Kerryn Desai

S o c i a l C o n s u l t a n t

e kerryn@34degsouth.com

SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT Cape Town International Airport Runway Re-alignment and Associated Infrastructure

FINAL REPORT

Prepared by

Kerryn McKune Desai April 2016

i

DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

ii

iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Introduction

Airports Company South Africa proposes to re-align the existing primary runway at Cape Town

International Airport (the Airport). Currently, the Airport comprises two active runways: the primary runway

and a secondary runway bisecting it. The re-aligned primary runway will be 3,500 m long (currently

3,201 m), enabling airport expansion and increased capacity.

SRK Consulting (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd (SRK) was appointed by Airports Company South Africa to

undertake the Scoping and Environmental Impact Reporting (S&EIR) process, which is required in terms

of the National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998, as amended (NEMA) and the Environmental

Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulations, 2010 (promulgated in terms of NEMA). The socio-economic

impact assessment (SIA) was commissioned to inform the S&EIR.

The SIA will identify and assess potential economic impacts of the project, both on local communities and

the wider region. The Terms of Reference as outlined in the Scoping Report are summarised below.

Terms of Reference for the Socio-economic Impact Assessment

· Define the study area (the area potentially affected socially and / or economically by the project).

· Describe the national, regional and local economic characteristics of the area.

· Identify the potential social and economic impacts associated with the project.

· Assess the significant social and economic impacts of the project.

· Identify and assess potential cumulative socio-economic impacts.

· Recommend practicable mitigation measures to avoid and/ or minimise/ reduce impacts and enhance benefits.

· Address, as required, further social issues raised by stakeholders during the stakeholder engagement process.

· Consider the offset of opportunity costs between the area currently affected by noise and the newly affected area.

Study Area and Project Overview

The Airport is located in Cape Town, the capital of the Western Cape Province. It is situated on the sandy

Cape Flats, immediately north of the N2; approximately 20 km east of Cape Town’s CBD. The

surrounding area consists of mixed land uses including residential and industrial use. Portions of

undeveloped and derelict land also occur. Most of the suburbs in this area are vulnerable and

marginalised with relatively low levels of income and education (CoCT, 2011).

The current Airport property is approximately 975 ha in extent. The property incorporates the passenger

terminal and related Airport support infrastructure to the west of the runways, undeveloped land to the

east of the runways, and a portion of land to the south, belonging to the South African National Roads

Agency Ltd (SANRAL). A separate facility, presently used by the police and administered by the South

iv

African National Defence Force’s (SANDF) 35 Squadron, is located to the immediate east of the existing

runways within the Airport property boundary

The Airport was opened in 1954 and is one of three international airports in South Africa; the other two

are located in Johannesburg (OR Tambo, Gauteng) and Durban (King Shaka, KwaZulu Natal). The

Airport is the second busiest airport in South Africa and the third busiest airport in Africa (after OR Tambo

and Cairo International Airports). It is the only international airport in the Western Cape. The Airport

offers direct flights to South Africa's other two main urban centres, Johannesburg and Durban, as well as

flights to smaller centres in South Africa. Internationally, it offers direct flights to several destinations in

Africa, Asia and Europe. The route between Cape Town and Johannesburg was the world's ninth busiest

air route in 2011, with an estimated 4.5 million passengers (Economist, 2012).

The current runway system at the Airport comprises two active runways, namely:

· Primary runway – 3 201 m long and 60 m wide; and

· Secondary runway – 1 700 m long and 46 m wide.

The proposed project comprises the re-alignment of the existing primary runway to an “18L/36R“

configuration1. The new runway will be 3,500 m long and approximately 75 m wide and will be built to

international specifications to enable the Airport to receive Code F aircraft such as the A380. The existing

primary runway will no longer be used as a runway but will form part of the integrated taxiway system.

The existing secondary runway will be decommissioned in order to accommodate the new re-aligned

runway. In total, the new runway and taxiways will have a footprint of approximately 82.7 ha, almost all

located within the existing airport perimeter fence, though Airports Company South Africa will have to

acquire land to accommodate the re-alignment. Additional key elements of the project include:

· eight connecting taxiways;

· one aircraft isolated parking position and compass calibration pad;

· one dual lane taxiway;

· bellmouths for future taxiway tie-ins; and

· widening of existing taxiway.

Associated infrastructure required as part of the project includes stormwater pipelines and control

systems, internal roads, security facilities. In addition, several services such as Telkom cables, power

cables and fibre optic cables will have to be relocated. Other areas where fill material will be sourced or

placed will increase the disturbance footprint. Approximately 350 ha will be required for cut operations

and 170 ha will be required for fill operations.

1 A runway's compass direction is indicated by a number written in a shorthand format. A runway with a marking of "18" is actually close to (if not a direct heading of) 180 degrees. This is a south compass heading. A runway with a marking of "36" has a compass heading of 360 degrees, that is, a north direction. For parallel runways, 'L' and 'R' is added to the runway number.

v

Anticipated capital expenditure for the project is R3.2 billion. It is anticipated that construction will be in

6 phases and will take approximately 2 years to complete. During construction, it is estimated that up to

200 direct, temporary jobs will be created. The majority of the construction activities, including bulk

earthworks are expected to take place during regular working hours (07h00 to 18h00). However, some

activities will affect operations and will therefore need to take place at night. Night work should not

exceed 4 months in total, during this time shifts will start at 00h00 and end at 06h00.

Method

This study comprises both a social and an economic component. The guidelines followed for Social

Impact Assessment were compiled for the Western Cape Department of Environmental Affairs and

Development Planning (DEA&DP) by Barbour (2007), and the guidelines for economic impact

assessment by van Zyl et al (2005) for DEA&DP.

Data was primarily collated from numerous secondary data sources and selected informants, as well as

feedback received during the public participation process. This information was specifically used to

develop the socio-economic baseline descriptions, as well as to identify and assess socio-economic

impacts and formulate mitigation measures. The significance of the identified impacts were determined

using SRKs impact rating methodologymakers.

Social and Economic Environment

The area potentially affected by the Project is categorised into two, the indirect (macro-level) area of

influence (AoI) and the indirect (micro-level) AoI.

The macro-level AoI that may experience more indirect (predominantly macro) economic impacts

encompasses the City of Cape Town (CoCT) and the Western Cape Province.

The micro-level AoI is most likely to experience more direct socio-economic (predominantly micro-level)

impacts (described in Section 4.3). One of the most significant concerns and potential impact is that of

noise, as such, the 55 dBA noise contours2 have largely been used to determine the micro-level AoI.

Given that the socio-economic impacts will not be limited to these noise contours, the subcouncils

affected by the noise are broadly used to define the direct AoI. The affected subcouncils that comprise

the directly affected AoI include 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 21, 23, and 24.

The relevant socio-economic characteristics of the direct and indirect AoI are described below.

2 Noise contours determined by the Noise Specialist for the purpose of the S&EIA. The 55 dBA noise contours represent the acceptable day/night average noise levels for urban districts in terms of the relevant noise guidelines (SANS Code 10103: 2008).

vi

Potentially Indirectly Affected Areas: Western Cape and City of Cape Town

Cape Town is one of Africa’s most dynamic and developed metropolitan areas; it benefits from its

strategic and spectacular location. The economy of the Western Cape is diverse, including financial and

business services sector, manufacturing, energy, tourism, and agriculture (including fishing). The

diversity of the Western Cape contributes to the sizable and developed tourism sector that attracts visitors

from South Africa and internationally. One of the province’s two deep sea ports as well as an

international airport are located in Cape Town, facilitating both domestic and international trade and travel

to or through the City.

The CoCT generates more than 70% of the Western Cape’s GDPR, with 64% of the province’s

population, and had a real Gross Geographic Product (GGP) of ~R175 billion in 2009 (at constant 2005

prices). It is the second-largest city economy in South Africa, after the City of Johannesburg. The

economy of the Western Cape has generally outperformed the national economy since 2004, and has

contributed ~13% towards the national Gross Domestic Product (GDP) since 2004, which is more than

proportionate to its relative share of total population (~11%). Regional GDP (GDPR) for the Western

Cape economy grew at an annual average rate of 5.7% over the period 2004 – 2008, compared to an

average national GDP growth rate of 4.9% for the same period.

The Western Cape has a population of ~5.8 million people, which is 11% of the national population

(Census 2011). More than 3.7 million people live in the Cape Town Metropolitan area, the equivalent of

64% of the provincial population. The population structure of both the Western Cape and the CoCT

broadly mirrors the national population structure; 25% are younger than 15 years; 70% of the population

is of working age (15 – 64 years old); and 5% are over the age of 64 years (Census 2011). The largest

population group in the Western Cape and CoCT is Coloured, closely followed by Black Africans and then

Whites. Indians comprise a very small proportion of the population.

The education levels of the working age population in the CoCT (44% have Grade 12 or higher education

and 1% have no education) are better than the equivalent level in the Western Cape Province (39% and

2% without education). However, the majority of the working age population has attained less than Grade

12 education. In the Western Cape, ~69% of the population are of working age (15 – 64 years), of this,

~45% are employed or actively seeking employment; this implies a 64% labour force participation rate.

Approximately 22% of the provincial labour force was unemployed in 2011 (Census 2011). A similar

trend was seen in the CoCT. Both the Western Cape and the CoCT have a smaller proportion of

households earning a low income and a larger proportion of households earning higher incomes than at a

national level. Nevertheless, significantly more than half of the households in the Western Cape and the

CoCT have a monthly income of less than ~R6,366. Cape Town is the second richest metropole in South

Africa, in terms of GDP per capita

Due to the relatively marginal location of Cape Town and the long overland travel distances and times, air

travel is an important mode of transport. This is relevant for leisure and business travellers as well as the

transportation of perishable or high-value goods for import and export. The majority of visitors to the

vii

Western Cape (78%) and the CoCT (81%) are leisure tourists. This is followed by business (3% Western

Cape and 7% CoCT) and family/ friend visits (3% Western Cape and 1.5% CoCT) (Urban-Econ, 2011).

Potentially Directly Affected Areas

The Airport falls within the Tygerberg district and lies adjacent to the Cape Flats and Mitchells Plain /

Khayelitsha districts. It is located in Subcouncil 5, adjacent to Subcouncils 4 and 6 to the north, 14 to the

west, and 9 and 13 to the south. The directly affected subcouncils and the main suburbs are presented

below

Subcouncils adjacent to the Airport

Direction Subcouncil Primary Suburbs

North 3 Monte Vista, Panorama, Edgemead Bothasig and surrounds

4 Elsies River, Vasco Estate, Parow and surrounds

6 Belhar, Modderdam, Uitsig, Parow and surrounds

South 9 Khayelitsha (northern areas)

10 Khayelitsha (southern areas, including Monwabisi Park), Mitchells Plain

12 Mitchells Plain

13 Crossroads, Nyanga

14 Nyanga, Gugulethu

23 Mitchells Plain, Ikwezi Park

24 Khayalitsha

21 Blue Downs

East 5 Delft, Delft South and surrounds

West 5 Bishop Lavis, Bonteheuwel, Valhalla Park and surrounds

The Airport is located in an area commonly referred to as the Cape Flats. People living in these areas

have been historically marginalised by apartheid legislation, based on race. The majority of areas

surrounding the Airport are still highly marginalised due to poor socio-economic conditions, with relatively

low levels of income and education. Vast high-density, low-cost (affordable) housing settlements and

townships, as well as overcrowded informal settlements, are common in this area, which is further

characterised by inadequate community facilities and a lack of equipped and managed parks and

recreation areas (CoCT, 2011).

Many of the suburbs located adjacent to the Airport reflect high levels of social and environmental

vulnerability associated with living in low income settlements in urban areas in South Africa. Housing is

typically of poor quality with little space, and residents are exposed to higher levels of environmental risk.

The majority of people living in such areas can be considered socially, economically and environmentally

vulnerable (Oelofse, 1999, in Lewis et al, 2007). The Subcouncils located north of the Airport are

generally more affluent than those located south, west and east of the Airport.

viii

Alien vegetation, illegal dumping and vacant/ under-utilised land are also prevalent, as are industrial

areas. Business parks and industrial areas in the vicinity of the Airport include Modderdam Industria,

Parow Industria and Sack’s Circle to the north; Boquinar (Airport) Industria to the west; and Philippi

Industria to the south.

Population and Housing

The total population in the subcouncils surrounding the Airport was approximately 2 million people (over

500,000 households) in 2011. Between 2001 and 2011, the population increased by over 25%, this was

below the rate of population increase for the city (30%). The highest population increase was experienced

in the high-density suburbs south, west and east of the Airport, specifically in Subcouncil 24 (~70%) and

Subcouncil 5 (65%). In other subcouncils, the growth rate varied from -5% in Subcouncil 9 to 59% in

Subcouncil 21.

Population density, based on 2008 population estimates3, is medium (21 - 50 people per ha) in parts of

Belhar and high (51 - 100 people per ha) to very high (101 - 700 people per ha) in all other suburbs

immediately surrounding the Airport and in the subcouncils to the south. The highest-density areas are

located to the south, particularly Crossroads, sections of Nyanga and Khayelitsha, and to the east in

Delft.

Overall there is significant and mounting pressure on existing facilities and a high demand for additional

housing. Both informal and formal housing areas have expanded and/ or increased in density over the

last decade. Nearly a third of people in these areas live in substandard informal housing, but this

increases to over 70% in parts of Khayalitsha and Gugulethu.

The CoCT has declared housing a key strategy for redressing poverty, creating employment, encouraging

saving and improving socio-economic conditions for disadvantaged sectors of the population. One of the

key goals of the CoCT is to accelerate housing delivery and promote urban renewal. A number of

potential housing programmes are outlined in the Integrated Human Settlements: Five-year Strategic Plan

in the potentially affected subcouncils. While these are merely proposed and may be adjusted, it does

give an indication of the CoCT’s intention for housing delivery.

Socio-economic Status

Based on the Socio-Economic Status Index, the socio-economic status of suburbs surrounding the Airport

is generally poor; a poor index rating suggests that education, skill and employment levels in the area are

very low. This often corresponds with high incidences of crime, gang activity, drug and alcohol abuse and

unemployment, with associated pressures to provide better education, training and employment

opportunities for the population in that area.

3 The 2008 population size was estimated on the basis of the 2001 census population, the number of new formal

dwellings by December 2008, the average household size, the change in the number of informal dwellings by June 2008

and the increase in backyard dwellings by 2007.

ix

To the north of the Airport, Subcouncil 3 is far ‘better off’ than Subcouncils 4 and 6. The majority of the

population living in Subcouncils 4 and 6 fall below average socio-economic status. In general the areas

further from the Airport are better off than those located in closer proximity to it. The areas south of the

Airport are poor and have a generally low socio-economic status; they are classified as ‘worse-off’.

Service levels in Khayelitsha are generally lower than those of Mitchells Plain.

In the Subcouncils north of the Airport, ~55% of the population aged 20 years and older completed Grade

12 or higher. There is, however, a large disparity across the area as only 34% of the population aged 20

years and older attained Grade 12 education or higher in the subcouncils south of the Airport. The higher

levels of education are evident in Subcouncil 3 furthest from the Airport, which are dominated by a White

population. A similar pattern is seen in terms of income; the predominantly White areas further from the

Airport earn higher incomes.

The unemployment rate in suburbs surrounding the Airport varied between 20% and 30% in the suburbs

to the north and west and between 35% and 50% in the areas to the east and south. These latter areas

also have the lowest income levels – more than 75% of households in most of those areas have a

monthly income of less than R3,200, compared to less than half of the population in the areas north of the

Airport. Education levels are generally low, with less than 35% of the population completing Grade 12 in

most areas.

Community Facilities and Services

Census 2011 reflects improved levels of service provision in most areas, specifically in the subcouncils

north, west and east of the Airport. In particular, the majority of households have electricity and refuse

collection. According to Census 2011, the subcouncils south of the Airport still demonstrate lower service

levels than those north of the Airport. In particular, there are wards where up to70% of the population do

not have access to water and sanitation services in their homes, specifically in Gugulethu, parts of

Khayalitsha, Crossroads and Nyanga. While refuse removal is generally good, there are parts of

Khayalitsha where 20% of the population do not have their refuse removed.

Electricity is used by the majority of people for lighting, cooking and heating; other common fuel sources

are paraffin and gas. Wood is used by less than 1% of the population with the exceptions being in

Ravensmead, Uitsig, Airport City, Bishop Lavis, and Valhalla Park immediately north of the Airport where

~3% of the population use wood for heating.

The main public service facilities that are available in nearby suburbs include basic facilities such as

schools, libraries, clinics, health centres, police stations and sport facilities. Higher-order facilities such as

hospitals, tertiary education institution and stadiums as well as municipal offices are located further away

from the Airport.

x

Impact Assessment and Proposed Mitigation

Socio-economic Impacts, Assessment and Mitigation

As a result of the proposed Project activities and the nature of the surrounding socio-economic

environment, the following impacts have been identified and assessed for both the construction and

operation phases of the Project.

· Loss of access to resources on the land that will be incorporated into the Airport.

· Increased noise levels in some areas that are currently and newly affected by noise extending from

the Airport, affecting quality of life.

· Reduced noise levels in some areas that are currently affected by noise extending from the Airport,

improving quality of life.

· Impact on future residential developments in the CoCT, due to the realignment and expansion of

noise contours extending from the Airport.

· Impact on property prices as a result of increased noise levels.

· Increased revenue to government.

· Generation of employment, income and skills training.

· Increased investment in and stimulation of the Western Cape economy.

Each impact is described further below.

Loss of Access to Resources

There is a derelict portion of undeveloped land (~400 ha) located east of the Airport. The land is

overgrown by dense bush consisting mainly of invasive alien vegetation. It is used for a number of

informal/ illegal activities, including dumping (e.g. tyres, windscreens, building rubble and a range of other

waste), collection of firewood, opportunistic grazing, and possibly initiation ceremonies. There have been

reports of criminal activities taking place on this site. Airports Company South Africa is in the process of

acquiring the land to accommodate the proposed Project footprint; the majority of the site will be cleared

to accommodate the Project.

The collection of firewood appears to be the most dominant activity undertaken on the site. Wood,

however, is used by less than 1% of the population; the majority of the population use electricity (~95%).

Given the small percentage of the population using wood, they are likely to be the most marginal/

vulnerable community members who may not be able to afford any alternate fuel sources.

This impact will be local in extent and of low intensity due to the limited reliance on wood as a fuel source.

It should be noted that there are a small percentage of people who use the wood for fuel and will

therefore not have access to it in future. The impact will be experienced during the construction phase;

however, it will persist for the long-term and will definitely occur. It is assessed to be of low significance.

With the implementation of mitigation, the significance of this impact will remain low given the limited

potential for mitigation of the impact. This impact will occur during the construction phase and will remain

xi

unchanged throughout the operational phase given that the land will remain cleared and unavailable for

future community use.

Increased Noise Levels and Quality of Life

Significant growth is anticipated at the Airport should the proposed Project proceed. The substantial

increase in the size and frequency of the air traffic during operations and the associated increase in

ground vehicles during construction and operation will generate increased levels of noise pollution. Most

notably, people are going to become increasingly concerned about the general deterioration in the sense

of place, disturbance to residential, education and healthcare facilities, and impacts on their health

resulting from the noise (assessed separately).

The effects of aircraft noise are numerous but the most common is annoyance (DDA, 2016). Noise and

the way it is experienced is very subjective, some individuals will be much more sensitive to noise. This

annoyance is likely to contribute to the most commonly reported health concern – hypertension. There is

some evidence to suggest that to a small extent, there may also be an association between aircraft noise

and an increased risk of cardiovascular disease (e.g. heart disease and strokes) resulting from long-term

exposure to aircraft noise. Noise can cause a number of biochemical and physiological reactions,

including temporary elevation of blood pressure, which can also be associated with other environmental

stresses (DDA, 2016). While it is difficult to quantify the impact, the high significance of the increased

noise levels resulting from this proposed Project are likely to lead to an increased incidence of health

concerns in a small percentage of the surrounding communities during operations.

The ambient noise levels in the adjacent communities are already elevated beyond the recommended

levels for residential and industrial areas (DDA, 2016). The people living around the Airport are likely to

experience the noise in vastly different ways and their reaction to it will vary considerably depending on

their physical environment and emotional and mental tolerance to it. The people living in closest

proximity to the Airport are impoverished, and lack adequate housing (many informal settlements) and

basic services. Out of necessity and extreme need, people do live with the already degraded quality of

life.

Noise extending from the Airport propagates predominantly in a north-south direction along the runway

and the landing and take-off corridors. The suburbs located north and south of the Airport (within the

55 dBA noise contour) are therefore going to be impacted by noise (most notably at night), the suburbs

located closest to the Airport will be the most significantly affected.

During the construction phase (~2 years), the noise impacts are not expected to exceed the

recommended guidelines (DDA, 2016). There may be limited periods of time when the suburbs located in

closest proximity to the construction activities do experience elevated noise levels. The majority of

construction will take place during the day (07h00 to 18h00) to minimise the nuisance impacts; the

ambient noise levels are elevated in the day and many people will be at school or work. Where

unavoidable some night work (00h00 to 06h00) will be required, this will not exceed 4 months. The

majority of the night work will take place towards the centre of the site, thus limiting the impacts on the

xii

neighbouring people. There are approximately 5 schools in Delft South located very close to the site

boundary, the learners at these schools may be most negatively impacted whilst the construction activity

is undertaken on the southern side of the site. No significant or long-term impacts are anticipated during

this timeframe. This impact will be local in extent and of medium intensity for the short-term for the

suburbs located closest to the Airport boundary. The impact is probable and is assessed to be of very

low significance. Post mitigation, the significance rating will remain very low as there is limited

opportunity for noise mitigation.

During the operational phase, this impact will be regional in extent because the increased noise impacts

will be experienced well beyond the Airport boundaries (~15 km). The intensity will be high given the

large increase in the percentage of people affected pre-mitigation and the degree to which the noise

levels are likely to affect quality of life. Most notably, the noise may interrupt sleep patterns thus

potentially affecting focus and productivity, disrupt learners at school and patients in healthcare facilities,

increase general levels of annoyance, and place further pressure on the already degraded quality of life.

In addition, the high level of intensity accounts for the large number of sensitive receptors (e.g. informal

dwellers, generally impoverished communities, and community facilities) that do not have the means to

alter their circumstances in order to improve their quality of life.

Given the high number of people affected by the proposed project (operating at full capacity), ACSA

committed to considering two mitigation alternatives with the aim of decreasing the number of people in

the surrounding areas affected by high aircraft related noise levels. The two mitigation scenarios

considered are Mitigation Scenario A (Scenario 4 with the implementation of Noise Abatement Departure

Procedure (NADP)1, a 3.2 degree decent profile and limited use of reverse thrust), and Mitigation

Scenario B (Scenario 4 with the implementation of NADP24, a 3.2 degree decent profile and limited use of

reverse thrust). Implementation of Mitigation Scenario B successfully reduces the number of affected

people by -17% compared to Scenario 4 and by 4% as compared to the current No-Go alternative

(Scenario 2). In addition, there will be a large reduction in the number of community facilities affected.

As compared to Scenario 4 the affected healthcare facilities will reduce by 47%, schools by 19% and

libraries by 29%, and as compared to Scenario 2 health facilities will reduce by 33% and libraries by 38%;

schools affected will increase by 9% as compared to Scenario 2 – a significant reduction as compared to

the unmitigated Scenario 4.

Pre-mitigation, this impact will persist for the long-term (life of the Project). The impact will probably occur

and is therefore assessed to be of very high significance. Note, however, that the full impact will only

occur if the runway is operated at its full capacity, which will happen incrementally and also depend on

many factors that are beyond the control of Airports Company South Africa. Post-mitigation, the impact

will remain regional in extent, the intensity will be high for the affected people (many of which are not

currently affected), and the impact will persist for the long-term. It is probable that this impact will occur.

Thus, according to SRKs Impact Assessment methodology, the significance rating would be very high.

However, given the overall reduction in the number of affected people as compared to the No-Go

4 The NADP 1 and 2 are designed to reduce the noise levels in the areas closer to and further from the runway, respectively. A detailed technical description of the NADP 1 and 2 procedures can be found in Error! Reference source not found. of the Noise specialist study.

xiii

alternative, it is the professional opinion of the Specialist that the significance of this impact should be one

of high negative significance. This improvement makes the proposed Project a more superior

alternative to the current runway operating at full capacity (Scenario 2) in terms of the number of

people affected by noise.

Reduced Noise Levels

As a result of the runway realignment, approximately 200,0005 people will experience reduced levels of

noise between Scenario 2 and Scenario 4. Of this figure, ~80% will no longer be affected by aircraft

noise above guideline levels (SRK, 2016; DDA, 2016). Mitchell’s Plain is where the majority of the

improvement will be experienced. This benefit is directly linked to the corresponding increase in noise

levels resulting from the changed alignment.

It is possible that residents in these areas could experience lowered levels of annoyance/ anxiety and

fewer sleep disturbances. In addition, approximately 45 schools, 2 hospitals and 2 libraries will no longer

experience an exceedance in noise levels as a result of aircraft activity; thus their ability to learn and heal

may be improved. In combination, the reduction in noise levels will improve the general quality of life for

the people who live in these areas.

This benefit will be regional in extent and of medium intensity for the long-term (operational phase only).

The benefit will definitely occur and is therefore assessed to be of high positive significance albeit in very

specific areas only. No enhancement measures can be implemented to further enhance this impact; as

such it will remain of high positive significance.

Impact on Future Residential Developments

The CoCT is under significant pressure to provide housing, in order to alleviate the existing housing

backlog. There is also a need for more industrial/ mixed use developments that will generate

employment opportunities. The pressure for housing and employment opportunities is significant in the

areas surrounding the Airport, specifically in the suburbs to the west, south and east of the Airport. These

areas are already densely populated (with heavy concentrations of informal settlements), there is little

room for further densification.

The proposed Project is likely to affect future developments. There are a number of planned (short-term)

and proposed (long-term) housing projects, as well as planned densification of development in two

Integration Zones located along the main metropolitan railway lines. Where residential development is

not suitable and cannot be appropriately mitigated, as per the requirements indicated by the Ministry of

Local Government, Environmental Affairs and Development Planning, land currently earmarked for

housing development by the City may need to be reconsidered.

5 This figure represents the number of people in terms of the current population.

xiv

Within the Projects noise contours (for all Scenarios), there are eight proposed government housing

projects planned over the next five years. These projects total ~5,000 housing units6; of these, 4,573

units will be affected by Scenario 2 (between 50 dBA and 70 dBA) and 1,642 by Scenario 4 (between

55 dBA and 65 dBA). As such, Scenario 4 is favourable as compared to the current runway configuration

on the housing projects planned for the short-term. Over the longer-term, there are a further seven

government housing projects proposed to accommodate ~4,700 housing units. Given the long timeframe,

these projects are less advanced in terms of planning and certainty and as such it is unknown whether

these plans will eventually materialise (despite the proposed Project)7. Based on the current outlook, the

proposed runway realignment would affect significantly more dwelling units for Scenario 4 than Scenario

2 (4,564 versus 824 units, respectively).

As outlined by the Ministry of Local Government, Environmental Affairs and Development Planning, not

all housing Projects will necessarily be ruled out, areas up to 65 dBA may still be considered for

residential development. This option would, however, require specialised mitigation. It is also important

to highlight that despite the regulations, government are planning to build houses8 in areas that are

permitted to exceed 55 dBA in terms of Scenario 2. Six of the government planned/ proposed housing

projects (~4,700 dwelling units) will benefit if the runway is re-aligned from Scenario 2 to Scenario 4

(SRK, 2016).

The CoCT proposes to densify development in two Integration Zones located along the main metropolitan

railway lines; namely Integration Zone 1 (along the Cape Town – Bellville railway line); and Integration

Zone 2 (along Cape Town – Khayelitsha / Strandfontein railway line). The elevated noise levels will

render sections of these zones unsuitable for further densification of residential areas. The total area

(and percentage) of Integration Zone 2 (west and south of the Airport) will be more greatly affected than

Zone 1 for both Scenarios. Scenario 2 and Scenario 4 will affect a similar combined area (km2) across

both Zones at 17.6 km2 and 16.51 km2, respectively. Scenario 4 is slightly more favourable for these

densification programmes.

