations:

• The development should be limited to below the 240m contour level and the uppermost part of the property should be left undisturbed. The study notes that currently existing residential suburbs in Robertson stretch as high as 250 – 300 m above mean sea level (amsl).

• Building heights should be limited to a basement level plus the ground floor on the higher, steeper western-most areas, with double-storeys restricted to the lower, gentler eastern-most area.

• The exterior walls of buildings should be painted in “earthy” tones, and bright colours should not be permitted. Walls of stone and / or face brick should be allowed.

• Roofs should preferably be covered by brown-coloured tiles. Where this is not possible, corrugated iron or cement roof sheets should be painted in earthy brown, green or gray colours. Thatched roof should be allowed.

• Roof pitch should be kept as low as possible.

• Residents should be encouraged to plant fast growing indigenous shrubs and trees.

See Appendix G: Visual Impact Assessment.

Will the activity result in potential lighting impacts at night? YES ��

NO


Street lighting will be provided along interior streets, public open space and at road intersections. The lighting will face downward to minimize light pollution. The Municipality will further control the use and nature of exterior lighting on individual houses during the Operational Phase.

Please note: The Department may request specialist input/studies depending on the nature of the land use character of the area and potential visual impact(s) of the proposed activity/ies.

7. SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS OF THE ACTIVITY

What is the expected capital value of the activity on completion? ± R 40 million

A figure of R39 million was provided by the Developer. It includes the initial purchase of the land (R 3.3 million for the land), a contribution to the municipality in terms of upgrading water and sewerage services (R1.6 million), a municipal contingency amount (R1 million), the construction of roads, water, sewer and storm water services (R14 million), the upgrade of a public pedestrian bridge (R400 000) and consultation and professional fees (R1.5 million). Outside the ambit of this application, a further significant capital value (as yet unknown) is expected from the construction of 140 residential units.

What is the expected yearly income or contribution to the economy that will be generated by or as a result of the activity?

± R500 000


REF: E12/2/3/1–B1/11–0346/07

31

Judging from the municipal profile, the resultant 140 residential units would contribute between R3000 and R4000 annually at current value. The resulting yield would entail an amount of between R420 000 and R560 000.

Will the activity contribute to service infrastructure? YES ��

NO

Yes. An agreed capital contribution of R 1.6 million towards the implementation of items of the Robertson Water and Sewerage Master plans.

How many new employment opportunities will be created in the construction phase of the activity? Uncertain

An estimated 30 opportunities are associated with actual construction activities (that is, excluding consultants and designers). At this stage, the appointment of a civils contractor is contingent upon authorisation to proceed with construction. The developer has expressed a commitment to appoint a locally-based BEE-compliant contractor. At this stage it is envisaged that all local BEE-compliant contractors will be invited to tender. Subsequent construction-related opportunities (i.e. associated with construction of houses) are difficult to quantify at this stage, in as far as such would depend on the designs decided upon by individual homeowners.

What is the expected value of the employment opportunities during the construction phase? R0.5 million to R20 million

Construction-related value specifically related to the activities applied for, would include the road and services infrastructure, and construction of a pedestrian bridge, and is based on 30 workers employed for 6 months at R150 per day. A figure of R1.5 million was provided by the Developer with regard to consulting and other professional fees. Subsequent construction-related value associated with the construction of houses are difficult to quantify at this stage, in as far as such would depend on the designs decided upon by individual homeowners. Conservatively assuming average house sizes of 120 m², current local building costs of R4000/ m², and using the accepted industry average of 30% labour cost/ total cost, the subsequent value may be conservatively estimated at R20 million at current value (140 single residential units x an estimated 120 m² X R4000/ m/ 30% labour cost).

What percentage of this will accrue to previously disadvantaged individuals? Uncertain

Unknown – as high as practically feasible.

How will this be ensured and monitored (please explain):

The developer has expressed a commitment to appoint a locally-based BEE-compliant contractor. It is envisaged that all local BEE-compliant contractors will be invited to tender. Work records will be kept and are open to inspection by the Department of Labour.

How many permanent new employment opportunities will be created during the operational phase of the activity?

< 112

It can be safely estimated that two domestic worker employment opportunities could exist for every 5 homes and a further 2 garden worker employment opportunities per 5 homes i.e. 140/ 5 x 2 x 2 = 111.2 opportunities.

What is the expected current value of the employment opportunities during the first 10 years? Up to R 22 million

56 Domestic workers at a current weekly rate of R265.91 /week 56 Gardeners at a current weekly rate of R265.91 /week An escalation of 8% increase per annum.

What percentage of this will accrue to previously disadvantaged individuals? 95%+


REF: E12/2/3/1–B1/11–0346/07

32

How will this be ensured and monitored (please explain):

Employment opportunities during the Operational Phase will accrue mainly to domestic and gardening personnel. The establishment and exact composition of the workforce would be at the discretion of the individual homeowners. The nature of available opportunities are however likely to mean that they will naturally accrue to local HDIs. 8. IMPACTS THAT MAY RESULT FROM THE PLANNING, DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION PHASE Briefly describe and compare the potential impacts (as appropriate), significance rating of impacts, proposed mitigation and significance rating of impacts after mitigation that are likely to occur as a result of the planning, design and construction phase for the various alternatives of the proposed development. This must include an assessment of the significance of all impacts.

Alternative S1 (Preferred layout option – Construction Phase)

Potential impacts:

Significance rating of impacts (Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, Very High):

Proposed mitigation:

Significance rating of impacts after mitigation(Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, Very High):

Faunal Biodiversity - Loss of species and habitat (Birds, Rodents & Reptiles) due to transformation of land.

Smaller reptiles on site could include the Padloper tortoises (Homopus species) and Ploegskaarskilpad (Cherisina angulata). It is likely that the Robertson Dwarf Chameleon (Brachypodion specie) occurs in the low karroid bushes on the site. Some smaller antelope, for example Kaapse Grysbok (Raphicerus melanotis), could occur in the area.

It is likely that Helmeted Guineafowl (Numida meleagris) use the land and trees to roost.

Medium

Any tortoises or other reptiles found should be relocated to places of safety such as the Vrolikheid Nature Reserve or the Tortoise Farm Nature Reserve is situated nearby (on the Wolseley to Worcester road), from where they will be relocated at a later stage. If work is done in summer, tortoises are very evident. Special care should be taken in terms of the Robertson Dwarf Chameleon (Brachypodion species). Any Chameleons seen must be caught and relocated to a similar habitat. Under no circumstances should they be harmed.

The Helmeted Guinea Fowl is quite an adaptive species and will more than likely move to a suitably wooded area close by.

No hunting or trapping of animals to be permitted.

All persons should be sensitised to the

Low


REF: E12/2/3/1–B1/11–0346/07

33

fact that they are working in natural veld and near farms, and ALL fauna and flora must be treated with respect.

Floral Biodiversity – Loss of floral species due to transformation of land

The floral biodiversity on the site was assessed. In total, seventy-four (74) indigenous plant species growing on the site were identified. Of these, fourteen (14) are geophytes and thirty (30) are succulents. Succulent plants are the most dominant species on the subject site. They include Lampranthus, Drosanthemum, Crassula and Euphorbia. Drosanthemum micans (Endangered) and Lampranthus haworthii are common in some areas of the site. Other succulents on site included Aloe microstigma, Haworthia pumilo and Tylecodon paniculatus. No rare or endemic species where seen during the site inspection (17/09/2006).

High

Search-and-rescue is an important mitigation measure. SANBI or CapeNature should endorse the sites to which the plants are to be relocated.

The following succulents should be collected and relocated to the Karoo Desert National Botanical Gardens in Worcester, Aloe microstigma, Haworthia pumilo and Tylecodon paniculatus, Gasteria disticha and selected Crassulas. Geophytes with special reference to the following genera, Babiana, Bulbine, Bulbinella and Albuca, should be removed and relocated to the Karoo Desert National Botanical Garden – Worcester, where they can be planted either in the index collections or in the gardens (Msasa, 2006). Cuttings of Pelargonium trifida and Cotyledon orbiculata should be taken for further propagation and planting out at the Karoo Desert Botanical Garden in Worcester. It is also recommended that any seed removed or collected should be sent to the Karoo Desert National Botanical Garden in Worcester and the Millennium Seed Bank (MSB) in the United Kingdom for preservation (Msasa, 2006). There may be no harvesting allowed of any indigenous plant material outside the demarcated site. .

Medium

Floral Ecosystem – loss of vegetation type (Robertson Karoo) due to transformation of land.

The botanical specialist concluded that the major part of the vegetation (95%) on the site is Robertson Karoo (Succulent Karoo vegetation type), which is considered as Least Threatened (LT). There is also a very small element (5%) of

Low

Physical disturbances of the vegetation should be kept to a minimum as Succulent Karoo veld recovers very slowly. Prevent unnecessary vehicular movement into natural veld. Where possible limit development to areas that are already disturbed, and

Low


REF: E12/2/3/1–B1/11–0346/07

34

Breede Shale Renosterveld present, which is considered Vulnerable (VU).

avoid development on rocky outcrops. Keep soil erosion and dust to a minimum as windblown sediments can smother sensitive areas such as rocky outcrops.

Floral Ecosystem – loss of habitat due to transformation of land

The botanical study concluded that there are other areas of Robertson Karoo vegetation type that are larger and are in a more pristine condition and that a development of this magnitude would not significantly impact on the vegetation type.