The impacts linked to the elevated noise levels on the planned/ proposed future developments and

densification will be physically and incrementally experienced throughout the operations phase. During

construction the impact will not be experienced. This impact will persist throughout the operational phase

and into the foreseeable future. The proposed Project will result in an expansion of the area that will

experience noise exceedances. Residential development should be restricted in future, and commercial

and industrial land uses should be prioritised. This impact will be regional in extent and of low to medium

intensity given that the CoCT is currently constructing and planning many housing projects within similar

noise contours and the existing residents have adapted to the already high ambient noise levels. The

impact will persist for the long-term. The impact will probably occur and is therefore assessed to be of

medium/high significance. With implementation of mitigation this could be reduced to medium.

6 There are 5,015 primary units planned. No backyard dwellings are being considered. 7 These seven projects are proposed for the long-term and could be influenced or derailed by a number of [unknown] factors. There will be some time to monitor and respond to the changes in noise levels. However, given the existing demand for housing and continued population growth, it is probable that these projects will need to go ahead. 8 Five planned housing projects (4,573 dwelling units) and two proposed projects (824 units) will be located within the 55 dBA noise contour of the existing runway when it is operating at maximum capacity (Scenario 2).

xv

Impact on Property Prices

A property valuation study9 was undertaken to determine the nature and significance of elevated noise

levels on the surrounding property prices. Aircraft noise is recognised as a growing social, economic and

environmental problem, specifically in developing countries. The problem arises as a result of air traffic,

urbanisation, uncoordinated planning, and ‘open window’/ outdoor living as is typical in Cape Town – the

outdoor lifestyle makes noise insulation almost impossible.

The Noise Depreciation Index (NDI) is used to quantify property value losses; it provides the percentage

depreciation in value per one decibel increase in noise. NDI varies depending on a number of factors,

typically, NDI is higher in more affluent areas than less affluent suburbs, higher for market values than

rental values, and higher for vacant land than detached houses.

An impact on property prices may begin to occur prior to the construction phase when the announcement

to realign the runway is made and potential well-informed buyers anticipate the noise impacts; however,

potential reductions in property values are most likely to materialise during the operational phase. It is

expected that the impact on property prices as a result of increased noise from a greater frequency of

aircraft will be experienced as follows during the operational phase.

· No price reduction is expected on houses valued at <R700,000, notably houses located to the south

east and immediately north west of the Airport, will not experience a decrease in the value of their

properties.

· House price reductions may occur on full-title houses in Richmond Estate (- 4%) and Edgemead

(- 3.5% in the short-term, prices to stabilise in the long-term). Despite the implementation of

Mitigation Scenario B, this impact may occur.

· NDI on market value is higher than on property rentals.

· NDI for vacant land is higher than for improved properties.

· Appreciation of property values in areas with reduced noise levels is unlikely given that the majority of

houses that will experience a reduction in noise levels are lower value houses that would not have

experienced a reduction in property value in the first instance. An exception may be Sonnendal and

Parow North in Parow where property values range between R1.3 million and R1.7 million.

· Noise insulation will be inefficient in avoiding the reduction of property prices given the value placed

on the outdoor lifestyle of Cape Town residents.

This impact will be local in extent and of medium intensity for the medium-term. It is possible that this

impact will occur and is therefore assessed to be of very low significance. Post mitigation, the

significance rating will remain very low as there is limited opportunity for noise mitigation and despite the

implementation of Mitigation Scenario B, these suburbs will still be affected.

9 Rode (2016).

xvi

Increased Revenue to Government

Airports Company South Africa is a state-owned company and a Schedule 2 public entity; the majority of

profits released as dividends accrue to the South African Government. The South African Government

further derives revenue from Airports Company South Africa through various taxes and duties.

The contribution made by Airports Company South Africa to South Africa’s economy (and economic

growth) is significant for a single entity; they are an important tax payer contributing R7.8 billion in tax

revenue from 2008 to 2011 and R477 million as income tax in Financial Year 2013/14. Cape Town

International Airport accounted for approximately 19% of Airports Company South Africa Group revenues

in 2014.

During construction, income to the government is expected to be marginally increased by taxes on locally

procured goods and services, but reduced as a result of capital expenditure financed internally (Airports

Company South Africa) and externally (debt). The overall impact of the short-term construction phase on

government income is deemed to be insignificant.

During operation and in the long run, income to the government is expected to derive from taxes

(including corporate taxes, employees’ personal income tax and taxes paid on locally procured services

and goods) as well as dividends and other distributions accruing to the government through shareholding

in Airports Company South Africa (assuming a profit). The quantum of the contribution will depend on

Airports Company South Africa’s performance, debt servicing requirements, future investments and the

tax regime. The extent of the impact is rated regional as Cape Town International Airport only contributes

a portion of the income generated by Airports Company South Africa. Despite the overall significance of

the government income derived from Airports Company South Africa, the additional income derived from

the Cape Town International Airport runway re-alignment project is deemed to be of low intensity relative

to overall government revenue. The benefit of increased government income will accrue in the long-term

and gradually over time, largely linked to increased utilisation of the Cape Town International Airport.

Overall, the benefit of increased government income during operations as a result of the re-alignment of

the runway is deemed to be of medium positive significance.

Generation of Employment, Income and Skills Training

Employment provides many socio-economic benefits to employees and their dependents, including

improved material wealth and standard of living, greater access to services, enhanced skills, and a sense

of independence, freedom and pride. Airports Company South Africa currently employs 550 permanent

staff at Cape Town International Airport. Indirect employment was estimated at 13,640 people (Urban-

Econ, 2011). Given that airport-related employment is often quoted as a function of passenger volume

(currently ~8.5 million passengers), this implies that the Airport generates approximately 65 direct and

1,600 indirect jobs per 1 million passengers. As such, the project is expected to create various types of

employment:

xvii

· Direct employment includes additional project staff and contractors permanently based on site. The

construction phase is expected to generate 200 temporary construction jobs for approximately two

years. Operation phase employment opportunities will not immediately increase passenger numbers,

employment opportunities will gradually increase as passenger numbers increase. Operation phase

employment opportunities forecast for the runway re-alignment (Scenario 4) are estimated at between

950 and 3,200

· Indirect employment includes off-site contractors and service providers to the Project. The

construction phase is expected to generate indirect employment at local companies contracted to

supply materials and other services. It is not possible to quantify indirect employment and income that

will be created by the project at this stage, but it is likely to be significant because of the ability to

procure products and services locally. Based on historical employment performance at the Airport

between 2008 and 2011 reported by KPMG (2012), new indirect employment opportunities generated

by the runway re-alignment (Scenario 4) are estimated at between 2,550 and 7,360.

· Induced employment generated by increased spending at businesses and on services by households

earning an income from the project (the multiplier effect). The calculation of induced employment

multipliers for this project is beyond the scope of this study, but certain to be positive.

The number of employment opportunities created during the construction phase is relatively small. While

construction employment will be limited to approximately two years, workers have the opportunity to

improve their economic prospects in the longer term if they take full advantage of the income, experience

and skills transferred to them through the project. The extent of the benefit is regional, as a number of

communities in the area, as well as a limited number of individuals from outside of the area, are expected

to benefit from job- and income-creation as well as skill development during the construction phase. The

intensity of the benefit is considered low, as the number of created jobs equates to a very small

proportion of the local population, extending over the short term. The benefit will definitely occur and is

therefore assessed to be of very low positive significance. The Project will be put out for tender and

opportunities to enhance the benefit through specifications in the tender documents should be utilised.

However, due to the limited workforce and opportunities to optimise the benefit, it remains of very low

positive significance after enhancement.

The generation of an estimated 3,500 to 10,56010 direct and indirect employment opportunities in the long

term, driven by increasing passenger numbers at the Airport, is small in comparison to Cape Town’s

1.7 million labour force. However, it is a significant number of employment opportunities created by a

single project, although the jobs will be created gradually over an extended period of time. The extent of

the impact related to the creation of employment, income and skills development during operations is

regional, as people from the greater Cape Town area and potentially beyond are expected to benefit. The

intensity of the impact is considered to be low due to the gradual generation of jobs over a long

timeframe. The duration of the impact is long-term. The benefit is therefore assessed to be of medium

positive significance. Employment numbers will be largely determined by the industry and market forces,

10 Note that various ACSA-commissioned reports provide differing projected employment figures. However, the above assessment remains valid for the range of employment opportunities indicated above.

xviii

and significant enhancement of the benefit is therefore unlikely, although external factors, such as

economic growth (particularly linked to tourism and the import/export sector) will play an important role in

the determination of overall throughput at and employment generated by Cape Town International Airport.

The benefit thus remains of medium positive significance after enhancement.

Increased Investment in and Stimulation of the Western Cape Economy

The Project requires the investment of approximately R3.2 billion in the Western Cape Economy, in

addition to which a further R5.5 billion (subject to Regulatory approval) will be invested to expand

infrastructure at Cape Town International Airport over the next 10 years if the re-alignment of the runway

proceeds. KPMG (2012) found that most of the economic benefits from 2008 – 2011 Airport upgrades in

South Africa accrued in the provinces where the Airports are located. Historic performance reported in

KPMG (2012) suggests a possible economic multiplier of 1.5 for the aviation industry across South

Africa11, meaning that for every R100 spent in the aviation sector, an additional R150 in indirect and

induced income is generated in other sectors of the economy as a result of the initial investment. If this

assumption holds true, the R3.2 billion investment in the runway re-alignment could generate an

additional impact of R4.8 billion in the South African economy, much of which would accrue to the

Western Cape, in the medium term.

Cape Town International Airport has, however, been an important contributor to the local and regional

economy in the past decades and the Project is considered crucial for the continued and increased

economic growth in the CoCT, the Western Cape region and nationally. Failure to proceed with the

Project will have major future adverse economic consequences, especially over the longer term as the

implications of limited airport capacity and access manifest themselves.

The quantum of investment for the runway re-alignment project is significant relative to the local and

regional economy of the City of Cape Town and Western Cape, and benefits are likely to accrue

predominantly to the region. The direct and indirect impacts of the investment of R3.2 billion, as opposed

to benefits derived from improved airport infrastructure, will dominate the economic impact during the

construction phase and are expected to resonate through the economy beyond the immediate

construction period. The extent of the impact is thus deemed regional with medium intensity over the

medium-term. The benefit is assessed to be of medium positive significance. Economic performance in

response to the runway re-alignment is determined by a range of factors that are outside of the control of

Airports Company South Africa, and opportunities to enhance the benefit through enhancement

measures are limited. The benefit thus remains of medium positive significance after enhancement.

Over time, the benefits derived from improved airport infrastructure, such as improved connectivity,

increased aviation activity and increased passenger numbers, are expected to dominate the economic

benefit derived from the Project during the operation phase. Other future benefits may derive from

additional investment contingent on the runway re-alignment. As the airport is deemed critical as a

11 KPMG (2012) noted that the direct contributions of the aviation sector to South African GDP in 2009 of R20.12 billion resulted in a further and indirect contribution to South African GDP of R21.03 billion and an induced contribution of R9.79 billion.

xix

facilitator (though not necessarily a direct cause) of future economic growth in Cape Town and the

Western Cape, the extent of the impact is deemed regional with medium intensity over the long-term. The

benefit is assessed to be of high positive significance. Economic performance in response to the runway

re-alignment is determined by a range of factors that are outside of the control of Airports Company South

Africa, and opportunities to optimise the benefit through enhancement measures are limited.

Cumulative Impacts

The proposed Project is already located within a densely population urban environment, primarily

consisting of low-income residential areas and some industry. The CoCT is planning further residential

developments, densification in selected areas and there is a need to create employment opportunities.

There are no known large-scale industrial developments within the Airport’s AoI.

The most prominent cumulative impacts will be linked to the further anticipated Airport infrastructure

upgrades. The planned infrastructure upgrades (amounting to ~R5.5 billion) will only occur if the

proposed Project is approved and the capacity of the Airport increases. This will serve to further enhance

the positive economic impacts, including financial contributions, increased economic opportunities and

employment. In addition, the increased capacity will encourage more investment into Cape Town, and

could potentially enhance the reputation and desirability of Cape Town as a tourist destination as a result

of increased exposure.

This Project clearly illustrates the potentially negative effects of inappropriate landuse planning, as is

evident in the areas surrounding the Airport. The quality of life of the residents living in the AoI is already

largely below average as a result of poor planning and support related to essential socio-economic

services (including housing, education and healthcare). This Project will continue to impact on quality of

life and people’s ability to focus as a result of the levels of noise and the associated levels of annoyance.

However, with the implementation of Mitigation Scenario 2 there will be fewer people impacted by noise

as compared to Scenario 2. The future infrastructure upgrades will generate a range of additional

impacts linked to increased noise levels, traffic, amongst others.

No-Go Alternative

The greatest cost of the No-Go alternative would be the lost opportunity for the economy to benefit from

the extensive economic benefits. The proposed Project, if it goes ahead will spend an estimated

R3.2 billion on the runway realignment, this is likely to lead to further infrastructure expansion at a cost of

~ R5.5 billion, i.e. a total capex spend of ~ R8.5 billion over the next 10 years. Further, failure to proceed

with the Project will have major future adverse economic consequences, especially over the longer term

as the implications of limited airport capacity and access manifest themselves.

The number of people affected by noise will decrease by 4% if the Project proceeds and Mitigation

Scenario B is implemented. Should the Project not proceed, a greater number of people will ultimately be

affected by noise when the current runway operates at full capacity (Scenario 2).

xx

The negative social impacts associated with Scenario 4 will not be experienced and the status quo will be

retained. However due to the density of housing surrounding the Airport, inappropriate land use planning,

inadequate housing (specifically in informal settlements), and the below average socio-economic

conditions there are significant negative impacts already being experienced. These negative impacts will

continue for the short-term and increase as the capacity grows to that of Scenario 2, the scale of the

negative impacts associated with Scenario 2 will persist for the long-term.

This option would result in there being a lost opportunity for Cape Town and the Western Cape to flourish

as a tourist and business destination. The increased revenue from the Project could be used to invest in

much needed socio-economic development in the city, specifically around the Airport. This opportunity

would be lost if the No-Go option is selected.

Conclusion and Recommendations

The proposed realignment of the runway at Cape Town International Airport will serve to increase the

capacity of the Airport for the long-term. In the context of the socio-economic environment, there are a

number of positive and negative impacts that are equally as important and relevant for consideration.

The Socio-economic environment in which the Project is proposed is complex. With the exception of the

existing Airport, the area is predominantly residential (formal and informal), however there are also a

number of industrial/ mixed land use areas. The areas that are currently affected by the existing

operations and potentially affected by the proposed Project extend in a north-south direction from the

Airport. The affected areas extend from more wealthy suburbs with good infrastructure and services

north of the Airport to poor and in places inadequately serviced suburbs south of the Airport. The suburbs

immediately surrounding and south of the Airport are generally densely populated, they have relatively

low levels of education and skills, high rates of unemployment, low income levels and high dependency

ratios. While the majority of housing is formal, there is a substantial percentage of informal housing; the

need for housing is high and remains one of the priority areas for the government.

As a result of the proposed Project activities and the nature of the socio-economic environment, the

following impacts have been identified:

· Loss of access to resources on the land that will be incorporated into the Airport.

· Increased noise levels on areas that are currently affected, as well as on those that are not currently

affected by noise extending from the Airport.

· Reduced noise levels on areas that are currently affected.

· Impact on for future residential developments in the CoCT, due to the realignment and expansion of

noise contours extending from the Airport.

· Impact on Property Prices as a result of increased noise levels.

· Increased Revenue to Government.

· Generation of Employment, Income and Skills Training.

· Increased Investment in and Stimulation of the Western Cape Economy.

xxi

The tables below summarise the significance ratings pre- and post-mitigation. Mitigation and

enhancement measures have been provided for each impact and phase.

Summary of impact significance, pre- and post-mitigation: construction

Impact Consequence Probability Significance Status Confidence

Impact 1: Loss of access to resources Low (5) Definite LOW - ve High

With mitigation Low (5) Definite LOW - ve High

Impact 2: Increased noise levels and quality of life Very Low (4) Probable VERY LOW -ve High

With mitigation Very Low (3) Probable VERY LOW -ve High

Impact 3: Reduced noise levels - - - - -

Impact 4: Impact on future residential

developments

- - - - -

Impact 5: Impact on property prices - - - - -

Impact 6: Increased revenue to government Very Low (4) Improbable INSIGNIFICANT + ve High

Impact 7: Employment, income and skills training Very Low (4) Definite VERY LOW + ve High

With enhancement Very Low (4) Definite VERY LOW + ve High

Impact 8: Increased investment and stimulation of

economy

Medium (6) Probable MEDIUM + ve Medium

With enhancement Medium (6) Probable MEDIUM + ve Medium

Summary of impact significance, pre- and post-mitigation: operation

Impact Consequence Probability Significance Status Confidence

Impact 1: Loss of access to resources - - - - -

Impact 2: Increased noise levels and quality of life Very High (8) Probable VERY HIGH - ve High

With mitigation Very High (8) Probable HIGH12 - ve High

Impact 3: Reduced noise levels High (7) Definite HIGH + ve High

With enhancement High (7) Definite HIGH + ve High

Impact 4: Impact on future residential

developments

Medium/High

(6/7)

Probable MEDIUM/HIGH - ve High

With mitigation Medium (6) Probable MEDIUM - ve High

Impact 5: Impact on property prices Low (5) Possible VERY LOW - ve High

With mitigation Low (5) Possible VERY LOW - ve High

Impact 6: Increased revenue to government Medium (6) Probable MEDIUM + ve High

With enhancement - - - - -

Impact 7: Employment, income and skills training Medium (6) Probable MEDIUM* + ve High

With enhancement Medium (6) Probable MEDIUM + ve High

12 According to SRKs Impact Assessment methodology, the significance rating would be very high. However, given the overall reduction in the number of affected people as compared to the No-Go alternative, it is the professional opinion of the Specialist that the significance of this impact should be one of medium negative significance.

xxii

Impact Consequence Probability Significance Status Confidence

Impact 8: Increased investment and stimulation of

economy

High (7) Probable HIGH + ve Medium

With enhancement - - - - -

The Project provides a significant opportunity for Cape Town and the Western Cape to benefit from the

economic benefits, including direct and indirect capital expenditure, increased rates and taxes, local

economic growth resulting from increased business and tourism, and employment (direct, indirect and

induced). The increased capacity will improve accessibility to Cape Town and the Western Cape more

broadly, thus enhancing its reputation, and enabling the potential for greater economic growth and

employment generation.

The increased noise levels will affect a large number of people as well as sensitive community facilities

(e.g. schools and healthcare facilities); however, the implementation of Mitigation Scenario B will result in

an overall reduction in the number of affected people as compared to the No-Go option (Scenario 2).

While it is not possible to quantify the human response to noise impacts, it is certain that quality of life will

be negatively affected for some people in the areas immediately adjacent to the Airport as well as in

corridors north and south of it. Quality of life will be further degraded for those people who also

experience the negative air quality and traffic impacts (these are described in the respective specialist

studies). The extent of this impact will reduce furthest from the Airport. As a result of the growth (land

use types and extent) that has been permitted around the Airport, there are currently significant

exceedances of the recommended noise guidelines. Scenario 4 with the implementation of Mitigation

Scenario B will result in a decrease in the number of affected people. This improvement makes the

proposed Project a more superior alternative to the current runway operating at full capacity

(Scenario 2) in terms of the number of people affected by noise.

There will be a large number of people positively affected by the Project as they will experience a

reduction in noise levels due to the proposed rotation of the runway. Approximately 80% of these people

will no longer experience noise exceedances.

The impact on future residential developments is also significant given the high demand for housing in the

area. The Project will limit the number of sites that are suitable for residential development and affect

some planned and proposed housing projects. There will, however, also be some housing projects that

will benefit from improved noise levels. More potential sites may become more attractive for development

in areas that experience reduced levels of noise.

Property values will largely remain unaffected by the proposed Project; value depreciation linked to an

increase in noise levels will not affect properties below the value of R700,000. The only suburbs that may

be affected are Richmond Estate in Goodwood with a possible decrease in value of no more than 4%,

and Edgemead with no more than a 3.5% decrease in the short-term; values are expected to stabilise

over the long-term. These suburbs continue to be affected despite the implementation of Mitigation

Scenario B. Areas that will no longer be affected by noise due to the shift in the noise contours are

xxiii

unlikely to experience an increase in property values given that they are predominantly below the value of

R700,00 thus they never experienced depreciation in the first instance. The only potential exceptions are

Sonnendal and Parow North in Parow where property values are higher.

Due to the proposed use of the land to the east of the Airport, a small number of people will lose access

to firewood. This will be significant to the people affected, however, this is presumed to be a relatively

small percentage of people.

Overall, despite the significance of the negative impacts, the benefits of the Project are also significant.

The proposed Project warrants extensive consideration, specifically considering that the existing scenario

also has significant negative impacts. The significance ratings of the positive impacts may appear to be

tempered (as compared to the negative impacts) but that is because they are considered within the

context of a fairly healthy local and provincial economy.

It is difficult to conclude that it is acceptable to negatively affect already vulnerable people; however time

has shown that people can, and do, reside in areas that are already exposed to these same negative

impacts. Many of them are not thriving, but this is the combined result of a far more complex set of

political, physical, socio-economic, environmental, and psychological matters. Further government

planning should be undertaken in a more sensitive and strategic manner and the positive economic

impacts should be maximised by government.

Given the significance of the positive impacts and the overall reduction in the number of people affected

by noise, it is the reasoned opinion of the Social Specialist that the proposed Project should be

authorised.

xxiv

ACRONYMS AND DEFINITIONS

Acronyms

ACSA Airports Company South Africa

ALARP As Low As Reasonably Practicable

AoI Area of Influence

ATM Air Traffic Movements

CBD Central Business District

CoCT City of Cape Town

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

GDP Gross Domestic Product

GDPR Regional Gross Domestic Product

GGP Gross Geographic Product

GIS Geographic Information Systems

IDP Integrated Development Plan

NDI Noise Depreciation Index

NEMA National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998, as amended

PSDF Provincial Spatial Development Framework

S&EIR Scoping and Environmental Impact Reporting

SANDF South African National Defence Force

SARB South African Reserve Bank

SIA Socio-economic Impact Assessment

SRK SRK Consulting (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd

ToR Terms of Reference

TRA Temporary Relocation Area

URP Urban Renewal Programme

WHO World Health Organisation

Glossary/ Definitions

Airports Company South

Africa

Operates South Africa’s ten principal airports, including Cape Town International Airport.

Environmental Impact

Assessment

A process of evaluating the environmental and socio-economic consequences of a

proposed course of action or project.

Gross Domestic Product Measures the value of output produced within the domestic economy, regardless of who

owns the factors of production. GDP at market prices measures the value of domestic

output inclusive of indirect taxes on goods and services.

Gross Regional

Domestic Product

Subnational gross domestic product for measuring the size of a region's economy.

Gross Geographic

Product

A measure of the total economic activity at the local (municipality) level. It reflects the

market value in Rands of all final goods and services produced and sold within a local

municipality and thereby the ability of areas to create their own economic activity.

xxv

Glossary/ Definitions

Macro-economics The study of the overall aspects and workings of an economy, such as income, output

and the interrelationship among diverse economic sectors.

Micro-economics The study of the operations of the components of an economy, such as individual firms,

households and consumers.

Multiplier Multiplier impacts result from the recirculation of money from direct impacts. According to

Keynesian economic theory, any injection into the economy via investment capital or

government spending could generate a more than proportional increase in overall income

at a national level (GDP). The basic principle of this theory is that increased spending will

have carry-through or multiplier effects, generating even greater aggregate spending over

time. The multiplier itself is an attempt to measure the size of those carry-through effects,

and the size of the impact is larger for a higher multiplier (KPMG, 2012).

xxvi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE ........................................................................... I

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................. III

Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. iii

Study Area and Project Overview ........................................................................................................... iii

Method ....................................................................................................................................................... v

Social and Economic Environment ......................................................................................................... v

Potentially Indirectly Affected Areas: Western Cape and City of Cape Town .......................................... vi

Potentially Directly Affected Areas ......................................................................................................... vii

Impact Assessment and Proposed Mitigation ........................................................................................ x

Socio-economic Impacts, Assessment and Mitigation ............................................................................ x

Conclusion and Recommendations ...................................................................................................... xx

ACRONYMS AND DEFINITIONS ............................................................................ XXIV

TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................................................................... XXVI

LIST OF FIGURES, TABLES AND BOXES ............................................................ XXIX

1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1

2 STUDY AREA AND PROJECT OVERVIEW ........................................................... 3

2.1 Study Area ..................................................................................................................................... 3

2.1.1 Site Description ....................................................................................................................... 3

2.1.2 Cape Town International Airport .............................................................................................. 5

2.2 Project Overview ........................................................................................................................... 8

3 METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................. 11

3.1 Guidelines for Socio-Economic Impact Assessment............................................................... 11

3.2 SIA Process ................................................................................................................................. 12

xxvii

3.3 Baseline Description ................................................................................................................... 12

3.3.1 Data Gathering and Analysis ................................................................................................. 12

3.3.2 Spatial Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 14

3.4 Impact Assessment and Mitigation ........................................................................................... 14

3.4.1 Impact Assessment Methodology .......................................................................................... 14

3.4.2 Mitigation ............................................................................................................................... 16

3.5 Limitations and Assumptions .................................................................................................... 17

3.5.1 Data Gathering and Accuracy ............................................................................................... 17

3.5.2 Socio-Economic Impact Assessment .................................................................................... 18

4 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT ........................................................ 19

4.1 Area of Influence ......................................................................................................................... 19

4.1.1 Indirect (Macro-level) Area of Influence ................................................................................. 19

4.1.2 Direct (Micro-level) Area of Influence .................................................................................... 19

4.2 Potentially Indirectly Affected Areas: Western Cape and City of Cape Town ....................... 23

4.2.1 GDPR and Structure of the Economy .................................................................................... 23

4.2.2 Population ............................................................................................................................. 25

4.2.3 Education and Skills Levels ................................................................................................... 26

4.2.4 Employment Levels and Sources .......................................................................................... 26

4.2.5 Income .................................................................................................................................. 27

4.2.6 Sectors Dependent on Air Transportation ............................................................................. 29

4.3 Potentially Directly Affected Areas ............................................................................................ 31

4.3.1 Administrative Framework ..................................................................................................... 31

4.3.2 Overview of Affected Subcouncils ......................................................................................... 32

4.3.3 Population and Housing ........................................................................................................ 41

4.3.4 Socio-economic Status .......................................................................................................... 47

4.3.5 Community Facilities and Services ........................................................................................ 48

4.3.6 Infrastructure ......................................................................................................................... 50

5 IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND PROPOSED MITIGATION .................................... 52

5.1 Potential Impacts Identified for the Project .............................................................................. 52

5.2 Insignificant Impacts................................................................................................................... 53

5.3 Socio-economic Impacts, Assessment and Mitigation ............................................................ 53

5.3.1 Loss of Access to Resources ................................................................................................ 53

5.3.2 Increased Noise Levels and Associated Impacts on Quality of Life ...................................... 55

5.3.3 Reduced Noise Levels .......................................................................................................... 72

5.3.4 Impact on Future Residential Developments ......................................................................... 73

5.3.5 Impact on Property Prices ..................................................................................................... 82

5.3.6 Increased Revenue to Government ....................................................................................... 85

5.3.7 Generation of Employment, Income and Skills Training ........................................................ 87

xxviii

5.3.8 Increased Investment in and Stimulation of the Western Cape Economy ............................. 92

5.3.9 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................................................... 95

5.3.10 No-Go Alternative .................................................................................................................. 96

6 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................ 97

6.1 Overview ...................................................................................................................................... 97

6.2 Impact Summary ......................................................................................................................... 97

6.3 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 103

7 REFERENCES .................................................................................................... 106

8 ANNEX A: SPATIAL ANALYSIS REPORT BY SRK CONSULTIN ................... 111

xxix

LIST OF FIGURES, TABLES AND BOXES

Figure 1-1 Cape Town International Airport and surrounding areas .............................................. 2

Figure 2-1 Cape Town International Airport and land ownership ................................................... 4

Figure 2-2 Photos of the land east of the existing Airport ............................................................... 5