Medium

The loss of undisturbed natural vegetation should be compensated for by an increase in the extent of statutory conservation areas in selected priority areas.

Low

Hydrological – Storm Water System

Initially storm water runoff will be as per natural state i.e. infiltration into soils.

The construction of roads associated compacting of soils and land transformation will result in higher levels of storm water runoff, with the possibility of increased erosion and decline in water quality.

Medium

Erosion control should be put in place, to prevent soil loss especially on the higher, steeper slopes. Storm water run-off generated within the development will be accommodated within the internal storm water networks which will consist of underground pipes (0.375 m – 0.45 m in diameter), concrete manholes and kerb inlets. The pipes will be sized to cater for a storm with a recurrence of 1:2 years. Larger runoffs will be catered for by overland escape routes along tarred / paved kerbed roads. Excessive storm water leaving the development will be fed into an open canal and in turn fed into the Willem Nels river.

Low

Hydrological – Water Supply Sufficient bulk water resources exist to assure supply to the proposed Bergzicht development. The construction phase of the development will require very little water.

Low

Personnel will be instructed not to waste water during the construction phase.

Low

Hydrological – Irrigation Canal The Willem Nels Water User Association (WUA) canal cross the subject land and may be damaged or polluted during the

Low

The Developer undertakes to engage with the WUA and ensure that suitable arrangements are made to prevent

Low


REF: E12/2/3/1–B1/11–0346/07

35

construction phase. damage, disturbance or polluting of the existing canal.

Waste – Sewage / Effluent

Very little sewage will be generated during the construction phase.

Low

Portable toilets will be supplied for personnel during the construction phase of the development.

Thereafter, suitable connection to the municipal sewerage system will take place (see Operational Phase below).

Low

Waste – Building Rubble & Littering

Illegal dumping of domestic and building rubble on the property by residents of Robertson.

Littering may occur by personnel during construction phase.

It is estimated that an approximately 200 m3

of building rubble will be generated during the construction phase of the roads and perimeter fence.

Houses on 140 single residential erven will be built over a period of 1 – 3 years after authorisation is granted. Building waste will thus be continuously generated in small quantities over this period.

Low

The building waste will be transported at the Building Contractors / Developer’s cost to the Municipality’s landfill site in Ashton.

Waste and litter drums will be placed at strategic points for use by personnel. The drums will be regularly emptied and waste removed to the Municipal’s landfill site.

The municipality should ensure that municipal by-laws regarding waste disposal are upheld by the single residential home owners and their builders.

Illegal dumping of domestic and other waste should not be allowed. Warning signs should be erected, spot fines imposed or even prosecution should occur if dumping continues.

The Developer will display an all-hours telephone number on the site for emergency calls or complaints.

Low

Land transformation – Dust Levels

Increased dust levels due to the clearing of vegetation, earthmoving activities and movement of vehicles may impact on air quality and possibly surrounding natural vegetation.

Medium

The Developer should ensure that dust levels are kept to a minimum by:

Exposing only those areas to be developed i.e. areas corresponding to road surfaces and pipelines.

Keeping these areas and access routes moist by applying water at regular intervals.


Low


REF: E12/2/3/1–B1/11–0346/07

36

Land transformation – Noise Levels

Increased levels of noise due to earthmoving & construction activities. Associated noise may potentially impact on nearby residential neighbourhoods.

Low

The Developer will ensure that noise levels are kept to a minimum by:

Limiting operation of heavy earthmoving equipment and construction activities to normal working hours, and to normal work days (i.e. Monday to Friday, between 08h00 and 17h00).

Silencers (sound bafflers) will be maintained to ensure effective sound dampening.


Low

Land transformation – Visual Impact Clearing of vegetation for road construction, municipal services installation and townhouse construction will create a visual impact. The Subject Property slopes moderately eastward, flattening out close to the Willem Nels river. Street lighting will be installed along interior streets, public open space and at road intersections.

Medium

Clearing of vegetation should be kept to a minimum and only those areas where work is to take place should be cleared. Fast growing indigenous trees should be planted along streets and in public open spaces. Street lighting should face downward to minimize light pollution.

Low

Land transformation - Veldfire

Machinery and human activity will increase veldfire risk levels.

The site is currently covered in natural and alien invasive vegetation, and a veldfire may spread to adjacent areas.

A veld fire risk currently exists due to vagrants and loiterers.

Medium

The Developer will ensure that firefighting equipment is available on-site in the event that an accidental fire should break out. A fire-officer should be appointed and all workers should be made aware of fire-fighting procedures.

Grading of areas demarcated for and the construction of internal roads will act as firebreaks.

Construction workers will not be allowed to make fires on the site.


Low

Increased levels of traffic: The transportation of construction and road material will increase heavy traffic in White Street for a short period (3 - 6 months) during the construction phase. The additional trips will have negligible impact on the current

Low

The Developer will ensure that traffic flow is not impeded by avoiding the transportation of materials during peak traffic hours of 7:00 am – 8:00am and 4:00pm – 5:00pm.

Low


REF: E12/2/3/1–B1/11–0346/07

37

traffic flows.

Heritage Resources: Archaeological heritage resources were graded low local significance. A remote possibility exists that earthworks may uncover human or archaeological remains. The gunpowder house or “kruithuis” located just outside the southern boundary of the property was declared a National Monument in 1977 and as such is protected by the National Heritage Resources Act (Act 25 of 1999). A small modern concrete structure is found a number of metres away inside the property.

Medium (with a low probability)

In the event of any human or archaeological remains being uncovered, the site should be demarcated (fenced off) and Heritage Western Cape informed as soon as possible. Care should be taken not to damage the gunpowder house. Permission to demolish this structure will be obtained from the local authorities.

Low

Socio-Economic: Casual labour taking advantage of the job opportunities created by the construction phase may increase the number of people loitering, levels of vagrancy and possibly petty crime. Vagrancy is currently associated with the undeveloped site. Loss of recreational opportunities - comment received from I&APs referred to the recreational value of Erf 3 and its current use for outdoor activities such as walking and jogging.

Low

Low

Low

The Developer will secure the building site by fencing off the construction yard and the south-western boundary with the Farm 106/33. Existing fences along the north-western boundary should not be damaged.

The Developer should ensure that the appointed building contractor manages his/her labour force in such a way as to discourage the employment of casual labour.

Labour should be transported to and from work.

Labour brokering, if allowed, should be dealt with off-site.

Later construction of the houses will be undertaken by individual homeowners and their appointed contractors and thus is difficult to regulate.

Development of the site will end current use of the site by vagrants.

Recreational use of the site is currently made possible by its non-developed state, and that this non-developed state is currently associated with use of the site by vagrants. As a rural town, sufficient alternative green space exists in Robertson to accommodate walkers, joggers and dog walkers.

Low

Low

Low

Alternative S1 (Alternative Layout – Construction Phase)


REF: E12/2/3/1–B1/11–0346/07

38

Potential impacts:

Significance rating of impacts(Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, Very High):



Identical impacts are expected as for the Preferred Layout Option (see above).

See above

Identical impacts are expected as for the Preferred Layout Option (see above).

See above

Alternative S1 (No-go Option – Construction Phase)

Potential impacts:




Should the No-go Option be implemented this activity would per definition not entail any construction impacts Increased possibility of erosion and resulting increased levels of silt in the Willem Nels River. It is likely that illegal dumping of domestic and building wastes will continue and possibly get worse. Vagrancy would continue, with the associated safety and fire risks. Invasion of natural veld by alien plant species would continue unchecked. Increased risk of veld and forest fires Loss of opportunities in terms of potential short and long term employment.

Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium

Soil erosion measures should be put in place Illegal dumping should be severely dealt with, and the perpetrators fined or prosecuted. Vagrants and loiters should be encouraged to seek help though interventions by the local authorities. Alien plants should be cleared. Alien invasive plants should be cleared. Firebreaks should be cut and maintained along the property boundaries. The local authority fire and disaster management plans should be put in place. The local authority’s LED policy would be tested to find replacement employment opportunities. Increased burden on state for social security.

Low Medium Low Low Low Low


REF: E12/2/3/1–B1/11–0346/07

39

9. IMPACTS THAT MAY RESULT FROM THE OPERATIONAL PHASE Briefly describe and compare the potential impacts (as appropriate), significance rating of impacts, proposed mitigation and significance rating of impacts after mitigation that are likely to occur as a result of the operational phase for the various alternatives of the proposed development. This must include an assessment of the significance of all impacts.

Alternative S1 (Preferred site, activity and layout option - Operational Phase)

Potential impacts:

Significance rating of impacts (Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, Very High):


Significance rating of impacts after mitigation (Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, Very High):

Ecological impacts on Fauna & Flora:

Loss of species and or habitat due to transformation.

No additional impacts are expected during the operational phase.

n.a. None n.a.

Hydrological – Storm water:

Land transformation due to the establishment of housing may result in higher levels of storm water runoff.

Low

Storm water run-off generated within the development will be accommodated within the internal storm water networks which will consist of underground pipes (0.375 m – 0.45 m in diameter), concrete manholes and kerb inlets. The pipes will be sized to cater for a storm with a recurrence of 1:2 years. Larger runoffs will be catered for by overland escape routes along tarred / paved kerbed roads. Excessive storm water leaving the development will be fed into an open canal and in turn fed into the Willem Nels river.