Figure 2-3 Cape Town International Airport passenger numbers 2000 - 2012 ............................... 6

Figure 2-4 Total turnover and indirect employment of various sectors at the Airport in 2011 ..... 7

Figure 2-5 Proposed construction of realigned runway and taxiways ........................................... 9

Figure 3-1 SIA Process ..................................................................................................................... 12

Figure 4-1 Scenario 2 and Scenario 4 55 dBA Noise Contours and Subcouncils ....................... 20

Figure 4-2 Informal settlements in the surrounding areas ............................................................ 22

Figure 4-3 Western Cape GDPR Indicators 2006 – 2011 ................................................................ 24

Figure 4-4 Share of population groups in Cape Town, 2011.......................................................... 25

Figure 4-5 Provincial share of tourism revenue.............................................................................. 30

Figure 4-6 Cape Town Planning Districts ........................................................................................ 32

Figure 4-7 Subcouncil 3: Monte Vista (top) and Bothasig (bottom) .............................................. 34

Figure 4-8 Subcouncil 4: Street in Connaught (top) and Council rental flats in Uitsig (bottom) 35

Figure 4-9 Subcouncil 6: Street in Belhar near the Airport ............................................................ 35

Figure 4-10 Subcouncil 5: Streets in Delft (top) and Bonteheuwel (bottom) .................................. 37

Figure 4-11 Subcouncil 14: Streets in KTC (top) and Gugulethu (bottom) ..................................... 38

Figure 4-12 Subcouncil 9: Khayelitsha’s Tembani (top) and Ikwezi Park (bottom) ....................... 39

Figure 4-13 Subcouncil 10: Village 1 North (top) and Monwabisi Park (bottom) ........................... 40

Figure 4-14 Subcouncil 13: Informal housing in Crossroads .......................................................... 40

Figure 4-15 Subcouncils 12 and 23: Beacon Valley (top) and Lentegeur (bottom) ....................... 41

Figure 4-16 Densification in KTC informal settlement near Gugulethu .......................................... 42

Figure 4-17 Expansion of formal settlement in Delft South ............................................................. 43

Figure 4-18 Estimated population density in 2008 ........................................................................... 44

Figure 4-19 Location of proposed housing developments in areas surrounding the Airport ...... 46

Figure 4-20 Socio-economic status index ......................................................................................... 47

Figure 4-21 Service level index .......................................................................................................... 49

Figure 4-22 Major road and rail networks surrounding the Airport ................................................ 51

Figure 5-1 Areas where noise levels exceed guidelines for Scenario 2 (left) and Scenario 4

(right) .......................................................................................................................................... 57

Figure 5-2 Areas where noise levels exceed guidelines for Mitigation Scenario A (left) and

Mitigation Scenario B (right) .................................................................................................................. 63

Figure 5-3 Planned and potential housing projects affected by Scenario 2 ................................ 76

Figure 5-4 Planned and potential housing projects affected by Scenario 4 ................................ 77

Figure 5-5 Planned densification - Integration zone 1 (green) and integration zone 2 (purple) . 80

Figure 5-6 Airports Company South Africa ownership structure.................................................. 85

Table 2-1 Anticipated passenger growth over 20 years ..................................................................... 6

Table 3-1 Criteria used to determine the Consequence of the Impact ............................................ 15

Table 3-2 Method used to determine the Consequence Score ........................................................ 15

Table 3-3 Probability Classification.................................................................................................... 15

Table 3-4 Impact significance ratings ................................................................................................ 16

Table 3-5 Impact status and confidence classification .................................................................... 16

Table 4-1 Subcouncils adjacent to the Airport .................................................................................. 21

Table 4-2 Western Cape GDPR and South African GDP 2004 – 2011(R billion at 2005 prices) ..... 24

xxx

Table 4-3 Population groups in the Western Cape and Cape Town ................................................ 26

Table 4-4 Education of Working Age Population .............................................................................. 26

Table 4-5 Annual household income in 2011 .................................................................................... 29

Table 4-6 Potential new and rental housing projects in potentially affected subcouncils ............ 45

Table 5-1 Significance of the loss of access to resources: construction ....................................... 54

Table 5-2 Suburbs potentially affected by noise ............................................................................... 59

Table 5-3 Significance of increased noise levels: construction ...................................................... 60

Table 5-4 Number of people in areas where noise exceeds guideline levels (2011 data) ............. 61

Table 5-5 Number of people in areas where noise exceeds guideline levels – with population

growth .............................................................................................................................................. 61

Table 5-6 Number of people in areas where noise exceeds guideline levels after mitigation –

constant 2011 population ....................................................................................................................... 65

Table 5-7 Percentage change in people located in areas where noise exceeds guideline levels

after mitigation relative to Scenarios 2 and 4 ....................................................................................... 65

Table 5-8 Number of community facilities in areas where noise exceeds guideline levels .......... 66

Table 5-9 Number of community facilities in areas where noise exceeds guideline levels after

mitigation and change relative to Scenario 2 ....................................................................................... 69

Table 5-10 Number of community facilities in areas where noise exceeds guideline levels after

mitigation and change relative to Scenario 4 ....................................................................................... 69

Table 5-11 Significance of increased noise levels: operation ....................................................... 71

Table 5-12 Significance of reduced noise levels: operation .......................................................... 73

Table 5-13 Size of Zones affected by elevate Airport noise ........................................................... 80

Table 5-14 Significance of impact on future development: operation .......................................... 81

Table 5-15 Significance of impact on property prices .................................................................... 85

Table 5-16 Significance of increase in government income: construction .................................. 86

Table 5-17 Significance of increase in government income: operation ........................................ 87

Table 5-18 Estimated direct employment opportunities created by the Project .......................... 88

Table 5-19 Estimated indirect employment opportunities created by the Project ....................... 89

Table 5-20 Significance of increased employment, income and skills development:

construction .......................................................................................................................................... 90

Table 5-21 Significance of increased employment, income and skills development: operation 92

Table 5-22 Significance of investment and stimulation of the economy: construction .............. 95

Table 5-23 Significance of investment and stimulation of the economy: operation .................... 95

Table 6-1 Summary of impact significance, pre- and post-mitigation: construction ..................... 98

Table 6-2 Summary of impact significance, pre- and post-mitigation: operation .......................... 98

Table 6-3 Mitigation and Enhancement Measures ............................................................................ 99

Box 1-1 Terms of Reference for the Socio-economic Impact Assessment .................................... 1

Box 5-1 Socio-economic Impacts .................................................................................................... 52

Box 5-2 Restrictions for development ............................................................................................. 75

Cape Town International Airport Runway Realignment: Social Impact Assessment 1

1 INTRODUCTION

Airports Company South Africa proposes to re-align the existing primary runway at Cape Town

International Airport (the Airport). Currently, the Airport comprises two active runways: the primary runway

and a secondary runway bisecting it. The re-aligned primary runway will be 3,500 m long (currently

3,201 m), enabling airport expansion and increased capacity.

The Airport is located on the sandy Cape Flats, immediately north of the N2 (national route),

approximately 20 km east of Cape Town’s Central Business District (CBD). The surrounding area

consists of mixed land uses including residential and industrial uses (see Figure 1-1).

SRK Consulting (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd (SRK) was appointed by Airports Company South Africa to

undertake the Scoping and Environmental Impact Reporting (S&EIR) process, which is required in terms

of the National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998, as amended (NEMA) and the Environmental

Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulations, 2010 (promulgated in terms of NEMA). The socio-economic

impact assessment (SIA) was commissioned to inform the S&EIR.

An SIA includes the processes of analysing, monitoring and managing the intended and unintended

social consequences, both positive and negative, of planned interventions (policies, programs, plans,

projects) and any social change processes invoked by those interventions (Vanclay, 2003). The study will

furthermore identify and assess potential economic impacts of the project, both on local communities and

the wider region. The Terms of Reference as outlined in the Scoping Report are summarised in Box 1-1

Box 1-1 Terms of Reference for the Socio-economic Impact Assessment

· Define the study area (the area potentially affected socially and / or economically by the project).

· Describe the national, regional and local economic characteristics of the area.

· Identify the potential social and economic impacts associated with the project.

· Assess the significant social and economic impacts of the project.

· Identify and assess potential cumulative socio-economic impacts.

· Recommend practicable mitigation measures to avoid and/ or minimise/ reduce impacts and enhance benefits.

· Address, as required, further social issues raised by stakeholders during the stakeholder engagement process.

· Consider the offset of opportunity costs between the area currently affected by noise and the newly affected area.

The remainder of this report is structured as follows:

· Section 2: Study area and project overview;

· Section 3: Methodology, including assumptions and limitations;

· Section 4: Social and economic environment;

· Section 5: Impact assessment and proposed mitigation;

· Section 6: Conclusion and recommendations; and

· Section 7: References.

Cape Town International Airport Runway Realignment: Social Impact Assessment 2

Figure 1-1 Cape Town International Airport and surrounding areas

Source: SRK

Cape Town International Airport Runway Realignment: Social Impact Assessment 3

2 STUDY AREA AND PROJECT OVERVIEW

2.1 Study Area

The Airport is located in Cape Town, the capital of the Western Cape Province, at the south-western tip of

Africa. It is situated on the sandy Cape Flats, immediately north of the N2; approximately 20 km east of

Cape Town’s CBD (see Figure 1-1).

The surrounding area consists of mixed land uses including residential and industrial use. Portions of

undeveloped and derelict land also occur. Most of the suburbs in this area were established between the

1950s and 1970s in an attempt to segregate people along racial lines under Apartheid laws. The legacy

of apartheid’s spatial planning persists and people adjacent to the Airport are still relatively segregated,

vulnerable and marginalised with relatively low levels of income and education (CoCT, 2011). More detail

about the population is provided in Section 4.3.

2.1.1 Site Description

The current Airport property is approximately 975 ha in extent. The property incorporates the passenger

terminal and related Airport support infrastructure to the west of the runways, undeveloped land to the

east of the runways, and a portion of land to the south, belonging to the South African National Roads

Agency Ltd (SANRAL). A separate facility, presently used by the police and administered by the South

African National Defence Force’s (SANDF) 35 Squadron, is located to the immediate east of the existing

runways within the Airport property boundary (see Figure 2-1).

Immediately east of the Airport is a large (~400 ha), degraded portion of undeveloped land. The area is

overgrown by dense bush consisting mainly of invasive alien vegetation; small sand dunes, with isolated

patches of indigenous vegetation on the dune ridges, and some small degraded wetland(s). A north-south

aligned dirt track traverses this area. The track can be accessed from the south via a culvert under the

N2. The northern exit onto Stellenbosch Arterial is blocked for vehicle access. A number of paths lead off

the main track into the bush towards Sheffield Road. The area, particularly along the main track, is

extensively used for illegal dumping (including tyres, windscreens, building rubble and a range of other

waste), harvesting of firewood, opportunistic grazing, and possibly initiation ceremonies. Signs of

dumping, tyre burning and firewood collection were clearly visible during the site visit (see Source:

SRK

Figure 2-2). No indications of informal housing. However, the widespread illegal activity on the site

indicates that it can be readily accessed and is poorly policed, and it is possible that other illicit activities

may occur on the site.

Maccsand (Pty) Ltd undertakes formal sand mining on the north-eastern section of the undeveloped land.

The mining area is located adjacent to, and has a direct access onto, Sheffield Road. Sand is mined

using large front end loaders and loaded onto large trucks (see Source: SRK

Figure 2-2). It is understood that this is a formally licenced activity and that it will not be affected by the

proposed Project given that it is located outside of the proposed Project footprint.

Cape Town International Airport Runway Realignment: Social Impact Assessment 4

Airports Company South Africa is currently in the planning phase for the acquisition of additional land

parcels in the area east of the Airport, including land owned by SANRAL and the Republic of South Africa

(RSA) (see Figure 2-1). There is one known land claim on a portion of the undeveloped land (submitted

in December 1998); it includes a portion of the south-east section of the land and extends into Delft

South. The claim has been found compliant by the Regional Land Claims Commission and the claimant

will therefore be entitled to restitution, but the terms of this settlement are not known. Airports Company

South Africa are not the land owners and are not involved in resolving the land claim. This matter will be

addressed by government. Airports Company South Africa is investigating whether there are other claims

in the area and will consider these as part of the Project due diligence.

Figure 2-1 Cape Town International Airport and land ownership

Source: SRK

Cape Town International Airport Runway Realignment: Social Impact Assessment 5

Figure 2-2 Photos of the land east of the existing Airport

Illegal dumping of tyres (left) and building rubble (right).

Views from the eastern portion of the site towards the east (left) and west (right).

Source: SRK, 2014

2.1.2 Cape Town International Airport

The Airport was opened in 1954 and is one of three international airports in South Africa; the other two

are located in Johannesburg (OR Tambo, Gauteng) and Durban (King Shaka, KwaZulu Natal). The

Airport is the second busiest airport in South Africa and the third busiest airport in Africa (after OR Tambo

and Cairo International Airports). It is the only international airport in the Western Cape.

Cape Town is an important business hub and tourism destination. The Airport offers direct flights to

South Africa's other two main urban centres, Johannesburg and Durban, as well as flights to smaller

centres in South Africa. Internationally, it offers direct flights to several destinations in Africa, Asia and

Europe. Many more international destinations can be reached via Johannesburg. The route between

Cape Town and Johannesburg was the world's ninth busiest air route in 2011, with an estimated

4.5 million passengers (Economist, 2012).

Cape Town International Airport Runway Realignment: Social Impact Assessment 6

Approximately 18% of passengers at the Airport are international passengers, while ~82% are domestic

passengers. However, many of the latter are international passengers who reach Cape Town via

Johannesburg. Overall passenger numbers at the Airport nearly doubled between 2000 (4.6 million

passengers) and 2012 (8.5 million passengers). The increase is larger for domestic passengers (93%

increase from 2000 – 2012) than for international passengers (48% increase), probably because an

increasing number of international flights are routed via Johannesburg. International visitors arriving at the

Airport come mainly from the UK, Germany, Netherlands and the USA. Due to the relative isolation of

Cape Town and the long distances within and to South Africa, air travel is the most important mode of

transport for visitors to and from Cape Town. As such, the Airport is crucial in facilitating international and

domestic travel to and from Cape Town.

Figure 2-3 shows that passenger growth increased most between 2001 and 2007, whereafter it declined,

probably as a result of the worsening global economic climate at the time. Passenger numbers increased

after 2009, probably buoyed by the 2010 FIFA World Cup held in South Africa, albeit at a slower rate than

before. Passenger growth over the next 20 years is expected to double between 2012 and 2032 as

shown in Table 2-1 (Mott MacDonald, 2011 in Iliso, 2013).

Figure 2-3 Cape Town International Airport passenger numbers 2000 - 2012

Source: Airports Company South Africa, pers. comm. Sean Bradshaw

Table 2-1 Anticipated passenger growth over 20 years

Year Passengers (million)

2012 8.5

2017 10

2022 13

2027 16

2032 19

Source: Mott MacDonald, 2011 in Iliso, 2013

0

1 000 000

2 000 000

3 000 000

4 000 000

5 000 000

6 000 000

7 000 000

8 000 000

9 000 000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Nu

mb

er

of

pa

sse

ng

ers

Domestic passengers International passengers Total passengers

Cape Town International Airport Runway Realignment: Social Impact Assessment 7

Approximately 8% of imports into the Western Cape, worth ~R8.5 billion, arrived through the Airport in

2010. These included artworks, precision equipment and musical instruments, transport equipment as

well as jewellery and precious metals. Approximately 17% of exports from the Western Cape, worth

~R5.9 billion, left through the Airport. These include animal skins and associated goods, machinery and

electrical equipment, precision equipment, textiles and live animals and animal products (Urban-Econ,

2011).

Airports Company South Africa currently employs 550 permanent staff at the Airport (pers. comm. S.

Bradshaw). Indirect employment is generated by other activities at the Airport, including IT, maintenance

and engineering, security, Airports Company South Africa properties, retail outlets at the terminal, border

control and other government services, general aviation (including private aircraft and services), travel

and tour companies and services (landside stakeholders), commercial airlines (terminal stakeholders) and

general catering, baggage and cargo services (airfield stakeholders). In 2011, some 13,640 people were

indirectly employed in the ancillary activities listed above (Urban-Econ, 2011), with the majority employed

in the retail sector. Turnover was also highest for the retail sector, followed by the property sector and

airport operations proper (Airports Company South Africa) (see Figure 2-4). Aside from airport services,

the Airport therefore also effectively functions as an important economic and employment node in the City

of Cape Town (CoCT).

Figure 2-4 Total turnover and indirect employment of various sectors at the Airport in 2011

Note: M&E – Maintenance and Engineering, BCOCC – border control and other government services

Source: Urban-Econ (2011)

According to Urban-Econ’s macro-economic impact study (2011), it was estimated that the Airport

contributed between 2.1% and 4.5% to the total GGP of Cape Town and between 1.6% and 2.9% of total

Cape Town employment. This is a large contribution for a single entity. Urban-Econ determined that the

Production Employment

Cape Town International Airport Runway Realignment: Social Impact Assessment 8

total impact of spend by visitors arriving via the Airport amounts to over 11% of Cape Town’s total GGP

and 8% of Cape Town’s total employment.

The Airport has been undergoing re-development of its terminal buildings and associated infrastructure

for a number of years. Airports Council International and the SKYTRAX World Airport Awards have both

on numerous occasions recognised Cape Town International Airport as the Best Airport in Africa.

2.2 Project Overview

The current runway system at the Airport comprises two active runways, namely:

· Primary runway – 3 201 m long and 60 m wide; and

· Secondary runway – 1 700 m long and 46 m wide.

The proposed project comprises the re-alignment of the existing primary runway to an “18L/36R“

configuration13. The new runway will be 3,500 m long and approximately 75 m wide and will be built to

international specifications to enable the Airport to receive Code F aircraft such as the A380. The existing

primary runway will no longer be used as a runway but will form part of the integrated taxiway system.

The existing secondary runway will be decommissioned in order to accommodate the new re-aligned

runway (see Figure 2-5).

13 A runway's compass direction is indicated by a number written in a shorthand format. A runway with a marking of "18" is actually close to (if not a direct heading of) 180 degrees. This is a south compass heading. A runway with a marking of "36" has a compass heading of 360 degrees, that is, a north direction. For parallel runways, 'L' and 'R' is added to the runway number.

Cape Town International Airport Runway Realignment: Social Impact Assessment 9

Figure 2-5 Proposed construction of realigned runway and taxiways

The proposed project footprint is approximately 700 ha in extent and incorporates the proposed re-

aligned runway, the associated taxiway system and other areas where fill material (sand) will be sourced

or placed (see Figure 2-1).

The proposed development will entail the construction of two parallel taxiways and Rapid Exit Taxiways to

accommodate increasing air traffic. Parallel 3,500 m long taxiways will be aligned to the west of the

primary runway. Taxiway access to the SANDF apron will be maintained and accommodated within the

new runway and associated taxiway system. The total area occupied by the proposed new taxiway

system will be approximately 34 ha.

In total, the new runway and taxiways will have a footprint of approximately 82.7 ha, almost all located

within the existing airport perimeter fence, though Airports Company South Africa will have to acquire

some land to accommodate the re-alignment. Additional key elements of the project include:

· eight connecting taxiways;

· one aircraft isolated parking position and compass calibration pad;

· one dual lane taxiway;

· bellmouths for future taxiway tie-ins; and

· widening of existing taxiway.

Cape Town International Airport Runway Realignment: Social Impact Assessment 10

Associated infrastructure required as part of the project includes stormwater pipelines and control

systems, internal roads, security facilities. In addition, several services such as Telkom cables, power

cables and fibre optic cables will have to be relocated.

Other areas where fill material will be sourced or placed will increase the disturbance footprint.

Approximately 350 ha will be required for cut operations and 170 ha will be required for fill operations.

Anticipated capital expenditure for the project is R3.2 billion. It is anticipated that construction will be in

6 phases and will take approximately 2 years to complete.

During construction, it is estimated that up to 200 direct, temporary jobs will be created. The majority of

the construction activities, including bulk earthworks are expected to take place during regular working

hours (07h00 to 18h00). However, some activities (e.g. connecting new taxiways, electrical works, air

ground lighting and relocation of some navigational equipment) will affect operations and will therefore

need to take place at night. Night work should not exceed 4 months in total, during this time shifts will

start at 00h00 and end at 06h00.

It is not anticipated that there will be an immediate increase in the number of jobs during the operations

phase given that the proposed project is a re-alignment of the current runway. Gradually over time, as the

passenger numbers increase, so too will the operational employment numbers. At this time, it is not

possible to estimate the potential operational employment opportunities as there are many uncertainties;

for example technological advances, as well as political, social, economic and environmental constraints.

Cape Town International Airport Runway Realignment: Social Impact Assessment 11

3 METHODOLOGY

3.1 Guidelines for Socio-Economic Impact Assessment

This study comprises both a social and an economic component. Guidelines for Social Impact

Assessment were compiled for the Western Cape Department of Environmental Affairs and Development

Planning by Barbour (2007) and comprise the following key activities, as summarised by Barbour (2011):

· describe and obtain an understanding of the proposed intervention (type, scale, location), the

communities likely to be affected and determine the need and scope of the SIA;

· collect baseline data on the current social environment and historical social trends;

· identify and collect data on the social impact assessment variables and social change processes

related to the proposed intervention;

· assess and document the significance of social impacts associated with the proposed intervention;

and

· identify alternatives and mitigation measures.

The guidelines further elaborate that a social study should seek to, amongst others:

· assess the proposed development in terms of its fit with the relevant legislative, policy and planning

requirements;

· identify and assess the factors that contribute to the overall quality of life (social wellbeing) of people

not just their standard of living;

· identify and assess the needs of vulnerable, at risk, groups and/or ethnic minorities or indigenous

peoples;

· clearly identify which individuals, groups, organisations and communities stand to benefit from the

proposed intervention and those that stand to be negatively affected; and

· identify and assess developmental opportunities and not merely the mitigation of negative or

unintended outcomes.

Economic impact assessment identifies and assesses the ways in which the economy in general, or local

economic circumstances in particular, will be affected by a policy, program or project. Guidelines for

economic impact assessment were compiled for the Western Cape Department of Environmental Affairs

and Development Planning by van Zyl et al (2005). The Guidelines define the basic function of an

economic study as determining whether a project or policy will enhance net societal welfare through the

consideration of the efficiency, equity and sustainability of the project. The SIA will assess the

overarching benefits (and possible costs) to the macro and micro-level economies linked to potentially

increased economic opportunities (including those derived from employment, income and increased

production).

This SIA has been undertaken in alignment with these recommended guidelines.

Cape Town International Airport Runway Realignment: Social Impact Assessment 12

3.2 SIA Process

An overview of the SIA process, as it fits broadly into the EIA process, is presented in Figure 3-1. The

SIA is a specialist study that has been identified as relevant to the S&EIR, the parallel EIA activities are

crucial to the SIA process as they inform the scope of the study and communicate the findings to the

relevant stakeholders. Feedback from stakeholders was continuously used to inform the SIA. The

limitations of the process are provided in Section 3.5.

Figure 3-1 SIA Process

3.3 Baseline Description

3.3.1 Data Gathering and Analysis

Literature, internet resources and previous studies relating to the socio-economic environment of the

study area were reviewed to compile a baseline for the affected areas and ensure comprehensive

coverage of relevant issues. Sources included:

· statistical data from Census 2011 and 2001 and the 2007 community survey;

Project Concept

Define P

roje

ct (e

ng

ag

e w

ith D

esig

n P

roce

ss)

Baselin

e D

escription

(seco

nd

ary

da

ta, ke

y info

rma

nt

inte

rvie

ws,

sp

atia

l a

naly

sis

Scoping

Identify relevant AoI and sources of impact

Impact Assessment and Mitigation

Predict consequence of impacts

Evaluate significance of impacts

Identify appropriate mitigation

Consult w

ith P

roje

ct S

takehold

ers

Prepare SIA Report Disclosure to

Stakeholders

Note: SIA EIA

Cape Town International Airport Runway Realignment: Social Impact Assessment 13

· relevant planning and policy frameworks for the area, such as the District Plans of the CoCT Spatial

Development Framework (SDF) and Environmental Management Framework (EMF);

· spatial data analysis produced by the CoCT;

· maps and aerial photographs of the areas surrounding the Airport;

· previous studies undertaken for Airports Company South Africa and relating mostly to economic

aspects of its operations;

· economic publications, such as the Provincial Economic Review and Outlook for the Western Cape;

· academic publication;

· previous studies undertaken for similar projects;

· noise impact assessment;

· air quality impact assessment;

· property valuation study; and

· health impact assessment.

To supplement existing secondary data, meetings were held with a number of key stakeholders:

· Subcouncil Managers representing Subcouncils 3, 4, 5, 6 and 13, during a focus group meeting on 11

June (as part of the Scoping process undertaken by SRK);

· Representatives from Airports Company South Africa; and

· Ad hoc conversations with people living in the areas surrounding the Airport.

Feedback from the stakeholder consultation process was reviewed and incorporated into the SIA.

The eastern portion of the proposed Project site situated between the existing Airport and Sheffield Road

was visited on 13 May 2014 to identify:

· social conditions around the site;

· indications of permanent or temporary human presence on the site;

· land use and / or structures on the site; and

· indications of other activities taking place on the site.

The information was analysed to ascertain the socio-economic conditions and characteristics of the study

area and to inform the identification and assessment of impacts, as well as to determine the suitability of

potential mitigation measures. Analysis involved the integration and comparison of data:

· from different sources for the same area, to derive a holistic picture of socio-economic conditions in

any one area;

· across different timeframes to identify key trends; and

· across different areas within the AoI, to identify differences and commonalities.

Cape Town International Airport Runway Realignment: Social Impact Assessment 14

3.3.2 Spatial Analysis

SRK used Geographic Information System (GIS) software to analyse the extent of the noise-related

impact of the Project based on noise contours provided by the noise specialist (DDA Environmental) and

spatial planning information provided by the City of Cape Town. The analysis identified areas and

provided estimates of the number of people, households, key sensitive community facilities and proposed

housing developments in those areas where predicted noise levels:

· will exceed guideline noise levels for the various scenarios;

· will reduce in Scenario 4 relative to Scenario 2;

· will increase in Scenario 4 relative to Scenario 2;

· will be affected by the implementation of Mitigation Scenario A; and

· will be affected by the implementation of Mitigation Scenario B.

This information was used to inform the baseline description as well as the impact assessment. The

Spatial Analysis Report is included as Annex A.

3.4 Impact Assessment and Mitigation

The potential impacts have been identified drawing on knowledge of the socioeconomic environment, the

proposed project activities, similar case studies (e.g. London’s Heathrow and Durban’s King Shaka

International Airport), and professional judgement. Each of the impacts has been evaluated according to

the impact rating methodology provided by SRK in order to determine their likely significance. Impact

significance is determined by scale, duration, intensity and probability of an impact. This rating is then

qualified with a confidence rating. The methodology used to assess impacts and the proposed mitigation

measures is presented in Section 3.4.1. The Impact Assessment is presented in Chapter 5.

Mitigation measures are proposed that will be implemented to avoid, minimise, reduce or compensate for

any adverse impacts and enhance the positive impacts. Assuming effective implementation of the

mitigation measures, each impact is re-evaluated using the same assessment criteria to determine the

significance of the residual impacts following mitigation.

3.4.1 Impact Assessment Methodology

The assessment of impacts was based on the specialists’ expertise and professional judgement, field

observations and desk-top analysis. The significance of the identified impacts were determined using

SRKs impact rating methodology, in order to assist decision-makers.

The significance of an impact is defined as a combination of the consequence of the impact occurring

and the probability that the impact will occur. The criteria used to determine impact consequence are

presented in Table 3-1 below.