Low

Hydrological – Water Resources & Bulk System: The operation phase of the development will require 49 640 m3 potable water per annum. Sufficient bulk water resources exist to assure supply to the proposed Bergzicht development.

(Appendix F: Municipal Services Letter).

Low

The CES Report (28 Nov 2006) recommends that the Developer makes a pro-rata contribution towards upgrading the water supply system, to the order of R840 800.

Furthermore the deed of sale stipulates that the developer must make a pro rata contribution of R7 500 per erf/unit towards the municipal bulk

Low


REF: E12/2/3/1–B1/11–0346/07

40

Water Supply – Reservoirs & Distribution System: The Development was conceptually taken into consideration in the recently completed water reticulation Master Plan which indicated that the development should be accommodated in the existing Reservoir 2 zone (Appendix F: Municipal Services Letter and Appendix H: Engineering Reports). The total annual average daily demand for the development was calculated by Community Engineering Services (CES) as follows: 136 dwellings will use 4 136 m

3

water per month or 49 640 m3/a (Appendix

H: CES report, 2006).

services networks (Appendix C & F).

An internal memo of the Breede River Winelands Municipality (04 Dec 2006) mentions the developer will be required to make a contribution towards a new 5Ml reservoir to meet Master Plan requirements (Appendix F).

The Breede River Winelands Municipality’s letter dated 20 July 2007, states that the municipality is able to provide the volumes of water required.

Hydrological – Irrigation Canal The Willem Nels Water User Association (WUA) has raised a number of concerns regarding the irrigation canal crossing the Subject Property, they are: Damage to property due to possible leaks, flooding and breaks. Safety hazard, especially to children who may play in the open canal. Potential pollution of the canal water, which is also used for domestic purposes. The WUA reserves the right to access the canal at all times in order to inspect, maintain, repair, clean, improve or for any other purpose

Medium

Medium

Low

Low

The Developer is considering either lining the canal and fencing off the canal or piping the water across the property to prevent leaks, flooding, unauthorised access and pollution.

The Developer respects the WUA’s right of access to the canal for inspection and maintenance.

Property owners located below the canal or pipeline should be made aware of the associated risks of flooding or leaking and the effect this may have on their houses and or plots.

Low

Low

Low

Low

Waste - Sewage / Effluent: The 140 single residential houses will be built over a period of 1 - 3 years and that sewerage volumes generated will increase gradually over time. It is estimated, from figures given in CES reports compiled for similar housing developments in Worcester area (Barclay Hills, CES October 2006), that approximately 3 075 m3 per month sewerage (estimated at 0.73 kl/d/unit) will be generated by the proposed housing development on proposed Erf 7562,

Medium

The Breede River Winelands Municipality’s Civil Engineering Services state in their letter of 20 July 2007, that “the municipality will be able to remove and treat the volumes of sewerage generated by the development, on condition that the complete pump station will be erected by the developer for his cost.” (Appendix F: Breede River Winelands Municipality – Assurance of municipal services capacity).

Low


REF: E12/2/3/1–B1/11–0346/07

41

Robertson. It is proposed that the sewer pipeline route will follow the White Road extension, crossing the Willem Nels river and small tributary at the existing bridges. The pipeline are to be integrated into the existing structures.

The sewer pipes crossing the Willem Nels River will be constructed in such a way as to minimise risk of accidental spillage

Waste – Domestic:

It is calculated that an estimated 168 m3 of

domestic waste will be generated per month by the 140 homes.

Sufficient capacity exists at the solid waste disposal site near Ashton for the disposal of domestic waste (Appendix F: Breede River Winelands Municipality Letter).

Low

Domestic waste will be removed once a week as per the normal routine and disposed of at the Municipal landfill site.

Waste and litter drums will be placed at strategic points for use by the public. The drums will be emptied regularly.

Waste minimization strategies should be investigated by the Municipality to encourage the composting of vegetative waste and recycling of glass, paper and plastics.

Low

Land transformation – Noise & Nuisance

Increased levels of noise due to an additional potential 140 households residing in the area and making use of vehicles. Potential friction between landuses may develop i.e. existing productive farming activities and the proposed residential development; including the spraying of trees with insecticides, noises from tractors and farm machinery and possible safety risk to young children.

Low Low

The Residents should uphold and implement any applicable Municipal By-laws pertaining to noise levels.

The current agricultural landuse activities are established, and that prospective property owners on the development should be made aware by the developer of the fact that they are essentially moving into an area located on the interface with a productive farming area. The upgrading of the existing fence between the Property and Wolwekloof, by the developer, is recommended.

Low

Low

Land transformation – Visual Impact:

In terms of the Guideline for Involving Visual and Aesthetic Specialists (DEA&DP Guidelines Series 2005), the only indicator triggered in terms of the receiving environment is “Areas with a visually prominent ridgelines or skylines”. In addition the “change in the land use from the prevailing use” is triggered in terms of nature of the project. The low to medium density residential type development (Category 3 to 4) occurs in an “area of low scenic, cultural, historical significance / disturbed” and thus a “Minimal

Medium

A Visual Impact Assessment was thus carried out in order to determine the possible level of intrusions on the landscape and scenic resources, the change in visual character of the area and recommend possible mitigation to lessen impact (Appendix G: Specialist report) The study found that the potential visual impact of the development is of low to medium significance and recommended the following mitigations:

Low


REF: E12/2/3/1–B1/11–0346/07

42

to Moderate visual impact is expected”.

The development should be limited to below the 240m contour level and the uppermost part of the property should be left undisturbed. The study notes that currently existing residential suburbs in Robertson stretch as high as 250 – 300 m above mean sea level (amsl). Building heights should be limited to a basement level plus the ground floor on the higher, steeper western-most areas, with double-storeys restricted to the lower, gentler eastern-most area. The exterior walls of buildings should be painted in “earthy” tones, and bright colours should not be permitted. Walls of stone and / or face brick should be allowed. Roofs should preferably be covered by brown-coloured tiles. Where this is not possible, corrugated iron or cement roof sheets should be painted in earthy brown, green or gray colours. Thatched roof should be allowed. Roof pitch should be kept as low as possible. Residents should be encouraged to plant fast growing indigenous shrubs and trees.

See Appendix G: Visual Impact Assessment

Traffic Impact: A Traffic Impact Statement was compiled for the proposed development, the investigation counted the traffic flows at the White Street / Barry Street crossing on the 30 November 2006. The traffic count found that there is average of 159 vehicles per hour (vph) travelling on White Street and a total of 598 vph. Using trip generators (vehicle per hour trip) of 1.1 vph for medium income and group housing, 0.20 vph and 0.26 vph for retired persons (am and pm respectively), and 0.3 vph and 0.31 vph for tourist / holiday makers. It was assumed the 50% of the houses would be owned by permanent residents, 35% retired persons and 15% as holiday homes. The study concluded that the proposed development of 140 units would result in the following: AM IN 26 AM OUT 67

Low

No mitigation measures were recommended (Appendix G).

Low


REF: E12/2/3/1–B1/11–0346/07

43

AM TOTAL 93 PM IN 69 PM OUT 28 PM TOTAL 97 The study concluded that the proposed development would generate less than 100 additional peak hour trips in both the morning and afternoon rush hours. In terms of the projected impact on the White / Barry streets intersection over the next 5 years (at a 3% growth rate), this would raise the traffic flow along White Street to 257 vph bringing the total flow at the intersection of 804 vph. The study concluded that the average additional delay experienced per vehicle would be approximately 1 second, with no change in the service target (C) (Appendix G – Traffic Impact Statement). A number of residents living along White Street raised traffic as a serious concern, especially related to current and future levels of noise and speeding. Impact of current and increased levels of traffic on pedestrians, particularly at the small bridge at the western most end of White Street.

Medium Medium

The control of speeding and excessive noise from traffic is a function of the municipal traffic department. The single lane bridges at the end of White street and crossing the Willem Nels River act as calming measures. It is planned that the bridges be upgraded but not widened. Other speed calming mechanisms should be investigated by the municaplity. The developer intends upgrading the two single lane bridges, adding a sidewalk to ensure pedestrian safety.

Low Low

Emergency access Limited or no access to and from the proposed development during emergencies such as periodic flooding or a veldfire.

Low

The traffic specialist has indicated that the developer intends to upgrade the existing bridge across the Willem Nels River to an acceptable standard (EFG Engineers, Foster – pers. comm). In addition a servitude track crossing Farm 106/33, could provide limited access to the main road (R60) during emergencies.

Low


REF: E12/2/3/1–B1/11–0346/07

44

Alternative S1 (Preferred activity / Alternative layout option - Operational Phase)

Potential impacts:




Impacts on Fauna & Flora:

Identical impacts to the preferred layout (see above).

n.a. None n.a.

Hydrological – Storm water:


Low

Identical mitigation to the preferred layout (see above).

Low

Hydrological – Water Resources & Bulk System:

The additional 33 houses would not increase the impact significantly compared to the preferred layout (see above).

Low


Low

Water Supply – Reservoirs & Distribution System:

The additional 33 dwellings would require an additional 12045 m

3/a water, totalling 63145

m3/a compared to the preferred layout (see

above).

Low

Greater Development Contributions would be made to cover additional capacity as required, otherwise Identical mitigation to the preferred layout (see above).