Cape Town International Airport Runway Realignment: Social Impact Assessment 15

Table 3-1 Criteria used to determine the Consequence of the Impact

Rating Definition of Rating Score

A. Extent– the area over which the impact will be experienced

Local Confined to project or study area or part thereof (e.g. airport and surrounding areas) 1

Regional The region, which may be defined in various ways, e.g. the City of Cape Town and Western Cape

Province

2

(Inter) national Beyond the Western Cape Province, South Africa or beyond 3

B. Intensity– the magnitude of the impact in relation to the sensitivity of the receiving environment, taking into account the degree to

which the impact may cause irreplaceable loss of resources

Low Site-specific and wider natural and/or social functions and processes are negligibly altered 1

Medium Site-specific and wider natural and/or social functions and processes continue albeit in a modified

way

2

High Site-specific and wider natural and/or social functions or processes are severely altered 3

C. Duration– the timeframe over which the impact will be experienced and its reversibility

Short-term Up to 2 years 1

Medium-term 2 to 15 years 2

Long-term More than 15 years 3

The combined score of these three criteria corresponds to a Consequence Rating, as follows:

Table 3-2 Method used to determine the Consequence Score

Combined Score (A+B+C) 3 – 4 5 6 7 8 – 9

Consequence rating Very low Low Medium High Very high

Once the consequence was derived, the probability of the impact occurring was considered, using the

probability classifications presented in Table 3-3 below.

Table 3-3 Probability Classification

Probability– the likelihood of the impact occurring

Improbable < 40% chance of occurring

Possible 40% - 70% chance of occurring

Probable > 70% - 90% chance of occurring

Definite > 90% chance of occurring

The overall significance of impacts was determined by considering consequence and probability using

the rating system prescribed in Table 3-4 below.

Cape Town International Airport Runway Realignment: Social Impact Assessment 16

Table 3-4 Impact significance ratings

Probability

Improbable Possible Probable Definite

Co

nse

qu

en

ce

Very Low INSIGNIFICANT INSIGNIFICANT VERY LOW VERY LOW

Low VERY LOW VERY LOW LOW LOW

Medium LOW LOW MEDIUM MEDIUM

High MEDIUM MEDIUM HIGH HIGH

Very High HIGH HIGH VERY HIGH VERY HIGH

Finally the impacts were also considered in terms of their status (positive or negative impact) and the

confidence in the ascribed impact significance rating. The prescribed system for considering impacts

status and confidence (in assessment) is laid out in Table 3-5 below.

Table 3-5 Impact status and confidence classification

Status of Impacts

Indication whether the impact is adverse (negative) or beneficial (positive) + ve (positive – a ‘benefit’)

– ve (negative – a ‘cost’)

Confidence of assessment

The degree of confidence in predictions based on available information, SRK’s

judgment and/or specialist knowledge.

Low

Medium

High

The impact significance rating should be considered by authorities in their decision-making process

based on the implications of ratings ascribed below:

· Insignificant: the potential impact is negligible and will not have an influence on the decision

regarding the proposed activity/development.

· Very Low: the potential impact is very small and should not have any meaningful influence on the

decision regarding the proposed activity/development.

· Low: the potential impact may not have any meaningful influence on the decision regarding the

proposed activity/development.

· Medium: the potential impact should influence the decision regarding the proposed

activity/development.

· High: the potential impact will affect the decision regarding the proposed activity/development.

· Very High: The proposed activity should only be approved under special circumstances.

3.4.2 Mitigation

Key objectives of an SIA are to identify means of avoiding unnecessary impacts on the socio-economic

environment. Thus mitigation measures need to be developed to avoid, minimise, reduce, remedy or

Cape Town International Airport Runway Realignment: Social Impact Assessment 17

compensate for the negative impacts identified, and to create or enhance positive socio-economic

benefits.

Major negative impacts are generally considered to be unacceptable and mitigation is usually required

(e.g. avoid, minimize, reduce or compensate for). The views of stakeholders are taken into account when

assessing impacts and developing mitigation – as is the case with other assessments of ‘acceptable risk’.

For moderate negative impacts, the focus of specific mitigation measures is to reduce these to As Low As

Reasonably Practicable (ALARP). Minor impacts are generally controlled through the adoption of best

practice management measures.

3.5 Limitations and Assumptions

This study is based on a number of assumptions which were made in response to limitations that were

encountered. Limitations and assumptions are listed below.

3.5.1 Data Gathering and Accuracy

· The report is based largely on secondary data gathered during a desktop analysis. Primary field work

(other than a site inspection) or socio-economic surveys were not conducted for this study as the

existing data was deemed sufficient relative to the anticipated scale of impacts.

· This report and the Spatial Analysis undertaken by SRK (2016) depended on the accuracy of the

secondary data, such as Statistics South Africa (StatsSA) Census Data and data provided by the

CoCT. The data was considered sufficient for the purposes of this study.

· Not all of the information gathered during the 2011 Census had been released at the time that this

study was undertaken. Some information presented in this report is thus still based on 2001 Census

data. This is clearly indicated in the respective section and still considered broadly representative.

· The baseline predominantly drew data at the Subcouncil level, while the Spatial Analysis used the

Small Areas census data. The datasets are both derived from StatsSA over the same timeframe.

The baseline and impact assessment were informed by the data from the Spatial Analysis.

· KPMG (2012) note that estimates in their study which informed the economic impact assessment

include assumptions on the behaviour of factors in the macro and micro economy, and the project

itself based on evidence available at the time reporting. Other assumptions may materially change

the outcome of the forecasts.

· Predictions and estimates with respect to future financial and operational performance is subject to

risks and uncertainties and actual performance may differ materially from that quoted in the reports

referred to in this study.

Cape Town International Airport Runway Realignment: Social Impact Assessment 18

· It is assumed that no significant developments or changes in the socio-economic characteristics will

take place in the area of influence between data collation and submission of the report in September

2014.

3.5.2 Socio-Economic Impact Assessment

· Socio-economic impacts are not easily measured objectively and therefore often need to be inferred

rather than measured. A combination of insight into social processes in general and knowledge of the

community under study are important to draw valid inferences.

· Socio-economic impacts are often multifaceted and inter-connected and therefore not easily

disaggregated into separate impacts.

· Human beings are naturally continuously adapting to changes in their environment, including project

impacts. As such these impacts change in significance for those affected over time, as people

become more accustomed to impacts.

· The impacts of air quality and noise on human health are assessed elsewhere and as such have

been excluded from this study.

· The SIA has drawn heavily on the data and assessments presented in the Spatial Analysis (SRK,

2016) and the Noise Impact Assessment (DDA, 2016). There were minor differences in the

approaches taken in the Spatial Analysis and Noise Study (i.e. exact areas considered (all areas

versus only those indicated as inhabited in Census 2011), and different software). As such, the

number of affected people for the different scenarios obtained in these studies differ slightly.

However, they show identical trends and are of essentially similar magnitude thus adding credibility to

the results.

· The analysis of economic impacts relied on the analysis and interpretation of available information

and relevant studies; modelling economic impacts of the project was beyond the scope of this study.

· The socio-economic impact assessment assumes that Airports Company South Africa will implement

the measures that comprise Mitigation Scenario B (Scenario 4 with the implementation of NADP2, a

3.2 degree decent profile and limited use of reverse thrust).

Cape Town International Airport Runway Realignment: Social Impact Assessment 19

4 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT

This Chapter describes the socio-economic characteristics of the potentially affected area. The area of

influence (AoI) is described in Section 4.1and the detailed baseline description is provided in Sections 0

and 4.3.

4.1 Area of Influence

The area potentially affected by the Project is categorised into two, the indirect (macro-level) area of

influence and the indirect (micro-level) area of influence. These are described below.

4.1.1 Indirect (Macro-level) Area of Influence

The macro-level AoI may experience more indirect (predominantly macro) economic impacts

encompasses Cape Town and the Western Cape Province (described in Section 0). This area is

described in less detail with a heavier focus on economic characteristics as well as key economic sectors

that are directly dependent on the Airport and air transportation.

4.1.2 Direct (Micro-level) Area of Influence

The micro-level AoI is most likely to experience more direct socio-economic (predominantly micro-level)

impacts (described in Section 4.3). One of the most significant concerns and potential impact is that of

noise, as such, the 55 dBA noise contours14 have largely been used to determine the micro-level AoI.

The 55 dBA noise contours represent the acceptable day/night average noise levels for urban districts in

terms of the relevant noise guidelines (SANS Code 10103: 2008). This area encompasses the suburbs

located directly adjacent to the Airport and broadly along the existing and proposed future Airport noise

contours. The Scoping Report (SRK, 2016) defined 4 potential scenarios for the assessment of noise,

these are outlined below.

· Scenario 1: Existing operations on Runway 01-19 for 2013 (this represents the existing noise

associated with current airport operations);

· Scenario 2: Operations on Runway 01-19 at maximum capacity (this would represent the maximum

allowed capacity on the existing runway as well as the No Go Alternative);

· Scenario 3: Operations on Runway 18-36 assuming the same air traffic movements (ATM) as for

Scenario 2; and

· Scenario 4: Operations on Runway 18-36 at maximum capacity.

For the purpose of the SIA, Scenarios 2 and 4 have largely been used to determine the AoI. Figure 4-1

illustrates the potential 55 dBA noise contours associated with these 2 scenarios. Given that the socio-

economic impacts will not be limited to the noise contours, these have been used as a guide and the

affected subcouncils have been used to define the direct AoI.

14 Noise contours determined by the Noise Specialist for the purpose of the S&EIA.

Cape Town International Airport Runway Realignment: Social Impact Assessment 20

Figure 4-1 Scenario 2 and Scenario 4 55 dBA Noise Contours and Subcouncils

Source: SRK

Cape Town International Airport Runway Realignment: Social Impact Assessment 21

The subcouncils that are located adjacent to the Airport and along the 55 dBA noise contours for

Scenarios 2 and 4 are presented in Table 4-1 and illustrated in Figure 4-1 with the names of some of the

suburbs surrounding the Airport. The informal settlements located in the broader area surrounding the

Airport are shown in Figure 4-2.

Table 4-1 Subcouncils adjacent to the Airport

Direction Subcouncil Primary Suburbs

North 3 Monte Vista, Panorama, Edgemead Bothasig and surrounds

4 Elsies River, Vasco Estate, Parow and surrounds

6 Belhar, Modderdam, Uitsig, Parow and surrounds

South 9 Khayelitsha (northern areas)

10 Khayelitsha (southern areas, including Monwabisi Park), Mitchells Plain

12 Mitchells Plain

13 Crossroads, Nyanga

14 Nyanga, Gugulethu

23 Mitchells Plain, Ikwezi Park

24 Khayalitsha

21 Blue Downs

East 5 Delft, Delft South and surrounds

West 5 Bishop Lavis, Bonteheuwel, Valhalla Park and surrounds

Cape Town International Airport Runway Realignment: Social Impact Assessment 22

Figure 4-2 Informal settlements in the surrounding areas

Source: SRK

Cape Town International Airport Runway Realignment: Social Impact Assessment 23

4.2 Potentially Indirectly Affected Areas: Western Cape and City of Cape Town

The economy of the Western Cape is diverse as a result of the physical characteristics of the province.

The extensive shoreline contributes to an important fishing industry and there is agricultural diversity as a

result of the varying geographic and climatic zones, ranging from winter rainfall areas suitable for

intensive farming (e.g. citrus and viticulture) to the arid Karoo and Namaqualand that is mostly suitable for

livestock farming (PERO, 2010). The diversity of the Western Cape also contributes to a sizable and

developed tourism sector that attracts visitors from South Africa and internationally.

Although the Western Cape is not recognised as an industrial hub, there are a number of industries that

make significant contributions to the economy of the Western Cape. These include a developed

processing industry which supports the agricultural sector, heavy industries such as metal and chemical

and, to a lesser and declining extent, the clothing and textile industries (PERO, 2010). The economy of

the Western Cape has seen significant growth in the services sector. Many of these sectors require air

transportation (to transport customers/ employees and import/ export their goods) to enable their ongoing

operation and growth.

Cape Town is one of Africa’s most dynamic and developed metropolitan areas. It benefits from its

strategic and spectacular location on the tip of Africa and at the foot of Table Mountain, which was voted

one of the world’s new seven wonders of nature. One of the province’s two deep sea ports as well an

international airport are located in Cape Town, facilitating both domestic and international trade and travel

to or through the City.

4.2.1 GDPR and Structure of the Economy

The economy of the Western Cape has generally outperformed the national economy since 2004 (Table

4-2 lines 4 and 5). The provincial economy has contributed ~13% towards the national Gross Domestic

Product (GDP) since 2004, which is more than proportionate to its relative share of total population

(~11%) (Section 4.2.2). Regional GDP (GDPR) for the Western Cape economy grew at an annual

average rate of 5.7% over the period 2004 – 2008, compared to an average national GDP growth rate of

4.9% for the same period. The Western Cape GDPR contracted in 2009, mirroring a similar development

in the national GDP (Table 4-2), but recovered in 2010.

The CoCT generates more than 70% of the Western Cape’s GDPR, with 64% of the province’s

population, and had a real Gross Geographic Product (GGP) of ~R175 billion in 2009 (at constant 2005

prices) (see Table 4-2). It is the second-largest city economy in South Africa, after the City of

Johannesburg.

Cape Town International Airport Runway Realignment: Social Impact Assessment 24

Table 4-2 Western Cape GDPR and South African GDP 2004 – 2011(R billion at 2005 prices)

# 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

1 GDP SA 1 492 1 571 1 659 1 750 1 815 1 787 1 842 1 906

2 GDPR WC 193 205 217 231 240 237 244 253

3 GGP CoCT 142 151 160 170 177 175 n/a n/a

4 SA annual growth (%) 4.6 5.3 5.6 5.6 3.6 -1.7 3.1 3.5

5 WC annual growth (%) 5.8 6.1 5.9 6.4 4.3 -1.2 3.0 3.6

6 CoCT annual growth (%) n/a 6.3 6.0 6.3 4.1 0 n/a n/a

7 WC vs SA Annual Growth +1.2 +0.8 +0.3 +0.8 +0.7 +0.2 -0.1 +0.1

8 CoCT vs SA Annual Growth n/a +1.0 +0.4 +0.7 +0.5 +1.7 n/a n/a

Source: SARB (2012), PERO (2010), PERO (2012),

Note: WC – Western Cape, SA – South Africa

The Western Cape and the CoCT export many of their goods and services to the rest of South Africa and

abroad. The CoCT has increased the size of the market for its products by targeting international

markets. Between 2005 and 2008 the CoCT increased the value of its exports by 64% across all

commodities. However, the CoCT remains a net importer (CoCT, 2009). As such, economic growth is

closely associated with the economic performance of its trading partners.

The performance of the Western Cape economy was historically driven by the construction and finances

sector. The former has shown lower growth rates in recent years, while growth in services has remained

strong (see Figure 4-3).

Figure 4-3 Western Cape GDPR Indicators 2006 – 2011

Source: PERO (2012)

The tertiary sector plays a more dominant role in the Western Cape economy than in the national

economy, with more than 70% of GDPR created in the services sector. The importance of manufacturing

for the CoCT economy has declined, while that of the services sector has increased. The three sectors

-5

0

5

10Agriculture

Mining

Manufacturing

Utilities

Construction

Trade

Transport

Finance

Community and socialservices

Government services

Average growth 2006-2010 Growth 2010 Growth 2011

Cape Town International Airport Runway Realignment: Social Impact Assessment 25

that contributed the most to the CoCT’s GGP between 2005 and 2009 were finance, insurance, real

estate and business services; manufacturing; and wholesale, retail trade, catering and accommodation.

Although manufacturing and agriculture are important to the local economy, Cape Town is a service-

based metropolitan economy (CoCT, 2009).

4.2.2 Population

The Western Cape has a population of ~5.8 million people, which is 11% of the national population

(Census 2011). More than 3.7 million people live in the Cape Town Metropolitan area, the equivalent of

64% of the provincial population. The population structure of both the Western Cape and the CoCT

broadly mirrors the national population structure; 25% are younger than 15 years; 70% of the population

is of working age (15 – 64 years old); and 5% are over the age of 64 years (Census 2011).

The largest population group in the Western Cape and Cape Town is Coloured, closely followed by Black

Africans and then Whites. Indians comprise a very small proportion of the population (see Figure 4-4).

Figure 4-4 Share of population groups in Cape Town, 2011

Source: Census 2011

The population of both the Western Cape and Cape Town grew by 29% between 2001 and 2011. This is

significantly higher than the 16% increase in the national population; this is largely the result of in-

migration. The Cape Town population increased at a lower rate than the populations of Pretoria (47%)

and Johannesburg (37%), the fastest growing large cities in South Africa (Census 2001 and Census

2011). Approximately 11% of the population currently living in the Province and Cape Town moved here

during the last decade. Approximately one third of migrants came from the Eastern Cape, followed by

people who moved to the area from outside of South Africa (~20%) and Gauteng (~12%). The Black

African population group has grown the fastest over the last decade (see Table 4-3).

39%

42%

1%

16%

2%

Black African

Coloured

Indian or Asian

White

Other

Cape Town International Airport Runway Realignment: Social Impact Assessment 26

Table 4-3 Population groups in the Western Cape and Cape Town

Population group Western Cape CoCT

Population (2011) Growth 2001-11 Population (2011) Growth 2001-11

Black African 1 912 547 58% 1 444 939 58%

Coloured 2 840 404 16% 1 585 286 14%

Indian or Asian 60 761 34% 51 786 25%

White 915 053 10% 585 831 8%

Other* 93 969 - 72 184 -

Total 5 822 734 3 740 026

Source: Census 2011 and Census 2001

Note: * Not a category reported in the 2011 Census

4.2.3 Education and Skills Levels

The education levels of the working age population in the CoCT, where 44% have Grade 12 or higher

education and 1% have no education, are better than the equivalent level in the Western Cape Province

(39% and 2% without education), which in turn are better than the national level (39% with Grade 12 or

higher and 6% without education). Nevertheless, the majority of the working age population at all levels

has lower than a Grade 12 education (see Table 4-4).

Table 4-4 Education of Working Age Population

Education Level % of Working Age Population

South Africa Western Cape CoCT

No education 6% 2% 1%

Grades 0 -8 23% 24% 19%

Grades 9 - 11 31% 32% 33%

Grade 12 27% 26% 28%

Diploma / certificate 8% 8% 10%

Degree 4% 5% 6%

Source: Census 2011

The Western Cape and national government have recently invested in technology and higher education.

The objective of this strategy has been to create the necessary skills required to meet the employment

sector’s demand for qualified and skilled workers (WESGRO, 2011).

4.2.4 Employment Levels and Sources

Of the ~5.8 million people in the Western Cape, ~4 million people (~69%) are of working age (15 –

64 years). Some 2.6 million people (~45%) are in the labour force (employed or actively seeking

employment), which implies a 64% labour force participation rate. Approximately 22% of the provincial

labour force was unemployed in 2011 (Census 2011).

Cape Town International Airport Runway Realignment: Social Impact Assessment 27

Of the ~3.7 million people in the CoCT, ~2.6 million (70%) people are of working age (15 – 64 years).

Some 1.7 million people (46%) are in the labour force, which implies a 65% labour force participation rate.

Approximately 24% of Cape Town’s labour force was unemployed in 2011 (Census 2011).

The provincial unemployment rate grew by an average of 8.1% annually between 2008 and 2010

(significantly higher than the national average of 1.4%), this is largely due to in-migration of unemployed

people seeking work in the Western Cape (the Western Cape has the second highest in-migration rate in

South Africa). However, in the Western Cape, the number of employed people has increased, indicating

that although unemployment is rising, additional jobs are being created (PERO, 2010).

In 2009, the largest sector employer in the Western Cape was the wholesale and retail trade sector

(22%); followed by community, social and personal services (19%); manufacturing (16%); and financial

and other related services (14%).

As indicated in Table 4-4, the working population of the Western Cape has generally low levels of

education, with a resulting skills shortage in the labour market. In 2009, the biggest constraint to business

growth for private businesses in South Africa was the limited availability of a skilled workforce, and 81%

of companies in the Western Cape reported difficulties finding appropriately skilled staff (WESGRO,

2011).

The economy of Cape Town creates more formal employment opportunities for skilled labour than for

unskilled and semi-skilled labour, with a resulting mismatch between the type of labour required and that

available in Cape Town. One of the relative weaknesses of the City’s economy is the lack of informal

economic activity. Even compared to South Africa, which has a small informal sector compared to other

developing countries, the informal economy in Cape Town is small (CoCT, 2009).

4.2.5 Income

Cape Town International Airport Runway Realignment: Social Impact Assessment 28

Table 4-5 shows the distribution of annual household income in South Africa, the Western Cape and the

CoCT. Both the Western Cape and the CoCT have a smaller proportion of households earning a low

income and a larger proportion of households earning higher incomes than at a national level.

Nevertheless, significantly more than half of the households in the Western Cape and the CoCT have a

monthly income of less than ~R6 366. Cape Town is the second richest metropole in South Africa, in

terms of GDP per capita, after the City of Johannesburg (CoCT, 2009).

Cape Town International Airport Runway Realignment: Social Impact Assessment 29

Table 4-5 Annual household income in 2011

Annual Income % of Working Age Population

South Africa Western Cape CoCT

No income 15% 13% 14%

R1–R38 400 48% 36% 33%

R38 401–R76 400 13% 16% 14%

R76 401–R307 600 16% 24% 25%

R307 601– R614 400 5% 7% 9%

R614 401 + 3% 4% 5%

Source: Census 2011

4.2.6 Sectors Dependent on Air Transportation

Due to the relatively marginal location of Cape Town and the long overland travel distances and times, air

travel is the most important mode of transport. This is relevant for leisure and business travellers as well

as the transportation of perishable or high-value goods for import and export.

The majority of visitors to the Western Cape (78%) and the CoCT (81%) are leisure tourists. This is

followed by business (3% Western Cape and 7% CoCT) and family/ friend visits (3% Western Cape and

1.5% CoCT) (Urban-Econ, 2011). Some of the key sectors that rely on air transportation are discussed

below.

4.2.6.1 Tourism

The Western Cape and CoCT are world-renown tourist destinations. The tourism sector thus plays an

important role in the provincial and local economies. Gauteng is the most visited province in South Africa,

with many visitors from southern Africa arriving by road. The Western Cape is more remote and more

easily accessed by air. The province is the second most visited province in South Africa and receives

~17% of all foreign tourists visiting the country (South African Tourism Strategic Research Unit, 2012).

The percentage of bed nights in the Western Cape is significantly higher than the provincial share of

tourists, implying that visitors to the Western Cape spend longer in the province than visitors to other

parts of the country. The Western Cape accounted for approximately one quarter of all bed nights in 2011

(South African Tourism Strategic Research Unit, 2012).

Gauteng and the Western Cape capture most of the tourism revenue in South Africa, together accounting

for over 64% of foreign tourism spending in 2011, a slight decrease relative to 2010 (see Figure 4-5).

Cape Town International Airport Runway Realignment: Social Impact Assessment 30

Figure 4-5 Provincial share of tourism revenue

Source: South African Tourism Strategic Research Unit (2012)

A study undertaken by the CoCT estimated the economic value of tourism in Cape Town at R17.3 billion

in 2009, representing a 6% growth from R16.3 billion in 2008. According to a survey conducted for the

study, the Cape Town tourism industry employed approximately 20 062 permanent and 12 216 temporary

staff in 2009. These figures represent a 13% decrease in the number of permanent workers and a 20%

increase in the number of temporary employees relative to the previous year, likely as a result of the

economic crisis that led employers to favour short-term contracts. As not all businesses active in the

tourism sector are registered, there is considerable uncertainty regarding these employment figures,

which could be twice as high and add an additional R1 to 2 billion to the economic value indicated above

(GAB Consulting, 2010).

4.2.6.2 Business Travel

A significant number of companies in Cape Town conduct business overseas or in other parts of South

Africa or have their headquarters located there. Due to time constraints, air travel is the most important

mode of transport for business purposes. The frequency of flights between Cape Town and

Johannesburg in the morning and evening peak hours is evidence of that.

The film industry in particular is an entire sector that relies on connectivity, as personnel fly in from all

over the world and filming takes place in different locations. The industry has gained significant

importance in Cape Town since the establishment of the Cape Town Film Studios in 2010 and has

attested excellent growth potential. The film sector employs more than 25 000 people nationwide and

contributes some R3.5 billion to GDP (National Film and Video Foundation, 2013).

Cape Town International Airport Runway Realignment: Social Impact Assessment 31

Air travel is also crucial for the execution of parliamentary and government department functions, which

often require officials to travel between Cape Town and Johannesburg.

4.2.6.3 Events

Cape Town hosts a number of events of national and international scale, most at the Cape Town

International Convention Centre (CTICC). The CTICC has raised the profile of Cape Town as a sought

after international leisure and business tourism destination. The centre contributed R2.55 billion to

national GDP and R902 million to the Western Cape GDPR in 2011/ 2012. It has generated more than

3,100 direct jobs in the Western Cape and nearly 4,000 additional indirect jobs across the country.

The CTICC aims to be the number one long-haul conference destination in the world, which makes it

highly dependent on convenient air travel and connectivity. In 2012, 34% of visitors were from other

countries (CTICC, 2012).

4.2.6.4 Exports and Imports

As indicated in Section 2.1.2, a significant portion of local imports and exports are routed through the

Airport. Industries that are most reliant on air transportation include those trading in perishables (such as

flowers, fruit and animal products) and valuables.

4.3 Potentially Directly Affected Areas

4.3.1 Administrative Framework

Cape Town is divided into eight planning districts. The Airport falls within the Tygerberg district and lies

adjacent to the Cape Flats and Mitchells Plain / Khayelitsha districts (see Figure 4-6).

Cape Town is further divided into 24 subcouncils, which are specialised decentralised municipal

structures intended to allow residents more involvement in local government. The Airport falls within

Subcouncil 5 and lies adjacent to Subcouncils 4 and 6 to the north, 14 to the west, and 9 and 13 to the

south (see Figure 4-1). Subcouncils are further divided into wards, the smallest administrative unit. Cape

Town is divided into a total of 111 wards. Wards are represented by ward councillors elected by

registered voters in the community. The ward councillor is advised by the ward committee.

Cape Town International Airport Runway Realignment: Social Impact Assessment 32

Figure 4-6 Cape Town Planning Districts

4.3.2 Overview of Affected Subcouncils

The Airport falls within Subcouncil 5 and lies adjacent to Subcouncil 6 to the north, 14 to the west, and 9

and 13 to the south. In addition, Subcouncils 3, 4, 10, 12, 21, 23 and 24 also lie within the Airports AoI.

These subcouncils are indicated in Table 4-1 and illustrated in Figure 4-1.

The Airport is located in an area commonly referred to as the Cape Flats. People living in these areas

have been historically marginalised by apartheid legislation, based on race. The majority of areas

surrounding the Airport are still highly marginalised due to poor socio-economic conditions, with relatively

low levels of income and education. Vast high-density, low-cost (affordable) housing settlements and

townships, as well as overcrowded informal settlements, are common in this area, which is further

characterised by inadequate community facilities and a lack of equipped and managed parks and

recreation areas (CoCT, 2011).

CTIA

Cape Town International Airport Runway Realignment: Social Impact Assessment 33

Many of the suburbs located adjacent to the Airport reflect high levels of social and environmental

vulnerability associated with living in low income settlements in urban areas in South Africa. Housing is

typically of poor quality with little space, and residents are exposed to higher levels of environmental risk.

The majority of people living in such areas can be considered socially, economically and environmentally

vulnerable (Oelofse, 1999, in Lewis et al, 2007).

Alien vegetation, illegal dumping and vacant/ under-utilised land are also prevalent, as are industrial

areas. Business parks and industrial areas in the vicinity of the Airport include (see Error! Reference s

ource not found.) Modderdam Industria, Parow Industria and Sack’s Circle to the north; Boquinar

(Airport) Industria to the west; and Philippi Industria to the south.

The overview of the affected areas provided below is based on subcouncil profiles compiled by the CoCT.

More detail on socio-economic indicators for the AoI is provided in Sections 4.3.4 to 4.3.6.

4.3.2.1 Areas North of the Airport

The potentially affected subcouncils north of the Airport include Subcouncils 3, 4 and 6. The Subcouncils

located north of the Airport are generally more affluent than those located south, west and east of the

Airport.

Subcouncil 3 is the most affluent of these subcouncils, encompassing the Tygerberg Hills and suburbs

including Plattekloof Glen, Kaapzicht, Monte Vista, and Bothasig (see Figure 4-7). These suburbs are

predominantly White with comparatively higher levels of education, employment, income and quality of

life than the other Project affected subcouncils. These areas enjoy breathtaking views over the Cape

Flats. Tourism has been on the rise, with a number of tourist attractions, including wine farms, nature

reserves, retail shopping, and many accommodation facilities. Key challenges in Subcouncil 3 include a

generally aging population, and significant pressure on the existing infrastructure due to the pace and

extent of new developments.

Subcouncil 4 extends from Goodwood and surrounds up to Parow/ Ravensmead, including Parow (see

Figure 4-8). The area is comprised largely of underprivileged Coloured communities who occupy Council

rental stock in Parow, Ravensmead, Uitsig and the greater Elsies River area. The subcouncil strives to

support people through continuous improvements to parks, housing, and solid waste management.

Belhar and Modderdam are the main suburbs located adjacent to the Airport in Subcouncil 6, situated

north of the Airport (Figure 4-9). The population of these suburbs is almost entirely Coloured. Although

these suburbs are more affluent, have more amenities and a higher quality environment than many of

those located in neigbouring subcouncils (to the south), poverty, unemployment and various other socio-

economic challenges are widespread. The Subcouncil is focussing on providing much needed

infrastructure in the area, such as upgraded roads and sidewalks, play parks and street-lighting, and to

alleviate extreme poverty with social support measures such as council-funded soup kitchens.

Cape Town International Airport Runway Realignment: Social Impact Assessment 34

Figure 4-7 Subcouncil 3: Monte Vista (top) and Bothasig (bottom)

Cape Town International Airport Runway Realignment: Social Impact Assessment 35

Figure 4-8 Subcouncil 4: Street in Connaught (top) and Council rental flats in Uitsig (bottom)

Figure 4-9 Subcouncil 6: Street in Belhar near the Airport

These subcouncils have a number of local businesses, including numerous multi-national companies

(specifically in Subcouncil 3). There is a large mixed population of skilled and unskilled workers who fulfil

the employment criteria of many of the businesses. Public transport keeps these areas connected and

enables relatively easy access to places of work.

Cape Town International Airport Runway Realignment: Social Impact Assessment 36

These subcouncils aim to support community upliftment through initiatives supporting the poor and

community projects executed in cooperation with other CoCT departments responsible for parks, solid

waste and housing. Several residential units and clinics have been upgraded in the area. Upcoming

projects include the upgrading of residential units in Eureka and Connaught Estates, launching the

Quality Open Space Legacy Project in Goodwood, constructing an Early Childhood Development Centre

in Leonsdale and combining area cleaning projects with job creation.

4.3.2.2 Areas West and East of the Airport

The subcouncils located west and east of the Airport include Subcouncils 5, 14 and 21. The suburbs in

these subcouncils were established during the apartheid era to accommodate people who were forcibly

relocated in accordance with Apartheid legislation. Underdeveloped infrastructure, poor housing and a

general lack of amenities and recreational opportunities are a feature of these areas.

Subcouncil 5 incorporates the Airport (see Figure 4-1). Suburbs located adjacent to the Airport in

Subcouncil 5 include Delft, Bishop Lavis, Bonteheuwel and Valhalla Park (see Figure 4-10). Many areas

of Delft are newly established and consist of extensive low-cost houses in a largely uniform environment.

Other suburbs have been in existence for a longer period of time and are therefore more established. The

population in suburbs east of the Airport (e.g. Delft and surroundings) is equally and almost entirely

comprised of Coloured and Black African population groups. The population in suburbs west of the Airport

are almost entirely comprised of Coloured people. Priority projects under consideration by the Subcouncil

include projects to minimise the wasteful use of potable water, improve service delivery and combat

waste, illegal dumping and littering.

Nyanga and Gugulethu, including KTC and Barcelona informal settlements, are the main suburbs located

adjacent to the Airport in Subcouncil 14, west of the Airport (see Figure 4-11). The population is almost

entirely comprised of Black Africans. These areas are amongst the oldest townships for Black African

residents in Cape Town, established in the early 1950s when Black migrants were forced to settle on the

outskirts of cities. Today, these areas are some of the poorest and most disadvantaged in Cape Town,

with high rates of unemployment and HIV/AIDS. Approximately half of all dwellings in the area are

informal.

Subcouncil 21 is a fast-growing area east of the Airport that is a popular tourist destination with well-

known wine routes. The area has a racially and culturally diverse population, incorporating lower- and

middle-income groups.

Several informal settlements are located in the area (see Figure 4-2), including Freedom Farm (near the

Airport, consisting of 55015 dwellings), Malawi Camp, Sevende Laan (Valhalla Park), Agtste Laan

(Valhalla Park), Blikkiesdorp, Tsunami Temporary Relocation Area (TRA), and Delft TRA 5. Freedom

Farm is located on property owned by Airports Company South Africa and in the direct line of aircraft

flight paths. Airports Company South Africa has been in discussions with the CoCT since 2010 regarding

15 This settlement originally consisted of 900 dwelling, of which 350 have already been relocated by the CoCT.

Cape Town International Airport Runway Realignment: Social Impact Assessment 37

the relocation of families from Freedom Farm, Malawi Camp and Blikkiesdorp; these settlements will be

relocated due to safety concerns, irrespective of whether the runway is re-aligned or not. As such, the

need for the resettlement of Freedom Farm, Malawi Camp and Blikkiesdorp are excluded from the scope

of this study.

There are numerous social development programmes such as early learning centres, food gardening

projects, senior citizen programmes, and youth and women development programmes.

Figure 4-10 Subcouncil 5: Streets in Delft (top) and Bonteheuwel (bottom)

Cape Town International Airport Runway Realignment: Social Impact Assessment 38

Figure 4-11 Subcouncil 14: Streets in KTC (top) and Gugulethu (bottom)

4.3.2.3 Areas South of the Airport

The subcouncils south of the Airport include Subcouncils 9, 10, 12, 13, 23 and 24. These subcouncils

incorporate some of the most impoverished suburbs on the Cape Flats. As a result of the previous

Apartheid laws, the Subcouncils south of the Airport remain predominantly African and Coloured; there

are no White people living in these Subcouncils.

Subcouncil 9 is still dominated by informal settlements and a Black African population. The suburbs of

Tembani and Ikwezi Park (sub-divisions of Khayelitsha) are the two suburbs that are located adjacent to

the Airport in Subcouncil 9 (see Figure 4-12). The Subcouncil's boundaries are newly established, having

been drawn up in the 2011 Local Government Elections although the area has been in existence for over

30 years; people from Gugulethu, Nyanga, Langa and migrants from outside the province were

temporarily placed in these areas in the early 1980s. Subcouncil 9 and a number of others form part of

the Presidential Urban Renewal Programme (URP)16 on account of its legacy of deprivation. This

programme, which is implemented and monitored by the City’s Urban Renewal Department, includes

investment in economic and social infrastructure to alleviate the extreme levels of poverty suffered by

residents of selected areas.

16 The Urban Renewal Programme (URP) is part of a national urban renewal strategy announced by former President Thabo Mbeki in his State of the Nation address in February 2001. The URP includes investment in economic and social infrastructure, human resource development, enterprise development, the enhancement of the development capacity of local government, poverty alleviation and the strengthening of the criminal justice system.

Cape Town International Airport Runway Realignment: Social Impact Assessment 39

Subcouncils 10 and 24 accommodate the large settlement of Khayelitsha, including the sub-divisions of

Harare, Monwabisi Park, Village 1 North, and Village 1 South (see Figure 4-13). The population in the

settlement is poor to middle class and almost entirely African Black. The area has seen massive

infrastructural development as a result of recent socio-economic rejuvenation through the URP; however

it remains impoverished and lacking in some of the most basic infrastructure. The housing units are RDP

houses, bond houses and informal dwellings. The City provides the informal houses with electricity, water

and sanitation.

Subcouncils 12 and 23 form Mitchells Plain, comprising of a number of subsections, including Beacon

Valley, Mitchells Plain CBD, Portland, Rocklands, Eastridge, Tafelsig, Lentegeur, Ikwezi Park, New

Woodlands, and Philippi Park (see Figure 4-15). Built during the 1970s, Mitchells Plain provided housing

for the coloured victims of forced removals, and became home to many families relocated from District

Six. Today it is home to over 1 million residents. Mitchells Plain also forms part of the URP.

Crossroads is located adjacent to the Airport in Subcouncil 13 (see Figure 4-14). The population is

almost entirely comprised of Black Africans. Most people in this area live in informal structures, backyard

shacks and council housing. Many of the residents have migrated to Cape Town from other provinces in

search of better employment opportunities. The area has a lively informal economy that includes informal

trading, shoe-making and repairing, hair salons, meat markets, spaza shops and other small-scale

enterprises. Projects implemented by the subcouncil focus on improvements of the poor socio-economic

conditions and include upgrading play parks, youth empowerment and leadership skills programmes,

health programmes for informal meat traders and furnishing early childhood community centres.

Figure 4-12 Subcouncil 9: Khayelitsha’s Tembani (top) and Ikwezi Park (bottom)

Cape Town International Airport Runway Realignment: Social Impact Assessment 40

Figure 4-13 Subcouncil 10: Village 1 North (top) and Monwabisi Park (bottom)

Figure 4-14 Subcouncil 13: Informal housing in Crossroads

Cape Town International Airport Runway Realignment: Social Impact Assessment 41

Figure 4-15 Subcouncils 12 and 23: Beacon Valley (top) and Lentegeur (bottom)

4.3.3 Population and Housing

The total population in the subcouncils surrounding the Airport was approximately 2 million people (over

500,000 households) in 2011. Between 2001 and 2011, the population increased by over 25%, this was

below the rate of population increase for the city (30%). The highest population increase was experienced

in the high-density suburbs south, west and east of the Airport, specifically in Subcouncil 24 (~70%) and

Subcouncil 5 (65%). In other subcouncils, the growth rate varied from -5% in Subcouncil 9 to 59% in

Subcouncil 21. Many of the suburbs surrounding the Airport were established by the Apartheid

government to accommodate the African and Coloured populations that were forcibly removed. Following

this, these areas continued to grow in a relatively informal manner. Informal houses increased and

continue to do so today. While the current government is focused on addressing the growing housing

challenge, the demand also continues to grow.

Cape Town has experienced significant in-migration over the last decade, with most people arriving from

the Eastern Cape. Many of them have settled in traditionally Black African townships surrounding the

Airport, including Gugulethu, Nyanga and Delft.

Cape Town International Airport Runway Realignment: Social Impact Assessment 42

Overall there is significant and mounting pressure on existing facilities and a high demand for additional

housing. Both informal and formal housing areas have expanded and/ or increased in density over the

last decade (see Figure 4-16 and Figure 4-17). Nearly a third of people in these areas live in inadequate

informal housing that fails to meet their most basic constitutional needs; this increases to over 70% in

parts of Khayalitsha and Gugulethu. These areas include KTC and Barcelona informal settlements where

the population increased by a third over the last decade. Figure 4-2 shows the extent of informal

settlements in the areas surrounding the Airport and beyond; this demonstrates the magnitude of the

extent of the need for formal housing.

Figure 4-16 Densification in KTC informal settlement near Gugulethu

Source: Google Earth, 2014

Image dated 8 January 2002

Image dated 5 October 2012

Cape Town International Airport Runway Realignment: Social Impact Assessment 43

Figure 4-17 Expansion of formal settlement in Delft South

Source: Google Earth, 2014

More than half of households in the northern and western suburbs own the house they live in (or are in

the process of paying them off), while most of the remaining households rent their accommodation. The

level of house ownership is high in the formal sections of Gugulethu and Nyanga (at over 60% in some

wards) and 55% in parts of Khayelitsha, but it drops to below 50% for the remaining areas east and south

of the Airport. The ownership level is lowest in parts of Subcouncil 14 (18%) and Subcouncil 5 (23%),

where large informal settlements are located. Between 10% and 53% of households in the eastern and

southern suburbs occupy their dwellings rent-free and can possibly not afford to pay rent.

Population density, based on 2008 population estimates17, is medium (21 - 50 people per ha) in parts of

Belhar and high (51 - 100 people per ha) to very high (101 - 700 people per ha) in all other suburbs

17 The 2008 population size was estimated on the basis of the 2001 census population, the number of new formal

dwellings by December 2008, the average household size, the change in the number of informal dwellings by June 2008

and the increase in backyard dwellings by 2007.

Image dated 5 October 2012

Image dated 5 December 2002

Cape Town International Airport Runway Realignment: Social Impact Assessment 44

immediately surrounding the Airport and in the subcouncils to the south (see Figure 4-18). The highest-

density areas are located to the south, particularly Crossroads, sections of Nyanga and Khayelitsha, and

to the east in Delft.

Figure 4-18 Estimated population density in 2008

Source: pers. comm. Janet Gie (2013)

Population density has increased due to the extent of informal settlements located in the immediate

vicinity of the Airport along the N2, south of the Airport as well as north of the Airport on the intersection of

Modderdam Road and Stellenbosch Arterial (i.e. Freedom Farm). Other informal settlements near the

Airport are located in Nyanga, Browns Farm, Kuils River and Blue Downs. The CoCT states that “the

urban fabric of the area is characterised by illegal land-uses, a prevalence of backyard shacks and a

substantial portion of the local authority’s rental housing stock. These 3-4 storey rental walk-up flats are

generally badly maintained, lack appropriate open spaces and contribute significantly to the poor quality

of the built environment in the area” (CoCT, 2011).

In the areas north of the Airport, Subcouncils 4 and 6 are far more densely populated than Subcouncil 3

(see Figure 4-18). Subcouncil 4 has a lot of council rental stock with an associated high population

Cape Town International Airport Runway Realignment: Social Impact Assessment 45

density of between 51 and 700 persons per hectare, Subcouncil 6 has densities ranging between 11 and

700, and Subcouncil 3 ranges between 0 and 50 persons per hectare.

4.3.3.1 Proposed Housing Developments

The CoCT has declared housing a key strategy for redressing poverty, creating employment, encouraging

saving and improving socio-economic conditions for disadvantaged sectors of the population. One of the

key goals of the CoCT is to accelerate housing delivery and promote urban renewal. The Integrated

Human Settlements: Five-year Strategic Plan (2012) provides for the development of 4,500 new houses

(in the form of rentals, ownership and/or a serviced site) per year to address the housing backlog. Due to

the steadily increasing population and the impact of rural-urban migration, it is unlikely that the housing

backlog will be erased in the foreseeable future (CoCT, 2012).

A number of potential housing programmes are outlined in the Integrated Human Settlements: Five-year

Strategic Plan in the potentially affected subcouncils (see Table 4-6). While these are merely proposed

and may be adjusted, it does give an indication of the CoCT’s intention for housing delivery. This will lead

to a larger pool of formal housing in the area and likely further densification linked to the construction of

further illegal backyard dwellings. Figure 4-19 shows the locations of proposed housing developments in

the larger area surrounding the Airport. It is unlikely that all these housing projects will materialise within

the proposed five-year timeframe, if at all.

Airports Company South Africa have purchased a large property (Swartklip site) located in Ward 10 which

was previously owned by Denel. Denel planned to sell the land to the Housing Development Agency to

develop ~6,000 housing units. The proposed intention for the Swartklip site by Airports Company South

Africa is an integrated mixed use development (more appropriate for a high noise zone) incorporating a

residential and recreational precinct, a conservation area, industrial retail and commercial zones, a

transport node and an educational precinct; however, this remains a conceptual plan that has yet to be

refined, finalised and approved.

Table 4-6 Potential new and rental housing projects in potentially affected subcouncils

Direction Subcouncil Suburbs

North 3 Bothasig Phase 2 (100 units), Harmony Village (inst) (Westcape) (268 units)

4 Leonsdale gap – Jan van Riebeeck Drive (16,8 ha), Adriaanse new Community Residential

Unit (150 units), Eureka BNG (250 units), Valhalla Park infill (777 units), E-Junction Phase 2

(282 units), Elsies River Housing Project (2,070 units)

6 Belhar vacant school sites (14.2 ha),Bellville central business district (CBD) – taxi rank/station

(2,9 ha), Belhar Pentech infill (340 units), Belhar Phase 1 (300 units),

Belhar Phase 2 (316 units)

West and East 5 Bonteheuwel infill (5.5 ha), Nyanga Upgrade (2070 units), Delft The Hague (2 407 units),

Adriaanse new Community Residential Unit (150 units), Eureka new housing development

(250 units), Leonsdale Gap – Jan van Riebeeck Drive Elsies River (16.8 ha), E-junction

Phase 2 social rental housing project (282 units)

Cape Town International Airport Runway Realignment: Social Impact Assessment 46

Direction Subcouncil Suburbs

21 Kalkfontein (30,9 ha), Mfuleni hostels (17 ha), Nooiensfontein (75,5 ha), Penhill (279 ha),

Sarepta (gap 1,8 ha), Driftsands (2 500 units), Kleinvlei erf 901 (66 units), Bardale Phase 4

and upgrade Phase 1 (3 112 units), Happy Valley Phase 2 (1 350 units), Mfuleni flood relief

consolidation (4 461 units), Upgrade of informal Settlements Programme: Los Angelos/

Greenpark (2 500 units)

South 9 Site C: Survey & subdivision (6 265 units)

10 Harare infill housing project (size unknown), Mitchells Plain Infill: Beacon Valley (9.3 ha),

Green Point Phase (3 500 units), Nonkqubela Site B: consolidation (430 units), Silvertown

consolidation (1 316 units), Ilita Park Infill (182 units), Khayalitsha Erf 400/1 (152 units),

Khayalitsha Erf 618 (108 units), 18370-0-3 (Good Hope) (1 392 units)

12 Kapteinsklip Mitchells Plain (17.3 ha)

13 Philippi East phase 5 (405 units)

14 Hostels redevelopment – Nyanga community residential units (11.6 ha), Gugulethu infill (erf

8448/ Mau-Mau) (1 071 units), Hostels redevelopment – Ilinge Labahlali (324 units), Nyanga

upgrade (2 070 units)

23 Westgate infill development Mitchells Plain (13.2 ha), Philippi Park (1 100 units)

24 Urbanisation Pilot Project: Monwabisi Park (6 400 units)

Source: CoCT (2012, 2013, 2014)

Figure 4-19 Location of proposed housing developments in areas surrounding the Airport

Source: CoCT (2012)

Cape Town International Airport Runway Realignment: Social Impact Assessment 47

4.3.4 Socio-economic Status

The socio-economic status of suburbs surrounding the Airport is generally poor, as indicated in Figure

4-20. The Socio-Economic Status Index (SES) was calculated based on Census 2001 data as a

combination of four indicators:

· % of households earning less than R19 200 per annum;

· % of adults (20+ years) with highest educational level less than matric;

· % of the economically active population that was unemployed; and

· % of the labour force employed in elementary/unskilled occupations.

A poor index rating thus suggests that education, skill and employment levels in the area are very low.

This often corresponds with high incidences of crime, gang activity, drug and alcohol abuse and

unemployment, with associated pressures to provide better education, training and employment

opportunities for the population in that area.

Figure 4-20 Socio-economic status index

Source: pers. comm. Janet Gie (2013), based on Census 2001 data

Note: The index is not applied to certain protected areas and the Airport, suggesting these areas are not earmarked for habitation.

Cape Town International Airport Runway Realignment: Social Impact Assessment 48

To the north of the Airport, Subcouncil 3 is far ‘better off’ than Subcouncils 4 and 6. The majority of the

population living in Subcouncils 4 and 6 falls below average socio-economic status (see Figure 4-20). In

general the areas further from the Airport are better off than those located in closer proximity to it. Many

suburbs in Subcouncils 4 and 6 are underprivileged.

The areas south of the Airport are poor and have a generally low socio-economic status. The socio-

economic status index reflects that the suburbs located in these areas are classified as ‘worse-off’ (37.14

to 79.07). Service levels in Khayelitsha are generally lower than those of Mitchells Plain.

Immediately adjacent to the Airport, Belhar has an index between 13.86 and 24.07, which equates to the

second best-off category on the index scale and is comparable to other middle-class suburbs in Cape

Town. As such, Belhar is better off than most other suburbs in the immediate vicinity of the Airport. Delft,

Gugulethu and Bishop Lavis fall within the second-worst off index category (37.14 - 54.51) and Delft

South, Nyanga, Crossroads and Khayalitsha fall within the worst off socio-economic status category as

defined by the CoCT.

In the Subcouncils north of the Airport, ~55% of the population aged 20 years and older completed Grade

12 or higher. There is, however, a large disparity across the area as only 34% of the population aged 20

years and older attained Grade 12 education or higher in the subcouncils south of the Airport. The higher

levels of education are evident in Subcouncil 3 furthest from the Airport, which are dominated by a White

population. A similar pattern is seen in terms of income; the predominantly White areas further from the

Airport earn higher incomes.

The unemployment rate in suburbs surrounding the Airport varied between 20% and 30% in the suburbs

to the north and west and between 35% and 50% in the areas to the east and south. These latter areas

also have the lowest income levels – more than 75% of households in most of those areas have a

monthly income of less than R3,200, compared to less than half of the population in the areas north of the

Airport. Education levels are generally low, with less than 35% of the population completing Grade 12 in

most areas.

These indicators confirm the generally poor socio-economic conditions in the area, with the worst affected

areas located to the south and east of the Airport, and indicate that many of these problems are structural

in nature as little has changed over the last 10 years.

4.3.5 Community Facilities and Services

Areas north of the Airport are better equipped with community facilities and services than areas to the

south. Many of the suburbs around the Airport fall within the worst service level index category (see

Figure 4-21). The service level index is determined by the CoCT based on Census 2001 data as a

combination of the following indicators:

· % Household living in informal dwellings;

· % Households with no access to electricity for lighting;

Cape Town International Airport Runway Realignment: Social Impact Assessment 49

· % Households with no flush or chemical toilets;

· % Households with no potable water on the site or in the dwelling; and

· % Households with no refuse removal by local authorities weekly or less.

Areas indicated in blue in Figure 4-21 had service levels that were considerably below average in 2001.

A lack of services equates to increased risks to health and safety of residents as well as a lack of

educational and economic opportunities, further compounding the problems of poverty.

Figure 4-21 Service level index

Source: CoCT (2006)

Census 2011 reflects improved levels of service provision in most areas, specifically in the subcouncils

north, west and east of the Airport. In particular, the majority of households have electricity and refuse

collection. Due to continuing population growth in the area and the ongoing socio-economic challenges in

many suburbs surrounding the Airport, there are very few areas where service provision is 100%.

According to Census 2011, the subcouncils south of the Airport still demonstrate lower service levels than

those north of the Airport. In particular, there are wards where up to 70% of the population do not have

access to water and sanitation services in their homes, specifically in Gugulethu, parts of Khayalitsha,

Crossroads and Nyanga. While refuse removal is generally good, there are parts of Khayalitsha where

20% of the population do not have their refuse removed.

Cape Town International Airport Runway Realignment: Social Impact Assessment 50

Electricity is used by the majority of people for lighting, cooking and heating; other common fuel sources

are paraffin and gas. Wood is used by less than 1% of the population with the exceptions being in

Ravensmead, Uitsig, Airport City, Bishop Lavis, and Valhalla Park immediately north of the Airport where

~3% of the population use wood for heating.

The main public service facilities that are available in nearby suburbs include basic facilities such as

schools, libraries, clinics, health centres, police stations and sport facilities. There is a general lack of

recreational opportunities and a poorly maintained and underutilised public open space network in this

area. Higher-order facilities such as hospitals, tertiary education institution and stadiums as well as

municipal offices are located further away from the Airport.

4.3.6 Infrastructure

The Airport and surrounds are serviced by a number of freeways (N2, N1 N7 and R300) and

expressways (Stellenbosch Arterial and Modderdam Road). Railway lines connect the suburbs to the

north, west and south of the Airport with the centre of Cape Town (see Figure 4-22). Delft is not served

by rail and has poor access to the public transport network. As a result, Delft is isolated and has poor

metropolitan connectivity (CoCT, 2011).

Cape Town International Airport Runway Realignment: Social Impact Assessment 51

Figure 4-22 Major road and rail networks surrounding the Airport

Source: SRK

Cape Town International Airport Runway Realignment: Social Impact Assessment 52

5 IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND PROPOSED MITIGATION

The focus of the impact assessment is on the impacts that the Project will have on the socio-economic

environment as described in the baseline chapter (Chapter 4) and on ways in which the negative impacts

can be mitigated and the positive impacts enhanced. Each impact has been assessed using SRKs

impact rating methodology for both the construction and operation phases of the Project. The

significance of an impact is defined as a combination of the consequence (extent, intensity and

duration) of the impact occurring and the probability that the impact will occur.

5.1 Potential Impacts Identified for the Project

The potential socio-economic impacts of a project are linked to the project footprint and outputs, both

during construction and operation, and the sensitivity of the receiving environment. As a result of the

proposed Project activities and the nature of the surrounding socio-economic environment, the following

impacts have been identified and will be described and assessed for both the construction and operation

phases of the Project in Sections 5.3.1 to 5.3.8.

Box 5-1 Socio-economic Impacts

· Loss of access to resources on the land that will be incorporated into the Airport.

· Increased noise levels in some areas that are currently and newly affected by noise extending from the

Airport, affecting quality of life.

· Reduced noise levels in some areas that are currently affected by noise extending from the Airport, improving

quality of life.

· Impact on future residential developments in the CoCT, due to the realignment and expansion of noise

contours extending from the Airport.

· Impact on property prices as a result of increased noise levels.

· Increased revenue to government.

· Generation of employment, income and skills training.

· Increased investment in and stimulation of the Western Cape economy.

Impacts resulting from decreased air quality on the health and quality of life on suburbs surrounding the

airport were comprehensively assessed in the Air Quality Impact Assessment (DDA, 2014). The Air

Quality specialist concluded that the impacts on health would be of low to very low significance and that

there would be some nuisance effects from the settling of dust in some areas immediately adjacent to the

site during construction. In a separate Health Study undertaken by EOH (2016)18, the findings were

similar. The study concluded that the health impacts linked to air quality would be insignificant given the

minor increase in pollutants from Scenario 2 to Scenario 4; all emissions were below WHO defined limits.

Mitigation measures have been proposed to further reduce this impact. As such these impacts have not

been further discussed in this SIA. The impacts on health are further assessed in the EIA Report.

18 The full Health Impact Assessment Report is presented as an Appendix to the EIR.

Cape Town International Airport Runway Realignment: Social Impact Assessment 53

5.2 Insignificant Impacts

There are a number of typical socio-economic impacts that are related to the influx of job seekers often

experienced on large-scale projects. However, the proposed Project is taking place at an operational

airport that is located within an established and populated area. The skills required for the operational

phase work will largely be specialised, there will be some construction phase employment for general

workers. There are numerous industrial areas surrounding the Airport that would already have attracted

people to the area and the neighbouring residential suburbs have high-levels of unemployment; thus

competition for any available jobs would be high. The chance of an influx of job-seekers, and associated

impacts described below, is unlikely given the relatively limited employment opportunities, and the

existing competition for work. As such, impacts that are deemed to be insignificant are outlined below.

· Additional pressure on infrastructure and services: Given that an influx of job-seekers is not

expected, there will not be any additional pressure on infrastructure and services in the surrounding

suburbs. Any traffic related impacts are discussed in the Traffic Impact Assessment. All infrastructure

upgrades and services that will be required during the operations phase of the Project will be

upgraded during construction to accommodate the proposed Project. The baseline reflects that in

general the infrastructure and services in the surrounding areas has improved, however, there are still

areas of need; these areas will not be further affected by the Project (positively or negatively).

· Alteration of social fabric and tension in surrounding areas: Typically, significant influx of job

seekers results in tensions and alterations to the social fabric and dynamics in an area, but this is not

anticipated in this case. Such tensions are also worse when the host community is fairly

homogenous; in the surrounding areas, the areas are already diverse and exposed to outside

influences and dynamics. The Project will require few additional employees during the construction

and operation phases and these are expected to return to their own homes after hours.

5.3 Socio-economic Impacts, Assessment and Mitigation

5.3.1 Loss of Access to Resources

As described in Section 2.1.1, there is a derelict portion of undeveloped land (~400 ha) located east of the

Airport. Portions of this land are currently owned by Airports Company South Africa, SANRAL, CoCT and

the Republic of South Africa (RSA). Airports Company South Africa is in the process of acquiring some of

this land from SANRAL and RSA to accommodate the proposed Project footprint.