Low

Waste - Sewage / Effluent: The additional 33 dwellings in this layout option, will increase sewage volumes by an estimated 733 m

3 per month i.e. to 3 841 m

3

per month.

Medium

Greater Development Contributions would be made to cover additional capacity as required, otherwise Identical mitigation to the preferred layout (see above).

Low

Waste – Domestic:

It is calculated that an estimated 208 m3 of

domestic waste will be generated per month by the 173 dwellings.

Low

Sufficient capacity exists at the solid waste disposal site (Appendix F: Breede River Municipality Letter).


Low

Land transformation – Nuisance & Noise Levels:


REF: E12/2/3/1–B1/11–0346/07

45

Increased levels of noise due to an additional potential 173 households residing in the area and making use of vehicles. Potential friction between neighbouring agricultural and residential landuses

Low


Low

Land transformation – Visual Impact:

Compared to the Preferred Layout this higher density layout concentrates the smaller higher density towards the lower, flatter area of the subject land. The visual impact will thus not increase significantly.

Medium


Low

Traffic Impact: An additional 33 dwellings will proportionally increase the traffic impact by an additional 22 AM and 23 PM trips, totalling 115 trips per hour in the morning and 120 trips in the afternoon. This is not a significant increase above the preferred option. Other impacts are as listed in the preferred layout option above.

Low Medium


Low Low

Emergency access:


Medium


Low

Alternative S3 (No-go Option - Operational Phase)

Potential impacts:




Should the proposed development not go ahead, it is likely that the property will remain undeveloped. Associated No-Go impacts would include: Increased possibility of erosion and resulting increased levels of silt in the Willem Nels River.

Medium

Soil erosion prevention measures should be put in place.

Low


REF: E12/2/3/1–B1/11–0346/07

46

Increased veld fire risk Alien invasive plants could expand into natural veld. Loss of opportunities in terms of potential short and long term employment.

Medium Medium Medium

Firebreaks should be put in place to prevent fires getting out of control. Removal of all alien invasive plants. The local authority’s LED policy would be tested to find replacement employment opportunities. Increased burden on state for social security.

Low Low Low

10. IMPACTS THAT MAY RESULT FROM THE DECOMISSIONING AND CLOSURE PHASE Briefly describe and compare the potential impacts (as appropriate), significance rating of impacts, proposed mitigation and significance rating of impacts after mitigation that are likely to occur as a result of the decommissioning and closure phase for the various alternatives of the proposed development. This must include an assessment of the significance of all impacts.

Alternative S1 (Preferred activity alternative - Decommissioning)

Potential impacts:




Decommissioning - not applicable. n.a. n.a. n.a.

Alternative S2 (Preferred activity / Alternative layout option – Decommissioning)

Potential impacts:





Alternative S3 (No-go Option - Decommissioning Phase)

Potential impacts:





11. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS


REF: E12/2/3/1–B1/11–0346/07

47

Describe potential impacts that, on their own may not be significant, but will be significant when added to the impact of other activities or existing impacts in the environment and substantiate response (The information in this section must be provided for all the alternatives as well):

Potential cumulative impacts as a result of the proposed development are restricted to loss of floral species, sewage removal and treatment, visual and traffic impacts. These impacts are described above and in Appendix F (sewerage) and G (floral, traffic & visual).

12. IMPACT SUMMARY OF PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE Having assessed the significance of impacts of the various alternatives, please provide an overall summary and reasons for selecting the preferred alternative.

In terms of the potential impacts resulting from the proposed preferred development during the planning, design and construction phase, the most significant impacts are those related to land transformation i.e. impact on fauna i.e. tortoises, loss of floral species; loss of habitat, visual impact associated with the clearing of vegetation; the construction of roads; increased levels of dust; and socio-economic impacts associated with a potential increase in loitering and petty crime associated with casual labour. Other less significant impacts include increased noise and traffic levels due to construction vehicles, possible increase in silt levels in the Willem Nels River due to stormwater and the low probability of uncovering human remains during earthworks. All of these impacts can be adequately addressed by the implementation of suitable mitigation measures.

In terms of potential impacts resulting from the proposed preferred development during the operational phase, the most significant impacts are those related to sewage removal and treatment and the visual impact of land transformation, Other less significant impacts include increased domestic waste and possible levels of traffic in White Street. All of these impacts can be adequately addressed by the implementation of suitable mitigation measures.

The preferred layout option is selected above the alternative layout option because the alternative, with the associated higher dwelling density will increase water demand and sewage removal significantly (± 20%) during the operational phase. The proposed housing development is preferred above the No-go Option for reasons including that the land is earmarked in planning documents for residential development, the housing development will contribute to the local economy in the short term (construction phase) and potentially create a larger number of permanent employment opportunities in the longer term (operational phase).

13. RECOMMENDATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PRACTITIONER

In my view (EAP), the information contained in this application form and the documentation attached hereto is sufficient to make a decision in respect of the activity applied for.

YES �� NO

If “NO”, list the aspects that should be further assessed through additional specialist input/assessment or whether this application must be subjected to a Scoping process before a decision can be made:


REF: E12/2/3/1–B1/11–0346/07

48

If “YES”, please list recommended conditions, including mitigation measures, that should in your view be considered for inclusion in an authorisation if the activity is authorised by the competent authority:

In our opinion the most significant mitigation measures / conditions would be: Construction Phase: A search-and-rescue programme to identify geophytes with special reference to the following genera, Babiana, Bulbine, Bulbinella and Albuca, and other plants such as Tylecodon paniculatus, Aloe microstigma and Haworthia pumilo. The plants should be removed and relocated to an SANBI / CapeNature approved location such as the Karoo Desert National Botanical Garden in Worcester. Cuttings of Pelargonium trifida and Cotyledon orbiculata should be taken for further propagation and planting out at the Karoo National Botanical Gardens in Worcester. Fauna found on the subject land should not be harmed, but carefully removed to a place of safety by a suitably qualified person. Ensure that physical disturbances to the surrounding natural vegetation be kept to a minimum, including the prevention of soil erosion and dust. Erosion control measures should be put in place as soon as possible. Ensure that firefighting equipment is available and that the personnel are trained. Prevent workers from starting open fires or cooking outside demarcated areas. In the event that human or archaeological remains are found, work in that area should stop, the area demarcated and the South African Heritage Resources Agency or Heritage Western Cape, be contacted respectively. Operational Phase: The Developer has committed to making a pro-rata Development Contribution towards water reticulation and sewage removal and treatment. Potential visual impact should be minimised by ensuring the development restricts wall and roof colours to earthy tones, limits the roof pitch to lower angles, restrict double storeys buildings to the flatter eastern most part of the development plant appropriate indigenous shrubs and trees along the internal roads. The preferred alternative places lower density single residential houses on the upper more visible areas of the Subject Property.


REF: E12/2/3/1–B1/11–0346/07

49

APPENDICES The following appendices must be attached where appropriate:

Appendix Tick (“aaaa”) box if Appendix is attached

Appendix A: Locality maps ��

Appendix B: Site plan(s) and Architectural Sketches & Plans ��

Appendix C: Owner(s) consent(s) ��

Appendix D: Site Photographs ��

Appendix E: Public participation information: including a copy of the register of interested and affected parties, the comments and responses report, proof of notices, advertisements and any other public participation information as required in Section D above.

��

Appendix F: Permit(s) / license(s) from any other organ of state including service letters from the municipality ��

Appendix G: Specialist Report(s): Botanical-Ecological, Heritage, Traffic & Visual ��

Appendix H: Engineering Reports ��

Appendix I: Robertson Structure Plan and Proposed Urban Edge ��

Appendix J: Socio-Economic Data (Census 2001) ��


REF: E12/2/3/1–B1/11–0346/07

50

DECLARATIONS

The Applicant I…………………………………., in my personal capacity or duly authorized thereto hereby declare that:

• The information contained in this application form is true and correct, and

• I am fully aware of my responsibilities in terms of the National Environmental Management Act of 1989 (“NEMA”) (Act No. 107 of 1998) and the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations (“EIA Regulations”) in terms of NEMA (Government Notice No. R. 385, R. 386, and R. 387 in the Government Gazette of 21 April 2006 refer), and that failure to comply with these requirements may constitute an offence in terms of NEMA and the EIA Regulations.

Note: If acting in a representative capacity, a certified copy of the resolution or power of attorney must be attached.

Signature of the applicant:

Name of company:

Date:

The independent Environmental Assessment Practitioner I ……………………………………, as the appointed independent environmental practitioner hereby declare that:

• The information contained in this application form is true and correct, and

• I am fully aware of my responsibilities in terms of the National Environmental Management Act of 1989 (“NEMA”) (Act No. 107 of 1998) and the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations (“EIA Regulations”) in terms of NEMA (Government Notice No. R. 385, R. 386, and R. 387 in the Government Gazette of 21 April 2006 refer), and that failure to comply with these requirements may constitute an offence in terms of NEMA and the EIA Regulations.

Note: The terms of reference must be attached.

Signature of the environmental practitioner:

Name of company:


REF: E12/2/3/1–B1/11–0346/07

51

Date:

BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT BERGZICHT DEVELOPMENT (ERF … · Erf 7562, Portion of Erf 3 (“the...

Documents

Transcript of BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT BERGZICHT DEVELOPMENT (ERF … · Erf 7562, Portion of Erf 3 (“the...