The land within the Project footprint is overgrown by dense bush consisting mainly of invasive alien

vegetation. The area is used for a number of informal/ illegal activities, including dumping (e.g. tyres,

windscreens, building rubble and a range of other waste), collection of firewood, opportunistic grazing,

and possibly initiation ceremonies. There have been reports of criminal activities taking place on this site.

During construction, the land to the east of the existing Airport boundary would be cleared of vegetation to

allow for borrowing of fill material to be used in the construction of the new runway and taxiways. The

area will be fenced and will no longer be accessible to members of the public.

Cape Town International Airport Runway Realignment: Social Impact Assessment 54

While there are a range of activities taking place on the site, the collection of firewood appears to be the

most dominant activity. Electricity is by far the most dominant fuel source used in the surrounding suburbs

(~95%). Wood is used by less than 1% of the population as their primary source of fuel; the only

exceptions being in two wards immediately north of the Airport where wood is used for heating by less

than 4% of the population. Given the small percentage of the population using wood, they are likely to be

the most marginal/ vulnerable community members who may not be able to afford any alternate fuel

sources. The wood collectors may be selling the wood in order to derive a small income. This area will

be cleared and fenced; as such these people will lose access to this wood as a fuel/ income source.

There does not appear to be an alternate densely vegetated area in close proximity to the site.

The wood collection and other informal land uses appear to be undertaken by the people who currently

reside in close proximity to the site. It appears to be the residents from the surrounding informal

settlements and low income suburbs using the site for wood collection and grazing. The informal

settlements of Freedom Farm, Malawi Camp and Blikkiesdorp are being relocated by the CoCT (an

initiative that is unrelated to this proposed Project) and therefore this impact will not continue to affect

them in the long run, but will continue to affect the other people making use of the land and its resources.

An indirect benefit will be that the illicit criminal activities identified on the site can no longer be performed

in this area.

5.3.1.1 Construction

This impact will be local in extent and of low intensity due to the limited reliance on wood as a fuel source.

It should be noted that there are a small percentage of people who use the wood for fuel and will

therefore not have access to it in future. The impact will be experienced during the construction phase;

however it will persist for the long-term and will definitely occur. It is assessed to be of low significance.

With the implementation of mitigation, the significance of this impact will remain low given the limited

potential for mitigation of the impact (Table 5-1). This impact will occur during the construction phase and

will remain unchanged throughout the operational phase given that the land will remain cleared and

unavailable for future community use.

Table 5-1 Significance of the loss of access to resources: construction

Extent Intensity Duration Consequence Probability Significance Status Confidence

Without

mitigation

Local

1

Low

1

Long-term

3

Low

5

Definite LOW - ve High

Essential mitigation measures:

· Offer by way of community projects all material that could be used for firewood from relevant areas prior to earthworks.

With

mitigation

Local

1

Low

1

Long-term

3

Low

5

Definite LOW - ve High

Cape Town International Airport Runway Realignment: Social Impact Assessment 55

5.3.2 Increased Noise Levels and Associated Impacts on Quality of Life

A significant increase in the frequency of arriving and departing planes is anticipated should the proposed

Project proceed (from a maximum of 30 per hour for Scenario 2 to a maximum of 44 per hour for

Scenario 4). The increase in air traffic during operations and the associated increase in ground vehicles

during construction and operation will generate increased levels of noise pollution. Most notably, people

are likely to become increasingly concerned about the general deterioration in the sense of place, noise

disturbance to residential, education and healthcare facilities, and impacts on their health resulting from

the noise. The surrounding areas already experience relatively high levels of noise. However, Airports

Company South Africa does not receive many noise-related complaints/ queries (6 over the past 3

years19), with the exception of isolated incidents linked to unusual events and from journalists to discuss

noise levels generally.

According to Whitfield (2003), there is a general expectation amongst people living in more affluent areas

to retain a sense of place that is peaceful and undisturbed, while people living in lower-income areas with

higher densities and smaller houses may be more accustomed to general noise disturbances. The

ambient noise levels are much higher in areas that are more densely populated.

The effects of aircraft noise are numerous but the most common is annoyance (EOH, 2016, DDA, 2016).

This is evident from the complaints from people situated near airports throughout the world. Noise

annoyance is defined by the US Environmental Protection Agency as any negative subjective reaction on

the part of an individual or group. Noise and the way it is experienced is very subjective, and while the

overall community attitude about a noise level is usually what is reported, some individuals will be much

more sensitive to a noise. Annoyance is likely to contribute to the most commonly reported health

concern – hypertension which is estimated to be between 25% and 30% (DDA, 2016; EOG, 2016).

There is some evidence to suggest that there is an association between aircraft noise and hypertension,

as well as an increased risk of cardiovascular disease (e.g. heart disease and strokes) resulting from

long-term exposure to aircraft noise (EOH, 2016)20. Similarly, Hansell et. al. (2013) showed that there

was a statistically significant linear trend of increasing risk of hospital admissions for, and mortality from,

stroke, coronary heart disease, and cardiovascular disease due to higher levels of daytime and night time

aircraft noise. Hypertension is the most biologically plausible effect of noise exposure. Noise can cause

a number of biochemical and physiological reactions, including temporary elevation of blood pressure,

which can also be associated with other environmental stresses (DDA, 2016; EOH, 2016).

While it is difficult to quantify the link to health concerns, increased noise levels could lead to an

increased incidence of health concerns in a small percentage of people in the surrounding areas (DDA,

2016; EOH 2016). It should be noted that the ambient noise levels in the adjacent suburbs are already

elevated beyond the recommended levels for residential areas (DDA, 2016). The people living around

the Airport are likely to experience the noise in vastly different ways and their reaction to it will vary

considerably depending on their physical environment and emotional and mental tolerance to it. The

19 Of these, 3 were valid complaints and 3 were queries. No record of grievances prior to this. 20 Health is assessed separately. It is discussed in the noise impact as it relates to quality of life, amongst other factors.

Cape Town International Airport Runway Realignment: Social Impact Assessment 56

people living in closest proximity to the Airport are impoverished, lack adequate housing (many informal

settlements) and basic services. Their living conditions and the general levels of health already make

them more susceptible to hypertension and cardiovascular diseases (EOH, 2016). Levels of

hypertension could conceivably increase between 3% and 6% in newly affected areas with low baseline

noise levels (EOH, 2016); notably the suburbs in the northern most affected area are most at risk to

increased levels of hypertension.

Noise impacts are generally experienced more negatively at night than during the day. During the day,

the ambient noise levels are higher and people are busy and therefore distracted. At night, the ambient

noise levels are lower and people are generally more relaxed and aware of their surrounds, or trying to

sleep. Aircraft noise is significantly more disruptive at night. The Airport operating hours are 05h45 to

~23h30, peak operating hours are between 09h00 to 10h00 and 15h00 to 16h00, and night flights are

infrequent. While there is not expected to be a dramatic change immediately, the purpose of the Project

is to allow for future enablement which will allow increased capacity. Therefore over time, the frequency

of flights may increase and there may become more demand for night time arrivals and departures. It is

expected that the peak times will remain similar; the new runway will allow the Airport capacity to increase

from 30 ATM to 40-44 ATM per hour without significantly altering peak hours.

5.3.2.1 Noise Guidelines

The noise assessment undertaken by DDA (2016) modelled the anticipated noise levels under various

operational scenarios for the Airport. Most relevant to this study are those associated with the existing

runway operating at maximum capacity (i.e. increasing from 18 ATM per hour to 30 ATM per hour –

referred to as Scenario 2 – the No-Go alternative) and the re-aligned runway operating at maximum

capacity (referred to as Scenario 4). The noise modelling produced noise contour diagrams for each of

the scenarios, with the contours informed by relevant guideline noise levels.

The re-alignment and increased capacity of the runway at the Airport will significantly alter the extent and

direction (alignment) of the noise contours when comparing Scenarios 2 and 4. Based on research into

the possible health effects and disturbance to sense of place, the SANS Code 10103: (2008) stipulates

maximum average ambient day/night noise levels for different land uses (see the Noise Specialist Study

for more detail on these). The recommended/ acceptable guideline levels are 55 dBA for urban districts,

60 dBA for urban districts with businesses and main roads, 65 dBA for central business districts, and

70 dBA for industrial districts. With suitable mitigation, some countries (including South Africa) will

consider deviations from these guidelines.

Figure 5-1 illustrates the estimated levels of exceedance (in dBA) of the SANS Guidelines in residential

areas for Scenarios 2 and 4. When comparing the two scenarios, the impact of the realignment (changed

direction) and increased capacity (larger affected area) are clearly evident. The green area represents

residential areas that will experience increased noise levels of less than 5 dBA from the recommended

55 dBA for residential areas. The orange area represents a 5 to 10 dBA exceedance of 55 dBA and the

red area represents a greater than10 dBA exceedance. The ‘gaps’ within the noise contours reflect areas

Cape Town International Airport Runway Realignment: Social Impact Assessment 57

that are zoned for other purposes and therefore do not represent residential areas21. The specific

numbers of affected people and associated impacts are discussed further in Section 5.3.2.3.

Figure 5-1 Areas where noise levels exceed guidelines for Scenario 2 (left) and Scenario 4

(right)

Source: SRK (2016)

Noise extending from the Airport propagates predominantly in a north-south direction along the runway

and the landing and take-off corridors. The suburbs located north and south of the Airport (within the

55 dBA noise contour) are therefore going to be impacted by noise, the suburbs located closest to the

Airport (within the red and orange areas represented in Figure 5-1) will be the most significantly affected.

The potentially affected suburbs are listed in

21 There are exceptions where informal settlements are located in areas zoned for purposes other than residential. As such, the impact on informal settlements is described in Section 5.3.2.3.

Cape Town International Airport Runway Realignment: Social Impact Assessment 58

Table 5-222.

22 Noise modelling is not an exact science. As such, this list is broadly indicative.

Cape Town International Airport Runway Realignment: Social Impact Assessment 59

Table 5-2 Suburbs potentially affected by noise

Direction Subcouncil Suburbs

North 3 Plattekloof Glen, Kaapzicht, Monte Vista, Bothasig, Edgemead

4 Connaught, Cravenby, Eureka, Florida, Uitsig, Ravensmead, Avon, Beaconvale, Churchill Estate,

Glenlily, Parow, Richmond Estate, Richmond, Avonwood, Norwood, Elnor, Epping Forest, Clarkes

Estate, Elsies River

6 Di Tijger, Belhar, Modderdam, Parow Industria, Ravensmead, Uitsig, Freedom Farm23, Malawi Camp24

East 5 Delft, Delft South, Eindhoven, Leiden, Roosendal, The Hague, Blikkiesdorp25, Tsunami Temporary

Relocation Area (TRA), Delft TRA 5

South 9 Khayelitsha: sub-divisions of Tembani and Ikwezi Park, Victoria Merge, Village 4 North

10 Khayalitsha: Village 1 North, Village 1 South, Monwabisi Park, and sections of Lentegeur, Beacon

Valley and Tafelsig

12 Beacon Valley, Mitchells Plain CBD, Portland, Rocklands, Eastridge, Tafelsig

13 Klipfontein, Crossroads, Nyanga, Philippi Industrial

14 Nyanga, Gugulethu

23 Lentegeur, Ikwezi Park, New Woodlands, Philippi Park

24 Harare, Monwabisi Park

21 Los Angeles (Blue Downs)

West 5 Airport City, Bishop Lavis, Valhalla Park, Bonteheuwel, Boquinar, Kalksteenfontein

5.3.2.2 Construction

During the construction phase (~2 years), the noise impacts are not expected to exceed the

recommended guidelines (DDA, 2016). There may be limited periods of time when the suburbs located in

closest proximity to the construction activities do experience elevated noise levels. The majority of

construction will take place during the day (07h00 to 18h00) to minimise the nuisance impacts; the

ambient noise levels are elevated in the day and many people will be at school or work. Where

unavoidable some night work (00h00 to 06h00) will be required, this will likely not exceed 4 months. The

majority of the night work will take place towards the centre of the site, thus limiting the impacts on the

neighbouring people. There are approximately 5 schools in Delft South located very close to the site

boundary, the learners at these schools may be most negatively impacted whilst the construction activity

is undertaken on the southern side of the site. No significant or long-term impacts are anticipated during

this timeframe.

This impact will be local in extent and of medium intensity for the short-term for the suburbs located

closest to the Airport boundary. The impact is probable and is assessed to be of very low significance.

23 Freedom Farm will be relocated by the CoCT, despite this Project. As such, it does not form part of this assessment. The statistics for Ward 24, include Freedom Farm. 24 Malawi camp will be relocated by the CoCT, despite this Project. As such, it does not form part of this assessment. The statistics for Ward 24, include Malawi Camp. 25 Blikkiesdorp will be relocated by the CoCT due to safety concerns, despite this Project. As such, it does not form part of this assessment. The statistics for Ward 106, include Blikkiesdorp.

Cape Town International Airport Runway Realignment: Social Impact Assessment 60

Post mitigation, the significance rating will remain very low as there is limited opportunity for noise

mitigation (Table 5-3).

Table 5-3 Significance of increased noise levels: construction

Extent Intensity Duration Consequence Probability Significance Status Confidence

Without

mitigation

Local

1

Medium

2

Short-term

1

Very Low

4

Probable

VERY LOW -ve High

Essential mitigation measures:

· Comply with all mitigation measures stipulated in the Noise Specialist Study to reduce the impacts as far as possible.

· Communicate the construction schedule to the residents and schools located in closest proximity to the site. Specifically notify

the Delft South schools located close to the site boundary.

· Develop and implement a Grievance Management Procedure. This procedure should clearly define communication protocols

(verbal and written), direct and accurate contact names and numbers, an escalation path for complaint resolution, and a

grievance close-out procedure. This procedure should be communicated to stakeholders on a regular basis (annually

throughout the construction phase).

With

mitigation

Local

1

Low

1

Short-term

1

Very Low

3

Probable

VERY LOW -ve High

5.3.2.3 Operation

The proposed Project will have a direct negative impact on the surrounding areas during the operation

phase. The magnitude with which the increased noise levels of Scenario 4 will affect the surrounding

receptors (general population and the more sensitive receptors, i.e. informal dwellers and community

facilities) is described further below.

The specific noise impacts linked to sense of place and health cannot be quantified. There is some

evidence to suggest that depending on a range of factors, one may be susceptible to experiencing varied

levels of annoyance. The manner in which the impact is experienced is subjective and in a small

proportion of cases could trigger hypertension or a range of other [less likely] conditions.

Affected Population

The estimated number of people (based on 2011 census data) currently living in areas where noise levels

are expected to exceed the guideline levels for residential areas, and the percentage of the total affected

population falling within each zone, is provided in Table 5-4. Note that Scenario 1 in the table below

represents the current situation (2013/14). For comparison, Table 5-5 shows the escalated population

numbers for all scenarios, using population numbers forecast by the CoCT. Although the dates at which

the existing and re-aligned runways are likely to reach their maximum operational capacities are not

confirmed (Scenario 2 and Scenario 4 respectively), for the purposes of estimating increased population

numbers, it has been assumed that Scenario 2 would be achieved in 2018 and Scenario 4 in 2032. The

total population affected in Scenario 4 is approximately 12% higher assuming population growth than

when applying constant 2011 population figures.

Cape Town International Airport Runway Realignment: Social Impact Assessment 61

Table 5-4 Number of people in areas where noise exceeds guideline levels (2011 data)

Scenario Exceedance of noise above guideline

Total affected

population < 5 dBA 5 - 10 dBA > 10 dBA

Number % Number % Number %

Scenario 1 144,426 79% 37 ,601 21% 975 1% 183 002

Scenario 2 209,085 70% 79,630 27% 8,494 3% 297 209

Scenario 4 244,131 71% 81,942 24% 18,758 5% 344 831

NOTE: – Constant 2011 population data has been used for all scenarios (including future scenarios).

Table 5-5 Number of people in areas where noise exceeds guideline levels – with population

growth

Scenario Exceedance of noise above guideline

Total affected

population < 5 dBA 5 - 10 dBA > 10 dBA

Number % Number % Number %

Scenario 1 144,426 79% 37,601 21% 975 1% 183 002

Scenario 2 237,333 71% 88,675 26% 9,780 3% 335 788

Scenario 4 274,082 71% 92,348 24% 21,105 5% 387 535

NOTE: – Escalated population for all scenarios, using population numbers forecast by the CoCT.

Source: SRK (2016)

The above tables show that for Scenario 1 (the existing Scenario), an estimated total of 183,002 people

are affected by airport-related noise that exceeds guideline levels for the specified land use type. In this

scenario, the majority of people (79%) are affected by an exceedance of less than 5 dBA above the

guidelines, and 1% of the affected population is affected by an exceedance of more than 10 dBA. This

implies that over 180 000 people are currently living in areas around the Airport that experience noise

levels above the recommended guidelines. The majority of these are in the densely populated areas

south and west of the Airport (e.g. Delft, Delft South, Crossroads, Nyanga, Mitchells Plain, and Elsies

River to the north).

For Scenario 2, an estimated total of 297,209 people (constant 2011 numbers) or 335,788 people

(escalated numbers) will be affected by airport-related noise that exceeds guideline levels, if the airport

continues to operate with the existing runway, and these people continue to live in the area around the

Airport. While the majority of people (70%) in this scenario are affected by an exceedance of less than

5 dBA above guidelines, a greater number of people are affected as compared to Scenario 1. Scenario 2

relates to the operation of the current airport at its maximum capacity and is therefore the likely long-term

scenario under current conditions. Scenario 2 will result in significant exceedance of the recommended

noise guidelines in surrounding areas (as illustrated in Figure 5-1).

For Scenario 4, an estimated total of 344,831 people (constant 2011 numbers) or 387,535 people

(escalated numbers) will be affected by airport-related noise that exceeds guideline levels, as the noise

contours cover a larger area. The proportion of affected people who experience noise guideline

Cape Town International Airport Runway Realignment: Social Impact Assessment 62

exceedance of more than 10 dBA is largest (5%) for Scenario 4 compared to the other scenarios.

Overall, there will be a 16% increase in the number of affected people from Scenario 2 (maximum

capacity of existing runway) to Scenario 4 (maximum capacity of proposed runway). An increase in noise

levels will be experienced by approximately 245,00026 people, of which ~60% will experience noise

exceedance for the first time.

The areas surrounding the Airport, specifically those located to the west, south and east are exposed to

persistent nuisance factors (in addition to aircraft noise). These nuisance factors arise from the industrial

areas, busy roads, railway lines, and generally dense populations (as a result of small land parcels and

many people per household). The areas located north of the Airport are generally more affluent, with the

levels of affluence increasing further from the Airport. These suburbs (e.g. Plattekloof Glen, Kaapzicht,

Monte Vista, Bothasig, and Edgemead) are exposed to fewer existing nuisance factors; less heavy

industry, less traffic, properties are generally larger, and the majority of houses are free-standing with

gardens. The suburbs immediately adjacent to the Airport (specifically to the north-west and south-east,

e.g. Delft, Delft South, Nyanga, Khayalitsha, and Elsies River to the north) are going to be most affected

by the noise contours of Scenario 4. The majority of Khayalitsha will be affected for the first time as the

noise contours will shift away from Mitchells Plain.

The Noise Specialist Study (DDA, 2016) used noise monitoring data from a range of locations to

demonstrate that the baseline noise levels (Scenario 1) are already very high at sensitive receptors,

including densely populated residential suburbs, Hospitals and Schools27. The noise measurements

reflected that there are currently significant exceedances of the SANS recommended guidelines in these

areas. The measurements recorded within the Airport boundaries also exceeded the SANS

recommended guidelines for industrial areas. As such, the surrounding areas may already have adapted

(albeit under duress) to the elevated noise levels and the associated disturbance.

Given the high number of people affected under Scenario 4, Airports Company South Africa committed to

considering two mitigation alternatives that would aim to decrease the number of affected people in the

surrounding areas. As such, the Noise Specialist modelled various mitigation procedures and

combinations of these procedures. Based on the results, SRK updated the Spatial Analysis in order to

compare the two mitigation scenarios . The purpose of the analysis was to determine which scenario is

most efficient, as evidenced by a reduction in the number of affected people and community facilities.

The two mitigation scenarios are:

· Mitigation Scenario A: Scenario 4 with the implementation of Noise Abatement Departure

Procedure (NADP)1, a 3.2 degree decent profile and limited use of reverse thrust 28 (see Figure 5-2).

· Mitigation Scenario B: Scenario 4 with the implementation of NADP2, a 3.2 degree decent profile

and limited use of reverse thrust (see Figure 5-2).

26 This figure represents the number of people in terms of the current population. 27 The Noise Specialist Study (DDA, 2016) reported on six noise measurement locations), no measurements were taken in the more affluent areas. 28 Reverse thrust will not be permitted between the hours of 22h00 and 06h00

Cape Town International Airport Runway Realignment: Social Impact Assessment 63

The NADP 1 and 2 are designed to reduce the noise levels in the areas closer to and further from the

runway, respectively. A technical description of the NADP 1 and 2 procedures can be found in Error! R

eference source not found. of the Noise specialist study.

Figure 5-2 Areas where noise levels exceed guidelines for Mitigation Scenario A (left) and

Mitigation Scenario B (right)

Source: SRK (2016)

Cape Town International Airport Runway Realignment: Social Impact Assessment 64

Table 5-6 shows the population in areas where noise exceeds guideline levels for Mitigation Scenarios A

and B, relative to Scenarios 2 and 4, using constant 2011 population data. Table 5-7 shows the

percentage change in people located in areas where noise levels are expected to exceed guideline levels

relative to Scenarios 2 and 4 for constant 2011 population.

Cape Town International Airport Runway Realignment: Social Impact Assessment 65

Table 5-6 Number of people in areas where noise exceeds guideline levels after mitigation – constant 2011 population

Scenario Exceedance of noise above guideline

Total affected

population < 5 dBA 5 - 10 dBA > 10 dBA

Number % Number % Number %

Scenario 2 209,085 70% 79,630 27% 8,494 3% 297,209

Scenario 4 244,131 71% 81,942 24% 18,758 5% 344,831

Mitigation Scenario A 277,938 73% 88,189 23% 12,184 3% 378,311

Mitigation Scenario B 213,176 75% 61,556 22% 11,381 4% 286,113

Source: SRK, 2016

Table 5-7 Percentage change in people located in areas where noise exceeds guideline levels

after mitigation relative to Scenarios 2 and 4

Scenario Exceedance of noise above guideline

Total affected

population < 5 dBA 5 - 10 dBA > 10 dBA

% % %

Relative to Scenario 2

Mitigation Scenario A 33% 11% 43% 27%

Mitigation Scenario B 2% -23% 34% -4%

Relative to Scenario 4

Mitigation Scenario A 14% 8% -35% 10%

Mitigation Scenario B -13% -25% -39% -17%

Source: SRK, 2016

The numbers indicate that Mitigation Scenario A appears ineffective, as the overall number of people

affected by noise guideline exceedances increases by 27% compared to Scenario 2 and by 10%

compared to Scenario 4. This is the result of a slight shift and increase of the overall area affected by an

exceedance of noise guidelines relative to both Scenarios.

Mitigation Scenario B, on the other hand, reduces the overall number of people affected by noise

guideline exceedances by 4% compared to Scenario 2 and by 17% compared to Scenario 4. Relative to

Scenario 2, this decrease is associated mainly with a 23% reduction in the number of people affected by

an exceedance of 5-10 dBA, Relative to Scenario 4, this decrease is associated a reduction of 39% in the

number of people in the highest noise exceedance areas and a 25% reduction in people in the 5-10 dBA

exceedance area. Mitigation Scenario B is thus the preferred mitigation scenario.

Informal Settlements

Informal settlements are often located on land that is not zoned for residential use; some are located in

areas zoned for industrial land use (and others). As a result, the number of people living in informal

settlements located in non-residential zones are not accounted for in the number of affected people living

in residential areas. In order to account for the potentially affected informal settlements, the Spatial

Analysis (SRK,2014) identified and quantified the number of existing dwelling units in the informal

Cape Town International Airport Runway Realignment: Social Impact Assessment 66

settlements around the Airport that are likely to be affected by noise level exceedances. See Figure 4-2

for the location of the informal settlements in all areas surrounding the Airport.

While the majority of dwelling units currently affected by Airport noise are formal, there are numerous

informal settlements surrounding the Airport (predominantly to the south) that are affected. The number

of informal dwelling units that will be affected by Scenario 4 is significantly higher (138%) than for

Scenario 2 as the areas exceeding guideline noise levels shift from the mostly formal suburbs of Mitchells

Plain to the densely populated and more informal suburbs of Khayelitsha. The majority (63%) of the

informal dwelling units affected by Scenario 4 will lie between the 55-60 dBA noise contours. However,

there will be a high proportion of dwelling units affected by noise levels between 60-65 dBA (24%) and

65-70 dBA (13%).

The inhabitants of these informal dwellings are likely to be more vulnerable than the people living in the

formal houses. The socio-economic status of the residents is low (e.g. low levels of education and

income, high rates of unemployment, and low quality housing and services), and the informal housing

structures are inadequate and their current living environment is already potentially detrimental to their

health and wellbeing. Informal dwellings do not offer any form of noise dampening. It is therefore less

likely that they will be able to adapt to the negative impacts linked to increased noise levels.

Community Facilities

The Spatial Analysis (SRK, 2016) analysed the numbers of sensitive community facilities that will be

affected by the proposed Project; including schools, healthcare facilities and libraries (see Table 5-8). A

total of 152 facilities will be affected by Scenario 2 and 199 by Scenario 4 – a 31% increase. The majority

of these are schools.

Table 5-8 Number of community facilities in areas where noise exceeds guideline levels

Scenario Exceedance of noise above guideline

Total affected

population < 5 dBA 5 - 10 dBA > 10 dBA

Health

Scenario 2 8 4 - 12

Scenario 4 13 2 - 15

Schools

Scenario 2 92 37 3 132

Scenario 4 126 45 6 177

Libraries

Scenario 2 7 1 - 8

Scenario 4 5 2 - 7

NOTE: – Only existing facilities have been considered for all scenarios (including future scenarios).

Source: SRK (2016)

Cape Town International Airport Runway Realignment: Social Impact Assessment 67

Most health facilities and libraries are located in areas where airport-related noise levels are expected to

exceed guidelines by less than 5 dBA, and none are affected by an exceedance of more than 10 dBA.

Four large hospitals (the Mitchell’s Plain District Hospital, Lentegeur Psychiatric Hospital, Khayalitsha

District Hospital and the Western Cape Rehabilitation Centre) are affected by elevated noise levels that

exceed the guideline by up to 10 dBA in Scenario 2. Following the re-alignment of the runway, noise

experienced at these facilities will exceed guidelines by less than 5 dBA in Scenario 4, which is equivalent

to the current situation (Scenario 1).

The estimated total number of affected schools increases by 34% from Scenario 2 (132 schools) to

Scenario 4 (177 schools). The estimated total number of schools affected by noise exceedances of more

than 5 dBA increases by 28% from Scenario 2 (40 schools) to Scenario 4 (51 schools). The majority of

the affected schools are located in the most impoverished areas surrounding the Airport (i.e. Delft, Delft

South, Nyanga, Khayalitsha, and Elsies River); Scenario 4 significantly increases the number of affected

schools west and south of the Airport. Pre-primary schools are most affected by airport-related noise

exceedances for both scenarios, followed by primary schools. This likely reflects the higher number of

these schools types in the affected areas.

The majority of the affected community facilities are already located in the most impoverished suburbs of

Delft, Delft South, Nyanga, Khayalitsha, and Elsies River. This is particularly relevant to schooling given

the large number of schools affected and the low levels of education prevalent throughout the worst

affected areas (~35% of the population have completed Grade 12 or higher). Currently, a class room

close to the flight path experiences ~18 planes overhead per hour, which could increase to 30 under

Scenario 2 (i.e. 1 every 2 minutes) and up to 44 under Scenario 4. This will be very disruptive to the

learners and educators, specifically in the 51 schools that will experience exceedances of greater than

5 dBA. Approximately 7 of these schools (in Delft South) will be located in areas with exceedances of

greater than 10 dBA; this is likely to severely affect the learner’s ability to concentrate.

The tables below show the number of community facilities in areas where noise exceeds guideline levels

for Mitigation Scenarios A and B, relative to Scenario 2 (

Cape Town International Airport Runway Realignment: Social Impact Assessment 68

Table 5-9) and Scenario 4 (Table 5-10). The tables also show the percentage change in the number of

facilities located in areas where noise levels are expected to exceed guideline levels relative to Scenarios

2 and 4.

Cape Town International Airport Runway Realignment: Social Impact Assessment 69

Table 5-9 Number of community facilities in areas where noise exceeds guideline levels after mitigation and change relative to Scenario 2

Scenario Exceedance of noise above guideline

Total number of

facilities < 5 dBA 5 - 10 dBA > 10 dBA

Number Change Number Change Number Change Number Change

Health

Scenario 2 8 4 12

Mitigation Scenario A 7 -13% 3 -25% - - 10 -17%

Mitigation Scenario B 6 -25% 2 -50% - - 8 -33%

Schools

Scenario 2 92 37 6 132

Mitigation Scenario A 127 38% 61 65% 5 -67% 193 46%

Mitigation Scenario B 109 18% 33 -11% 2 -33% 144 9%

Libraries

Scenario 2 7 1 - 8

Mitigation Scenario A 2 -71% 3 200% - - 5 -38%

Mitigation Scenario B 3 -57% 2 100% - - 5 -38%

Source: SRK, 2016

Table 5-10 Number of community facilities in areas where noise exceeds guideline levels after

mitigation and change relative to Scenario 4

Scenario Exceedance of noise above guideline

Total number of

facilities < 5 dBA 5 - 10 dBA > 10 dBA

Number Change Number Change Number Change Number Change

Health

Scenario 4 13 2 15

Mitigation Scenario A 7 -46% 3 50% 10 -33%

Mitigation Scenario B 6 -54% 2 0% 8 -47%

Schools

Scenario 4 126 45 6 177

Mitigation Scenario A 127 1% 61 36% 5 -17% 193 9%

Mitigation Scenario B 109 -13% 33 -27% 2 -67% 144 -19%

Libraries

Scenario 4 5 2 - 7

Mitigation Scenario A 2 -60% 3 50% - - 5 -29%

Mitigation Scenario B 3 -40% 2 0% - - 5 -29%

Source: SRK, 2016

The numbers indicate that Mitigation Scenario A appears less effective than Mitigation Scenario B, as the

number of affected facilities is reduced by a smaller amount.

Cape Town International Airport Runway Realignment: Social Impact Assessment 70

Both mitigation scenarios reduce the number of affected health centres and libraries compared to

Scenario 2 and increase the number of affected schools. However, the number of affected schools

increases much less for Mitigation Scenario B.

Relative to Scenario 4, again both mitigation scenarios reduce the number of affected health centres and

libraries, but the number of affected schools increases relative to the unmitigated Scenario 4. This is the

result of a slight shift and increase of the overall area affected by an exceedance of noise guidelines

relative to Scenario 4.

Mitigation Scenario B, on the other hand, also reduces the number of schools affected by noise guideline

exceedances by 19% relative to Scenario 4. The number of schools located in areas with the highest

noise exceedances experiences the greatest reduction. Mitigation Scenario B is thus the preferred

mitigation scenario.

Assessment of Operational Phase Impact

The assessment of this impact is based on the number and levels of vulnerability of people and sensitive

receptors (i.e. informal settlements and community facilities) affected by the change in noise levels from

Scenario 2 to Scenario 4 with and without Mitigation Scenario B applied during operation given the

significant reduction in the number of affected people as well as the decreased number of affected

community facilities.

This impact will be regional in extent because the increased noise impacts will be experienced well

beyond the Airport boundaries (~15 km). The intensity will be high given the large number of people

affected and the degree to which the noise levels are likely to affect quality of life. Most notably, the noise

may interrupt sleep patterns thus potentially affecting focus and productivity, disrupt learners at school

and patients in healthcare facilities, increase general levels of annoyance (and potentially health), and

place further pressure on the already degraded quality of life. In addition, the high level of intensity

accounts for the large number of sensitive receptors (e.g. informal dwellers, generally impoverished

communities, and community facilities) that do not have the means to alter their circumstances in order to

improve their quality of life. This impact will persist for the long-term (life of the Project). The impact will

probably occur and is therefore assessed to be of very high significance. Note, however, that the full

impact will only occur if the runway is operated at its full capacity, which will happen incrementally and

also depend on many factors that are beyond the control of Airports Company South Africa.

Airports Company South Africa has committed to implement the mitigation measures as outlined in

Mitigation Scenario B. As such, there will be an 11% decrease in the number of affected people as

compared to Scenario 4 and a 4% decrease in the number of affected people as compared to the current

No-Go option. In addition, there will be a significant reduction in the number of health facilities, schools

and libraries affected as compared to Scenario 4 and a significant reduction in health facilities and

libraries as compared to Scenario 2. This improvement makes the proposed Project a more superior

alternative to the current runway operating at full capacity (Scenario 2) in terms of the number of

affected people. This impact, however, assesses the negative impact on those people who will still be

Cape Town International Airport Runway Realignment: Social Impact Assessment 71

negatively affected by the proposed Project with mitigation. The impact will remain regional in extent, the

intensity will be high for the affected people (many of which do not currently experience noise above

guideline levels given the realignment of the runway), and the impact will persist for the long-term. It is

probable that this impact will occur. Thus, according to SRKs Impact Assessment methodology, the

significance rating would be very high. However, given the overall reduction in the number of affected

people as compared to the No-Go alternative, it is the professional opinion of the Specialist that the

significance of this impact should be one of high negative significance (see Table 5-11).

The described impacts will materialise incrementally over a long period of time; there will be no

perceptible change immediately following construction. As such, there is time for the CoCT to [in part]

address the conflicts with land use planning, and for Airports Company South Africa to implement the

agreed mitigation measures.

NOTE: The current noise impacts (for Scenario 1 and 2) are considered to be high. The development in

the areas surrounding the Airport has continued despite the presence of the Airport and the associated

noise impacts; building quality is of a standard that will not reduce noise levels inside the structure,

specifically in the informal structures. With more efficient planning and consideration of the existing

Airport, further development should be more rigorously assessed.

Table 5-11 Significance of increased noise levels: operation

Extent Intensity Duration Consequence Probability Signifi-

cance

Status Confidence

Without

enhancement

Regional

2

High

3

Long-term

3

Very High

8

Probable VERY

HIGH

- ve High

Essential mitigation measures:

· Comply with all mitigation measures stipulated in the Noise Specialist Study to reduce the impacts as far as possible.

· Implement Mitigation Scenario B measures as detailed and modelled in the Noise Specialist Study (DDA, 2016).

· Appoint a noise specialist to re-model the noise contours every 5 years to account for anticipated increase in capacity,

changed policies, improved technologies, altered flight paths and schedules, etc.

· Submit the updated noise model to the relevant CoCT departments to ensure that their planning is undertaken in accordance

with the noise levels.

· Noise (and air quality) should be monitored to ensure that predicted exposures from the models reflect actual exposures.

Further risk assessments should be undertaken if exposures appear to be higher than predicted.

· Airports Company South Africa to broaden the CoCT stakeholders who receive updated information about the noise contours.

They should be regularly informed and updated of any changes.

· Continue (through the operation phase) to identify new practices in the aviation industry that will improve the noise levels.

Airports Company South Africa should undertake regular studies (at least every 5 years) to identify international trends and

best practice methods for managing and reducing the noise impacts.

· Design a programme for discussion with key stakeholders to implement new methods and technologies that are deemed

relevant to achieve continuous improvements in the noise levels.

· Develop and implement a general Grievance Management Procedure. This procedure should clearly define communication

protocols (verbal and written), direct and accurate contact names and numbers, an escalation path for complaint resolution,

Cape Town International Airport Runway Realignment: Social Impact Assessment 72

Extent Intensity Duration Consequence Probability Signifi-

cance

Status Confidence

and a grievance close-out procedure. This procedure should be communicated in an appropriate manner on a regular basis

(annually at a minimum).

· As recommended by the Noise Specialist, the grievances/ complaints must be integrated with the noise monitoring system in

order to draw correlations and enable coordinated assessments and responses.

Best practice mitigation measures:

· Noise insulation should be considered where practically feasible for community facilities that will experience increased levels of

noise above guideline levels; specifically, schools in areas that experience (>10 dBA exceedances) and hospitals should be

insulated to a level recommended by the noise specialist.

· Establish a working group with the relevant CoCT authorities to discuss land use planning in the areas surrounding the Airport.

Airports Company South Africa should attempt to positively influence the land use planning decisions in a manner that supports

the development of residential housing and suitable industrial developments that will facilitate long-term employment creation

for local people.

· Airports Company South Africa, in partnership with CoCT and other relevant parties could develop and implement an education

programme that encourages people to be aware of factors that may increase the risk of hypertension, cardiovascular disease

(eg. obesity, smoking, lack of exercise). This initiative may modify the overall risk of chronic conditions in the surrounding

communities.

With

enhancement

Regional

2

High

3

Long-term

3

Very High

8

Probable HIGH29 - ve High

5.3.3 Reduced Noise Levels

As a result of the runway realignment, approximately 200,00030 people will experience reduced levels of

noise between Scenario 2 and Scenario 4. Of this figure, ~80% will no longer be affected by aircraft

noise above guideline levels (SRK, 2016; DDA, 2016). Mitchell’s Plain is where the majority of the

improvement will be experienced. This benefit is directly linked to the corresponding increase in noise

levels resulting from the changed alignment.

It is possible that residents in these areas could experience lowered levels of annoyance/ anxiety and

fewer sleep disturbances. In addition, approximately 45 schools, 2 hospitals and 2 libraries will no longer

experience an exceedance in noise levels as a result of aircraft activity; thus their ability to learn and heal

may be improved. In combination, the reduction in noise levels will improve the general quality of life for

the people who live in these areas.

29 According to SRKs Impact Assessment methodology, the significance rating would be very high. However, given the overall reduction in the number of affected people as compared to the No-Go alternative, it is the professional opinion of the Specialist that the significance of this impact should be one of medium negative significance. 30 This figure represents the number of people in terms of the current population.

Cape Town International Airport Runway Realignment: Social Impact Assessment 73

5.3.3.1 Operation

This benefit will be regional in extent and of medium intensity for the long-term (operational phase only).

The benefit will definitely occur and is therefore assessed to be of high positive significance albeit in very

specific areas only. No enhancement measures can be implemented to further enhance this impact; as

such it will remain of high positive significance (Table 5-12).

Table 5-12 Significance of reduced noise levels: operation

Extent Intensity Duration Consequence Probability Signifi-

cance

Status Confidence

Without

enhancement

Regional

2

Medium

2

Long-term

3

High

7

Definite HIGH + ve High

· No enhancement measures required/ possible to enhance this impact.

With

enhancement

Regional

2

Medium

2

Long-term

3

High

7

Definite HIGH + ve High

5.3.4 Impact on Future Residential Developments

The CoCT is under significant pressure to provide housing, in order to alleviate the existing housing

backlog. There is also a need for more industrial/ mixed use developments that will generate

employment opportunities for the local residents, preferably located in close proximity to residential areas.

The pressure for housing and employment opportunities is significant in the areas surrounding the Airport,

specifically in the suburbs to the west, south and east of the Airport. In these suburbs, there are heavy

concentrations of informal settlements surrounding the Airport and the unemployment rates range from

30% to 50%. These areas are already densely populated with little room for further densification. There

is not much land available in the surrounding areas to accommodate significant growth (housing or

industrial).

The Airport-related increase in noise levels in some areas is likely to affect the viability of some of the

proposed future residential developments. There are a number of planned (short-term) and proposed

(long-term) housing projects, as well as planned densification in two Integration Zones located along the

main metropolitan railway lines. These are described further in Sections 5.3.4.1 and 5.3.4.2.

Where land is no longer considered suitable for residential development due to the expected increase in

airport related noise, and noise cannot be appropriately mitigated, as per the requirements indicated by

the Ministry of Local Government, Environmental Affairs and Development Planning (

Cape Town International Airport Runway Realignment: Social Impact Assessment 74

Box 5-2), land currently earmarked for housing development by the City may need to be reconsidered.

Cape Town International Airport Runway Realignment: Social Impact Assessment 75

Box 5-2 Restrictions for development

In terms of SANS 10103 and the World Health Organisation, the recommendation would be that land affected by noise levels of

55 dBA or more would not be suitable for future residential development, these sites could however be used for commercial or

industrial land uses to a maximum noise level of 70 dBA. The Ministry of Local Government, Environmental Affairs and

Development Planning have indicated (letter, 09/05/2011) that they would consider allowing residential developments (excluding

learning or healthcare facilities) in areas with noise levels up to 65 dBA, given the existing pressure for housing and the lack of

more suitable alternate land. Mitigation would, however, be required in any areas where noise levels exceed 55 dBA. No

residential developments will be allowed in areas where noise levels exceed 65 dBA.

In the areas where noise levels exceed the recommended guidelines for residential development, it is

likely to be within acceptable levels for other landuses (e.g. industrial/ mixed land use development).

Further industrial development could enhance the local economy and create employment opportunities.

The Tygerberg District Development Plan recognises the Airport as a focal point for logistics, freight,

distribution and light industrial activities which benefit from locational advantages and critical massing of

businesses around the Airport. As such, further industrial development around the Airport will benefit

from the advantageous location, reinforcing the economic benefits for further industrial development.

5.3.4.1 Planned Housing Projects

There are a number of planned (short-term) and proposed (long-term) housing projects that will be

directly affected by Scenarios 2 and 4 (see Figure 5-3 and Figure 5-4), these represent a relatively small

percentage of planned and proposed projects for the affected subcouncils, see Section 4.3.3.1.

Within the Project noise contours (for Scenarios 2 and 4), there are eight proposed government housing

projects planned over the next five years (SRK, 2016)31. These projects total ~5,000 housing units32; of

these, ~4,500 units will be affected by Scenario 2 (between 50 dBA and 70 dBA) and ~1,600 by Scenario

4 (between 55 dBA and 65 dBA). Three of the housing projects (totalling 1,432 units) that will be affected

by Scenario 2 are also affected by Scenario 1 (the current situation); it is evident that despite the known

noise impacts, the CoCT does prioritise housing delivery. Scenario 4 is the most favourable scenario for

the housing projects planned for the short-term.

Over the longer-term, there are a further six government housing projects proposed to accommodate a

total of 4,716 housing units (SRK, 2016). Given the long-term timeframe, these projects are less

advanced in terms of planning and certainty and as such it is unknown whether these plans will eventually

materialise (despite the proposed Project)33. Based on the current outlook, the proposed runway

realignment would affect significantly more proposed dwelling units for Scenario 4 than Scenario 2 (4,564

versus 824 units, respectively).

31 The information used for this assessment was current at the time of data gathering. The analysis is based on March 2014 estimates from the CoCT. The location, size and priority of housing projects are reviewed quarterly in response to changes in need and the availability of land and budget. The information provided in this report is illustrative of the impact. 32 There are 5,015 primary units planned. No backyard dwellings are being considered. 33 These seven projects are proposed for the long-term and could be influenced or derailed by a number of [unknown] factors. There will be some time to monitor and respond to the changes in noise levels. However, given the existing demand for housing and continued population growth, it is probable that these projects will need to go ahead.

Cape Town International Airport Runway Realignment: Social Impact Assessment 76

Figure 5-3 Planned and potential housing projects affected by Scenario 2

Source: SRK, 2016

Cape Town International Airport Runway Realignment: Social Impact Assessment 77

Figure 5-4 Planned and potential housing projects affected by Scenario 4

Source: SRK, 2016

Cape Town International Airport Runway Realignment: Social Impact Assessment 78

As outlined by the Ministry of Local Government, Environmental Affairs and Development Planning (

Cape Town International Airport Runway Realignment: Social Impact Assessment 79

Box 5-2), not all housing Projects will necessarily be ruled out if they are located in areas with noise

levels exceeding the guideline levels for residential areas; areas experiencing noise levels up to 65 dBA

may still be considered for residential development. This option would, however, require specialised

mitigation. It is also important to highlight that despite the regulations, government is already planning to

build houses34 in areas that will experience airport-related noise above 55 dBA in Scenario 2. Airports

Company South Africa have made the noise contours available to the CoCT, and despite the known

exceedances, housing is still being prioritised. As such, it is most likely that the proposed Airport Project

may not completely restrict planned and proposed housing projects.

Six of the government planned/ proposed housing projects (~4,725 dwelling units) will benefit if the

runway is re-aligned from Scenario 2 to Scenario 4 (SRK, 2016). The majority of the units (~3,525) will

experience noise levels of 55 to 60 dBA under Scenario 2 and will no longer be affected under

Scenario 4. The remaining 1,200 units will experience an improvement from 65 to 70 dBA (Scenario 2) to

60 to 65 dBA (Scenario 4). In addition, there may be newly suitable sites identified in areas that

experience a reduction in noise levels, thus they could become suitable alternatives for future housing

projects and densification.

5.3.4.2 Planned Densification

The CoCT proposes to increase densification of development in two Integration Zones located along the

main metropolitan railway lines (see Figure 5-5); namely:

· Integration Zone 1 (along the Cape Town – Bellville railway line); and

· Integration Zone 2 (along Cape Town – Khayelitsha / Strandfontein railway line).

34 Five planned housing projects (4,573 dwelling units) and two proposed projects (824 units) will be located areas that will experience airport-related noise above 55 dBA when the existing runway operates at maximum capacity (Scenario 2).

Cape Town International Airport Runway Realignment: Social Impact Assessment 80

Figure 5-5 Planned densification - Integration zone 1 (green) and integration zone 2 (purple)

Source: SRK (2016)

The elevated noise levels (for both Scenarios 2 and 4) render sections of these zones unsuitable for

further densification of residential areas. As can be seen in Table 5-13, Scenario 2 and Scenario 4 affect

a similar combined area (km2) across both Zones at 17.6 km2 and 16.51 km2, respectively. The majority

of the affected areas (for both Scenario’s) will experience less than 5 dBA increase in noise levels.

Scenario 4 is marginally more favourable for these densification programmes.

Table 5-13 Size of Zones affected by elevate Airport noise

Integration

Zone

Scenario Exceedance of noise above recommended guideline

<5 dBA 5–10 dBA >10 dBA Total % total area

Zone 1 Scenario 2 2.51 km2 0.10 km2 2.62 km2 3.9%

Scenario 4 3.27 km2 0.97 km2 4.24 km2 6.3%

Zone 2 Scenario 2 10.92 km2 3.88 km2 0.19 km2 14.98 km2 12.6%

Scenario 4 9.25 km2 2.36 km2 0.66 km2 12.27 km2 10.3%

Source: SRK (2016)

Despite the known exceedances for Scenario 2, the CoCT did not suitably restrict the proposed

densification. A decision was made to proceed despite the exceedance and therefore it is likely that a

similar decision will be taken in terms of Scenario 4. Despite this, industrial/ mixed land-use activities

should be prioritised for the areas affected by the Project as they will not be affected by the night time

Cape Town International Airport Runway Realignment: Social Impact Assessment 81

noise disturbances and are generally less sensitive to noise. It is likely that these areas already

experience elevated noise levels due to the railway lines. Residential development should be limited.

5.3.4.3 Operation

The impacts linked to the elevated noise levels on the planned/ proposed future developments and

densification will be physically and incrementally experienced throughout the operations phase. During

construction the impact will not be experienced.

The elevated noise levels associated with Scenario 4 will impact some of the above-mentioned housing

projects (planned and proposed), and the proposed densification along the two railway lines. However,

as outlined above, the CoCT has planned numerous projects within areas that currently experience

similar exceedances, and areas with lowered noise levels provide the opportunity for identifying new

sites. This impact will persist throughout the operational phase and into the foreseeable future.

The proposed Project will result in an expansion of the area that will experience noise exceedances. The

CoCT will need to incorporate the noise contours into all future planning to ensure that the noise

guidelines are adhered to, as far as possible. Residential development should be restricted in future, and

commercial and industrial land uses should be prioritised. The areas surrounding the Airport have

relatively high levels of unemployment and would welcome opportunities for employment; this would

benefit the individuals, their households and the local economy.

This impact will be regional in extent and of low to medium intensity given that the CoCT is currently

constructing and planning many housing projects within similar noise contours and the existing residents

have adapted to the already high ambient noise levels. The impact will persist for the long-term. The

impact will probably occur and is therefore assessed to be of medium/high significance. With

implementation of mitigation this could be reduced to medium (Table 5-14).

Table 5-14 Significance of impact on future development: operation

Extent Intensity Duration Consequence Probability Significance Status Confidence

Without

mitigation

Regional

2

Low/

Medium

1/2

Long-

term

3

Medium/High

6/7

Probable MEDIUM/HIGH - ve High

Essential mitigation measures:

· Comply with all mitigation measures stipulated in the noise specialist study to reduce the noise impacts as far as possible.

· Appoint a noise specialist to re-model the noise contours every 5 years to account for changed policies, improved

technologies, altered flight paths and schedules, etc. Submit the updated model to the relevant CoCT departments to

ensure that their planning is undertaken in accordance with the noise levels.

· Airports Company South Africa to broaden the CoCT stakeholders who receive updated information about the noise

contours. They should be regularly informed and updated on any changes.

· Airports Company South Africa to promote the use of industries/ businesses in the areas surrounding the Airport in order to

encourage development.

Cape Town International Airport Runway Realignment: Social Impact Assessment 82

Extent Intensity Duration Consequence Probability Significance Status Confidence

Best practice mitigation measures:

· Liaise with the relevant CoCT departments to advocate for further industrial development and mixed land use in areas that

will not be suitable for residential development.

· Establish a working group with the relevant CoCT authorities to discuss land use planning in the areas surrounding the

Airport. Airports Company South Africa should attempt to positively influence the land use planning decisions in a manner

that supports the development of residential housing and suitable industrial developments that will facilitate long-term

employment creation for local people.

With

mitigation

Regional

2

Low

1

Long-

term

3

Medium

6

Probable MEDIUM - ve High

5.3.5 Impact on Property Prices

Rode Property Consultants undertook a property valuation survey3536 in which a qualitative assessment

was undertaken to determine the nature and significance of elevated noise levels on the surrounding

property prices. Aircraft noise is recognised as a growing social, economic and environmental problem,

specifically in developing countries. The problem arises as a result of air traffic, urbanisation,

uncoordinated planning, and ‘open window’/ outdoor living as is typical in Cape Town – the outdoor

lifestyle makes noise insulation almost impossible.

Based on a literature review, it was found that a number of studies make use of the Noise Depreciation

Index (NDI) to quantify property value losses; it provides the percentage depreciation in value per one

decibel increase in noise. NDI does vary depending on a number of factors, however it is estimated to be

0.7 on average. Typically, NDI is higher in more affluent areas than less affluent suburbs, higher for

market values than rental values, and higher for vacant land than detached houses.

This impact may begin to occur prior to the construction phase when the announcement to realign the

runway is made and potential well-informed buyers anticipate the noise impacts; however, potential

reductions in property values are most likely to materialise during the operational phase.

5.3.5.1 Operation

It is expected that the impact on property prices as a result of increased noise from a greater frequency of

aircraft will be experienced as follows during the operational phase.

· No price reduction expected on houses valued at <R700,000: Houses located to the south east

and immediately north west of the Airport, will not experience a decrease in the value of their

properties.

35 Rode (2016). 36 The full Property Valuation Study is presented as an Appendix to the EIR.

Cape Town International Airport Runway Realignment: Social Impact Assessment 83

· House price reduction in Richmond Estate and Edgemead: Based on the NDI, there are 2

suburbs that may experience a reduction in full-title property values. Richmond Estate in Goodwood

may experience a reduction of less than 4% and Edgemead may experience a decrease of no more

than 3.5% in the short-term. Edgemead’s price reduction in the short-term will most likely be linked to

the announcement of the runway realignment; over the long-term, house prices are expected to

return to pre-announcement levels. Despite the implementation of Mitigation Scenario B, this impact

is still expected to occur.

· NDI on market value is higher than on property rentals: Approximately 40% of home dwellers are

not owner occupiers (~24% are paying tenants and ~16% occupy dwellings rent free) - buy-to-let

investors’ income is unlikely to be affected, even in more affluent suburbs.

· NDI for vacant land is higher than for improved properties: In the affected area, the available

open land that could be developed is located in low income neighbourhoods and therefore suitable for

low-income housing. As such, the impact of the new flight paths would be insignificant given the

findings regarding house price classes.

· Appreciation of property values in areas with reduced noise levels: Typically, there should be a

slight gain in property values for those houses no longer impacted by noise. However, given that the

majority of houses that will experience a reduction in noise levels are lower value houses that would

not have experienced a reduction in property value in the first instance, an increase in value is

unlikely. An exception may be Sonnendal and Parow North in Parow where property values ranged

between R1.3 million and R1.7 million in 2014; values may increase slightly in these areas.

· Noise insulation will be inefficient: Given the largely outdoor lifestyle of Cape Town residents, and

the quality of the building materials of many of the houses (most notably the informal houses), the

cost of noise insulation would far exceed the return in terms of actual noise reduction. As such, it is

expected that property price decreases cannot be avoided with the implementation of noise insulation

measures.

This impact will be local in extent and of medium intensity for the medium-term. It is possible that this

impact may occur and is therefore assessed to be of very low significance. Post mitigation, the

significance rating will remain very low as there is limited opportunity for noise mitigation and with the

implementation of Mitigation Scenario B these suburbs are still affected (

Cape Town International Airport Runway Realignment: Social Impact Assessment 84

Table 5-15).

Cape Town International Airport Runway Realignment: Social Impact Assessment 85

Table 5-15 Significance of impact on property prices

Extent Intensity Duration Consequence Probability Significance Status Confidence

Without

mitigation

Local

1

Medium

2

Medium-

term 2

Low

5

Possible

VERY LOW -ve High

Essential mitigation measures:

· Comply with all essential mitigation measures stipulated in the Noise Specialist Study.

· Develop and implement a general Grievance Management Procedure. This procedure should clearly define communication

protocols (verbal and written), direct and accurate contact names and numbers, an escalation path for complaint resolution,

and a grievance close-out procedure. This procedure should be communicated in an appropriate manner on a regular basis

(annually at a minimum).

· As recommended by the Noise Specialist, the grievances/ complaints must be integrated with the noise monitoring system in

order to draw correlations and enable coordinated assessments and responses.

Best practice mitigation measures:

· Establish a working group with the relevant CoCT authorities to discuss land use planning in the areas surrounding the Airport.

Airports Company South Africa should attempt to positively influence the land use planning decisions in a manner that supports

the development of residential housing and suitable industrial developments that will facilitate long-term employment creation

for local people.

With

mitigation

Local

1

Medium

2

Medium-

term 2

Low

5

Possible

VERY LOW -ve High

5.3.6 Increased Revenue to Government

Airports Company South Africa is a state-owned company and a Schedule 2 public entity. The company’s

ownership structure is shown in Figure 5-6. As such, the majority of profits released as dividends to

shareholders accrue to the South African Government. The South African Government further derives

revenue from Airports Company South Africa through various taxes and duties.

Figure 5-6 Airports Company South Africa ownership structure

Source: Airports Company South Africa (2014)

* Note: ADR International Airports SA (PTY) Ltd is a wholly owned subsidiary of PIC, which manages assets on behalf of

the Government Employees’ Pension Fund

Cape Town International Airport Runway Realignment: Social Impact Assessment 86

According to Airports Company South Africa (2014), the company:

· contributed an estimated 0.13% to South Africa’s GDP growth on an average annual basis from 2008

to 2011;

· paid R7.8 billion in tax revenue from 2008 to 2011;

· paid R477 million as income tax in Financial Year 2013/14;

· distributed R100 million as dividends to shareholders in Financial Year 2013/14; and

· retained R10.4 billion in the business in Financial Year 2013/14.

Cape Town International Airport accounted for approximately 19% of Airports Company South Africa

Group revenues in 2014 (based on results presented in Airports Company South Africa, 2014) and is thus

a significant contributor to Company results.

The contribution made by Airports Company South Africa to South Africa’s economy (and economic

growth) is significant for a single entity. Tax contributions are more variable and have recently been lower

due to tax benefits on bad debts and capital allowances (Airports Company South Africa, 2014).

Nevertheless, Airports Company South Africa is an important tax payer, particularly in the context of the

South African economy where only one third of companies assessed by the South African Revenue

Service (SARS) had a positive taxable income in 2013, of which only 0.2% (or 266 companies) had a

taxable income of more than R200 million and accounted for 58.2% of national Company Income Tax

revenue (SARS, 2013).

5.3.6.1 Construction

During construction, income to the government is expected to be marginally increased by taxes on locally

procured goods and services. The overall impact of the short-term construction phase on government

income is deemed to be insignificant (Table 5-16).

Table 5-16 Significance of increase in government income: construction

Extent Intensity Duration Consequence Probability Significance Status Confidence

Without

enhancement

Regional

2

Low

1

Short-

term

1

Very low

4

Improbable INSIGNIFICANT + ve High

Essential enhancement measures:

· N/A

5.3.6.2 Operation

During operation and in the long run, income to the government is expected to derive from taxes

(including corporate taxes, employees’ personal income tax and taxes paid on locally procured services

and goods) as well as dividends and other distributions accruing to the government through shareholding

in Airports Company South Africa (assuming a profit). The quantum of the contribution will depend on

Cape Town International Airport Runway Realignment: Social Impact Assessment 87

Airports Company South Africa’s performance, debt servicing requirements, future investments and the

tax regime.

Although it could be argued that income accruing to the national government has a national effect, the

extent of the impact is rated regional as Cape Town International Airport only contributes a portion of the

income generated by Airports Company South Africa. Despite the overall significance of the government

income derived from Airports Company South Africa, the additional income derived from the Cape Town

International Airport runway re-alignment project is deemed to be of low intensity relative to overall

government revenue. The benefit of increased government income will accrue in the long-term and

gradually over time, largely linked to increased utilisation of the Cape Town International Airport. Overall,

the benefit of increased government income during operations as a result of the re-alignment of the

runway is deemed to be of medium positive significance (Table 5-17).

Government income is determined by company performance. As such, no enhancement measures are

recommended for this impact.

Table 5-17 Significance of increase in government income: operation

Extent Intensity Duration Consequence Probability Signifi-

cance

Status Confidence

Without

enhancement

Regional

2

Low

1

Long-term

3

Medium

6

Probable MEDIUM + ve High

Enhancement measures:

· N/A

5.3.7 Generation of Employment, Income and Skills Training

Employment provides many socio-economic benefits to employees and their dependents, including:

· improved material wealth and standard of living;

· enhanced potential to invest and improved access to social services such as education and health

services;

· enhanced skills of previously unskilled workers, facilitating employment prospects of such workers;

and

· contribution to a sense of independence, freedom and pride, which may promote a good work ethic.

Airports Company South Africa currently employs 550 permanent staff at Cape Town International

Airport. Indirect employment was estimated at 13,640 people (Urban-Econ, 2011). Airport-related

employment is often quoted as a function of passenger volume. As Cape Town International Airport

currently serves approximately 8.5 million passengers, this implies that the Airport generates

approximately 65 direct and 1,600 indirect jobs per 1 million passengers. Based on KPMG (2012), Cape

Cape Town International Airport Runway Realignment: Social Impact Assessment 88

Town International Airport created 75 direct and 175 indirect jobs per million passengers, or 1 direct and

2.3 indirect jobs per R1 million capital expenditure37.

The project is expected to create various types of employment:

· Direct employment, which includes additional project staff and contractors permanently based on site.

The construction phase is expected to generate 200 temporary construction jobs for approximately

two years. Construction will mostly use heavy machinery and not be labour intensive. Operation

phase employment opportunities at the Airport are largely a function of passenger numbers. The

project entails the re-alignment of the existing runway and will not immediately increase passenger

numbers. As such, few additional employment opportunities will be created early in the operation

phase, but employment opportunities will gradually increase as passenger numbers increase.

The total number of new direct jobs can be estimated based on future passenger numbers and/or the

value of the investment. Based on historical employment performance at the Airport between 2008

and 2011, reported by Airports Company South Africa and/or KPMG (2012), new direct employment

opportunities forecast for the runway re-alignment (Scenario 4) are estimated at between 950 and

3,200 (see Table 5-18).

Table 5-18 Estimated direct employment opportunities created by the Project

Basis for estimate Value (Scenario 4) Applied ratio Estimated new direct

employment

Passenger numbers 23 million 65 jobs / 1 million 95038

Investment value R3.2 billion 1 job / R1 million 3 200

Source: Adapted from KPMG (2012, Table 11), Airports Company South Africa

· Indirect employment, which includes off-site contractors and service providers to the Project. The

construction phase is expected to generate indirect employment at local companies contracted to

supply materials and other services. It is not possible to quantify indirect employment and income that

will be created by the project at this stage, but it is likely to be significant because of the ability to

procure products and services locally.

In line with direct employment, operation phase employment opportunities are largely a function of

passenger numbers, which are only expected to increase gradually over time. Based on historical

employment performance at the Airport between 2008 and 2011 reported by KPMG (2012), new

37 The cost of creating new jobs tends to be lower in small firms and labour-intensive industries than in larger firms that are more capital-intensive (http://www.southafrica.info/business/economy/development/small-business-170912.htm#.VCEoXpSSx8E#ixzz3E7ngJjD8). For comparison, 2013 investments in the labour-intensive and small-business Western Cape craft sector created between 19 and 31 direct jobs per R1 million invested (http://www.ccdi.org.za/media-room/media-releases/r5-5-million-funding-creates-104-new-craft-sector-jobs), while the capital-intensive manufacture of wind turbine towers in the Western Cape generated 1 direct job per R1 million invested (http://www.westerncape.gov.za/news/premier-zille-announces-key-investment-achievements-provincial-green-economy). Airport Company South Africa is a large-scale and capital intensive business. 38 This is calculated based on an increase in passenger numbers of 23 million – 8.5 million = 14.5 million.

Cape Town International Airport Runway Realignment: Social Impact Assessment 89

indirect employment opportunities generated by the runway re-alignment (Scenario 4) are estimated

at between 2,550 and 7,360 (see Table 5-19).

Table 5-19 Estimated indirect employment opportunities created by the Project

Basis for estimate Value (Scenario 4) Applied Ratio Estimated new indirect

employment

Passenger numbers 23 million 176 jobs / 1 million 2 550

Investment value R3.2 billion 2.3 job / R1 million 7 360

Source: Adapted from KPMG (2012, Table 11)

· Induced employment includes employment generated by increased spending at businesses and on

services by households earning an income from the project (the multiplier effect). The calculation of

induced employment multipliers for this project is beyond the scope of this study, but certain to be

positive.

Based on the above analysis, the Project is expected to generate between 3,500 and 10,560 direct and

indirect employment opportunities in the long term. Additional employment opportunities are associated

with induced economic effects and potentially additional future investment that is contingent on the

runway re-alignment. Although employment effects cannot be forecast with certainty, the project is

expected to have a significant and positive employment impact.

5.3.7.1 Construction

The number of employment opportunities created during the construction phase is relatively small. While

construction employment will be limited to approximately two years, workers have the opportunity to

improve their economic prospects in the longer term if they take full advantage of the income, experience

and skills transferred to them through the project.

The extent of the benefit is regional, as a number of communities in the area, as well as a limited number

of individuals from outside of the area, are expected to benefit from job- and income-creation as well as

skill development during the construction phase. The intensity of the benefit is considered low, as the

number of created jobs equates to a very small proportion of the local population, extending over the

short term. The benefit will definitely occur and is therefore assessed to be of very low positive

significance.

The Project will be put out for tender and opportunities to enhance the benefit through specifications in

the tender documents should be utilised. However, due to the limited workforce and opportunities to

optimise the benefit, it remains of very low positive significance after enhancement (Table 5-20).

Cape Town International Airport Runway Realignment: Social Impact Assessment 90

Table 5-20 Significance of increased employment, income and skills development: construction

Extent Intensity Duration Consequence Probability Signifi-

cance

Status Confidence

Without

enhancement

Regional

2

Low

1

Short-term

1

Very Low

4

Definite VERY LOW + ve High

Enhancement measures:

· Include the following requirements in the tender documents:

o employment of local people must be prioritised where possible, and explicitly outlined in the tender application; and

o where applicable, local employees are to receive additional job-specific training, as required; this may be formal on-

the-job mentoring / training.

With

enhancement

Regional

2

Low

1

Short-term

1

Very Low

4

Definite VERY LOW + ve High

5.3.7.2 Operation

The generation of an estimated 3,500 to 10,56039 direct and indirect employment opportunities in the long

term, driven by increasing passenger numbers at the Airport, is small in comparison to Cape Town’s

1.7 million labour force. However, it is a significant number of employment opportunities created by a

single project, although the jobs will be created gradually over an extended period of time.

The extent of the impact related to the creation of employment, income and skills development during

operations is regional, as people from the greater Cape Town area and potentially beyond are expected

to benefit. The intensity of the impact is considered to be low due to the gradual generation of jobs over a

long timeframe. The duration of the impact is long-term. The benefit is therefore assessed to be of

medium positive significance.

Employment numbers will be largely determined by the industry and market forces, and significant

enhancement of the benefit is therefore unlikely, although external factors, such as economic growth

(particularly linked to tourism and the import/export sector) will play an important role in the determination

of overall throughput at and employment generated by Cape Town International Airport. The benefit thus

remains of medium positive significance after enhancement (

39 Note that various ACSA-commissioned reports provide differing projected employment figures. However, the above assessment remains valid for the range of employment opportunities indicated above.

Cape Town International Airport Runway Realignment: Social Impact Assessment 91

Table 5-21).

Cape Town International Airport Runway Realignment: Social Impact Assessment 92

Table 5-21 Significance of increased employment, income and skills development: operation

Extent Intensity Duration Consequence Probability Signifi-

cance

Status Confidence

Without

enhancement

Regional

2

Low

1

Long-term

3

Medium

6

Probable MEDIUM * + ve High

Enhancement measures:

· Comply with all relevant South African employment legislation.

· Prioritise the employment of local people with appropriate skills.

With

enhancement

Regional

2

Low

1

Long-term

3

Medium

6

Probable MEDIUM * + ve High

5.3.8 Increased Investment in and Stimulation of the Western Cape Economy

The Project requires the investment of approximately R3.2 billion in the Western Cape Economy, in

addition to which a further R5.5 billion (subject to Regulatory approval) will be invested to expand

infrastructure at Cape Town International Airport over the next 10 years if the re-alignment of the runway

proceeds (pers. comm. Sean Bradshaw, September 2014). Investment in the project will generate:

· direct economic impacts (e.g. through contracting of service providers to the Airport);

· indirect economic impacts (e.g. increase in production by suppliers to the project and service

providers); and

· induced economic impacts (e.g. increased production in industries benefitting from increased demand

from households earning an income from direct and indirect economic impacts).

KPMG (2012) found that most of the economic benefits from 2008 – 2011 Airport upgrades in South

Africa accrued in the provinces where the Airports are located. Historic performance reported in KPMG

(2012) suggests a possible economic multiplier of 1.5 for the aviation industry across South Africa40,

meaning that for every R100 spent in the aviation sector, an additional R150 in indirect and induced

income is generated in other sectors of the economy as a result of the initial investment. If this

assumption holds true, the R3.2 billion investment in the runway re-alignment could generate an

additional impact of R4.8 billion in the South African economy, much of which would accrue to the

Western Cape, in the medium term. This is a significant investment compared to Western Cape GDPR of

R253 billion in 201141. Urban-Econ (2011) estimated that the Cape Town International Airport contributed

between 2.1% and 4.5% to the total GGP of Cape Town in 2011.

Improved Airport capacity may lead to greater connectivity of Cape Town International Airport. Better

connectivity may in turn reduce travel times, improve reliability of air transport services, increase

40 KPMG (2012) noted that the direct contributions of the aviation sector to South African GDP in 2009 of R20.12 billion resulted in a further and indirect contribution to South African GDP of R21.03 billion and an induced contribution of R9.79 billion.

41 It was not clear in KPMG (2012) whether the induced contributions only consider effects from induced (household) spending or also effects from any business stimulation due to infrastructure improvement.

Cape Town International Airport Runway Realignment: Social Impact Assessment 93

frequency of flights and increase the range of destinations42, with spin-off benefits for the general

economy.

A range of studies highlight the economic stimulus that airports can create. KPMG (2012) states that

“Airports aid regional developmental objectives, by providing key infrastructure that enables and sustains

economic growth and job creation. Improving airport infrastructure encourages efficiencies through

economies of scale, access to a wider labour force and improved productivity through increased

connectivity to other economies. Airports create direct opportunities for travel agents, hotels, restaurants,

retail outlets and service providers […] This could potentially propel economic activity, business

development and tourism within a region. With the growing profile of air travel, the rise of international

gateways and travel hubs, and the continued movement toward creating an aerotropolis in all major

airport hubs in the world, airports are likely to play an enhanced role in the economy future.” This analysis

is echoed in other studies on the importance of airports and the effects of airport expansions, e.g. CDM

Smith (2012) and ICF SH&E (2013). CDM Smith (2012) further state that airports not only accommodate

the needs of business and leisure visitors and time-critical cargo, but are also themselves significant

generators of economic activity, supporting employment, income and output for an economy (assessed

above).

A study by Oxford Economics (cited in KPMG, 2012) suggests a direct correlation between increased

connectivity and improvements in economic performance due to rising productivity levels in firms outside

the aviation sector, achieved through improved access to foreign markets for domestic firms, greater

competition from foreign firms in the domestic market and enabling foreign direct investment in the

domestic economy. A cross-country statistical analysis of the relationship between connectivity and

productivity (IATA and InterVISTAS Consultants, cited in KPMG, 2012) suggests that a 10% increase in

connectivity results in a 0.07% increase in long-term GDP.

Other studies are more cautious about a causal relationship between connectivity and economic growth,

trade or other relevant economic parameters. Smit et al (2013) note that “the available empirical evidence

suggests there is a weak correlation, mostly for less developed economies, but there is no evidence of

causation.” Aviation activity, on the other hand, appears more closely correlated with improved GDP

performance, and vice versa. This relation appears to be stronger for remote and poorer regions and

countries than for well-developed ones (Smit et al, 2013).

Due to the remote location of Cape Town, air travel is arguably the most practical and economic method

of reaching the city and thus crucial for visitors to Cape Town; one can confidently assume that visitor

numbers and business activity would be lower without the aviation industry. Similarly, due to South

Africa’s status as a developing nation and Cape Town’s reputation as a tourism destination, one can also

assume that Cape Town receives at present a net inflow of tourists and is a net beneficiary of

international investment attracted by high connectivity and lower production costs.

42 Note, however, that Cape Town International Airport is predominantly a destination rather than a hub, and connectivity will therefore be lower compared to hubs such as O.R. Tambo International Airport in Johannesburg.

Cape Town International Airport Runway Realignment: Social Impact Assessment 94

Economic sectors likely to benefit from increased connectivity and airport capacity include business

services; construction; transport & communication; and trade, catering & accommodation, which jointly

contribute 62% to the Western Cape GDPR. Most of these sectors contribute a higher proportion to the

Western Cape economy than to the national economy and are projected to achieve the strongest growth

rates over the 2013 – 2018 period (Western Cape Government Provincial Treasury, 2014). This indicates

that there may be demand for and business capacity to take advantage of increased airport capacity.

Tourism is particularly important for the Western Cape as the sector benefits most of the province, is

labour intensive, a foreign exchange earner and has close linkages to agriculture and rural communities

(Western Cape Government Provincial Treasury, 2013). It thereby addresses the need for the creation of

low-skilled employment across the Western Cape (and not just in Cape Town).

It must be noted that tourist arrivals and inward investment also depend on a complex set of regional,

national and international political, economic, social and environmental factors, including global economic

conditions, absolute and relative attractiveness and affordability of Cape Town and visa regulations.

These may fundamentally impact the actual performance of airports, and the precise effect of an increase

in the Airport’s capacity cannot be predicted in isolation.

Cape Town International Airport has, however, been an important contributor to the local and regional

economy in the past decades and the Project is considered crucial for the continued and increased

economic growth in the CoCT, the Western Cape region and nationally. Failure to proceed with the

Project will have major future adverse economic consequences, especially over the longer term as the

implications of limited airport capacity and access manifest themselves.

5.3.8.1 Construction

The quantum of investment for the runway re-alignment project is significant relative to the local and

regional economy of the City of Cape Town and Western Cape, and benefits are likely to accrue

predominantly to the region. The direct and indirect impacts of the investment of R3.2 billion, as opposed

to benefits derived from improved airport infrastructure, will dominate the economic impact during the

construction phase and are expected to resonate through the economy beyond the immediate

construction period. The extent of the impact is thus deemed regional with medium intensity over the

medium-term. The benefit is assessed to be of medium positive significance.

Economic performance in response to the runway re-alignment is determined by a range of factors that

are outside of the control of Airports Company South Africa, and opportunities to enhance the benefit

through enhancement measures are limited. The benefit thus remains of medium positive significance

after enhancement (Table 5-22).

Cape Town International Airport Runway Realignment: Social Impact Assessment 95

Table 5-22 Significance of investment and stimulation of the economy: construction

Extent Intensity Duration Consequence Probability Signifi-

cance

Status Confidence

Without

enhancement

Regional

2

Medium

2

Medium-

term

2

Medium

6

Probable MEDIUM + ve Medium

Enhancement measures:

· Maintain ongoing communication with appropriate business forums to optimise opportunities for local businesses to participate

in and benefit from the Project.

With

enhancement

Regional

2

Medium

2

Medium-

term

2

Medium

6

Probable MEDIUM + ve Medium

5.3.8.2 Operation

Over time, the benefits derived from improved airport infrastructure, such as improved connectivity,

increased aviation activity and increased passenger numbers, are expected to dominate the economic

benefit derived from the Project during the operation phase. Other future benefits may derive from

additional investment contingent on the runway re-alignment. As the airport is deemed critical as a

facilitator (though not necessarily a direct cause) of future economic growth in Cape Town and the

Western Cape, the extent of the impact is deemed regional with medium intensity over the long-term. The

benefit is assessed to be of high positive significance.

Economic performance in response to the runway re-alignment is determined by a range of factors that

are outside of the control of Airports Company South Africa, and opportunities to optimise the benefit

through enhancement measures are limited (Table 5-23).

Table 5-23 Significance of investment and stimulation of the economy: operation

Extent Intensity Duration Consequence Probability Signifi-

cance

Status Confidence

Without

enhancement

Regional

2

Medium

2

Long-term

3

High

7

Probable HIGH + ve Medium

Enhancement measures:

· N/A

5.3.9 Cumulative Impacts

The proposed Project is already located within a densely populated urban environment, primarily

consisting of low-income residential areas and some industry. The CoCT is planning further residential

developments, densification in selected areas and there is a need to create employment opportunities.

There are no known large-scale industrial developments within the Airport’s AoI.

Cape Town International Airport Runway Realignment: Social Impact Assessment 96

The most prominent cumulative impacts will be linked to the further anticipated Airport infrastructure

upgrades. The planned infrastructure upgrades (amounting to ~R5.5 billion) will only occur if the

proposed Project is approved and the capacity of the Airport increases. This will serve to further enhance

the positive economic impacts, including financial contributions, increased economic opportunities and

employment. In addition, the increased capacity will encourage more investment into Cape Town, and

could potentially enhance the reputation and desirability of Cape Town as a tourist destination as a result

of increased exposure.

This Project clearly illustrates the potentially negative effects of inappropriate landuse planning, as is

evident in the areas surrounding the Airport. The quality of life of the residents living in the AoI is already

largely below average as a result of poor planning and support related to essential socio-economic

services (including education and healthcare). This Project will continue to impact on quality of life and

people’s ability to focus as a result of the levels of noise and the associated levels of annoyance.

However, there will be fewer people impacted by noise as compared to Scenario 2. The future

infrastructure upgrades will in turn generate a range of additional impacts linked to increased noise levels,

traffic, amongst others.

5.3.10 No-Go Alternative

The greatest cost of the No-Go alternative would be the lost opportunity for the economy to benefit from

the extensive economic benefits. The proposed Project, if it goes ahead will spend an estimated

R3.2 billion on the runway realignment, this is likely to lead to further infrastructure expansion at a cost of

~ R5.5 billion, i.e. a total capex spend of ~ R8.5 billion over the next 10 years. Further, failure to proceed

with the Project will have major future adverse economic consequences, especially over the longer term

as the implications of limited airport capacity and access manifest themselves.

The number of people affected by noise will decrease by 4% if the Project proceeds and Mitigation

Scenario B is implemented. Should the Project not proceed, a greater number of people will ultimately be

affected by noise.

The negative social impacts associated with Scenario 4 will not be experienced and the status quo will be

retained. However due to the density of housing surround the Airport, inappropriate land use planning,

inadequate housing (specifically in informal settlements), and the below average socio-economic

conditions there are significant negative impacts already being experienced. These negative impacts will

continue for the short-term and increase as the capacity grows to that of Scenario 2, the scale of the

negative impacts associated with Scenario 2 will persist for the long-term.

This option would result in there being a lost opportunity for Cape Town and the Western Cape to flourish

as a tourist and business destination. The increased revenue from the Project could be used to invest in

much needed socio-economic development in the city, specifically around the Airport. This opportunity

would be lost if the No-Go option is selected.

Cape Town International Airport Runway Realignment: Social Impact Assessment 97

6 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 Overview

The proposed realignment of the runway at Cape Town International Airport will serve to increase the

capacity of the Airport for the long-term. In the context of the socio-economic environment, there are a

number of positive and negative impacts that are equally as important and relevant for consideration.

The Socio-economic environment in which the Project is proposed is complex. With the exception of the

existing airport, the area is predominantly residential (formal and informal), however there are also a

number of industrial/ mixed land use areas. The areas that are affected by the existing operations and

potentially affected by the proposed Project extend in a north-south direction from the Airport. The

affected areas extends from more wealthy suburbs with good infrastructure and services north of the

Airport to poor and largely inadequately serviced suburbs south of the Airport. The heterogeneity of the

area is largely linked to the enforcement of Apartheid legislation that artificially segregated people. The

resultant inequalities persist today and pose development challenges for ongoing redress.

As compared to the more affluent suburbs north of the Airport, the suburbs immediately surrounding and

south of the Airport are generally more densely populated, they have relatively low levels of education

and skills, high rates of unemployment, low income levels and high dependency ratios. While the majority

of housing is formal, there is a substantial percentage of informal housing; the need for housing is high

and remains one of the priority areas for the government. Population growth rates are fairly high and

populations are likely to continue to grow.

6.2 Impact Summary

As a result of the proposed Project activities and the nature of the socio-economic environment, the

following impacts have been identified:

· Loss of access to resources on the land that will be incorporated into the Airport.

· Increased noise levels on areas that are currently affected, as well as on those that are not currently

affected by noise extending from the Airport.

· Reduced noise levels on areas that are currently affected.

· Impact on for future residential developments in the CoCT, due to the realignment and expansion of

noise contours extending from the Airport.

· Impact on property prices as a result of increased levels of noise.

· Increased Revenue to Government.

· Generation of Employment, Income and Skills Training.

· Increased Investment in and Stimulation of the Western Cape Economy.

Table 6-1 and Table 6-2 summarise the significance ratings pre- and post-mitigation. Recommended

mitigation and enhancement measures are presented in Table 6-3 for each impact and phase.

Cape Town International Airport Runway Realignment: Social Impact Assessment 98

Table 6-1 Summary of impact significance, pre- and post-mitigation: construction

Impact Consequence Probability Significance Status Confidence

Impact 1: Loss of access to resources Low (5) Definite LOW - ve High

With mitigation Low (5) Definite LOW - ve High

Impact 2: Increased noise levels and quality of life Very Low (4) Probable VERY LOW -ve High

With mitigation Very Low (3) Probable VERY LOW -ve High

Impact 3: Reduced noise levels - - - - -

Impact 4: Impact on future residential

developments

- - - - -

Impact 5: Impact on property prices - - - - -

Impact 6: Increased revenue to government Very Low (4) Improbable INSIGNIFICANT + ve High

Impact 7: Employment, income and skills training Very Low (4) Definite VERY LOW + ve High

With enhancement Very Low (4) Definite VERY LOW + ve High

Impact 8: Increased investment and stimulation of

economy

Medium (6) Probable MEDIUM + ve Medium

With enhancement Medium (6) Probable MEDIUM + ve Medium

Table 6-2 Summary of impact significance, pre- and post-mitigation: operation

Impact Consequence Probability Significance Status Confidence

Impact 1: Loss of access to resources - - - - -

Impact 2: Increased noise levels and quality of life Very High (8) Probable VERY HIGH - ve High

With mitigation Very High (8) Probable HIGH43 - ve High

Impact 3: Reduced noise levels High (7) Definite HIGH + ve High

With enhancement High (7) Definite HIGH + ve High

Impact 4: Impact on future residential

developments

Medium/High

(6/7)

Probable MEDIUM/HIGH - ve High

With mitigation Medium (6) Probable MEDIUM - ve High

Impact 5: Impact on property prices Low Possible VERY LOW - ve High

With mitigation Low Possible VERY LOW - ve High

Impact 6: Increased revenue to government Medium (6) Probable MEDIUM + ve High

With enhancement - - - - -

Impact 7: Employment, income and skills training Medium (6) Probable MEDIUM* + ve High

With enhancement Medium (6) Probable MEDIUM + ve High

Impact 8: Increased investment and

stimulation of economy

High (7) Probable HIGH + ve Medium

With enhancement - - - - -

43 According to SRKs Impact Assessment methodology, the significance rating would be very high. However, given the overall reduction in the number of affected people as compared to the No-Go alternative, it is the professional opinion of the Specialist that the significance of this impact should be one of medium negative significance.

Ta

ble

6-3

M

itig

ati

on

an

d E

nh

an

ce

me

nt

Me

as

ure

s

Imp

act

Esse

nti

al M

itig

ati

on

/ E

nh

an

cem

en

t B

est

Pra

cti

ce

Mit

igati

on

Loss o

f acce

ss to

reso

urc

es

NE

GA

TIV

E

Constr

uctio

n:

·

Cle

ar

the P

roje

ct fo

otp

rint are

a o

f all

vegeta

tio

n. E

mplo

y local peop

le to p

rep

are

and b

und

le a

ll

usa

ble

firew

ood a

nd m

ake it a

va

ilab

le t

o t

he s

urr

ound

ing c

om

munity m

em

bers

in a

ma

nne

r

agre

ed w

ith t

he loca

l W

ard

Councilo

rs. T

his

wood m

ust b

e g

ive

n f

ree o

f a

ny c

harg

e a

nd loca

l

resid

ents

/ e

xis

ting u

sers

must be

prio

ritised.

Incre

ase

d n

ois

e le

ve

ls

and q

ualit

y o

f lif

e

NE

GA

TIV

E

Constr

uctio

n:

·

Com

ply

with a

ll m

itig

atio

n m

ea

sure

s s

tip

ula

ted in t

he N

ois

e S

pecia

list S

tud

y to

red

uce t

he

impacts

as f

ar

as p

ossib

le.

·

Imple

me

nt M

itig

ation S

cen

ario B

measure

s a

s d

eta

iled a

nd m

odelle

d in th

e N

ois

e S

pecia

list

Stu

dy (

DD

A, 2016

).

·

Com

munic

ate

the

co

nstr

uctio

n s

ched

ule

to t

he r

esid

ents

and s

cho

ols

locate

d in c

lose

st

pro

xim

ity to

the s

ite.

S

pecific

ally

notify

the D

elft S

outh

scho

ols

locate

d c

lose t

o t

he

site

bo

unda

ry.

·

Deve

lop a

nd im

ple

me

nt

a G

rie

va

nce M

anag

em

ent P

roce

dure

. T

his

pro

ced

ure

sho

uld

cle

arl

y

define c

om

munic

atio

n p

roto

co

ls (

ve

rba

l a

nd w

ritte

n),

dire

ct a

nd a

ccura

te c

onta

ct

nam

es a

nd

num

be

rs, a

n e

sca

latio

n p

ath

for

com

pla

int re

solu

tio

n,

and

a g

rie

va

nce c

lose

-out

pro

ced

ure

.

This

pro

ced

ure

sho

uld

be

com

munic

ate

d to s

take

ho

lders

on a

reg

ula

r ba

sis

(a

nnua

lly

thro

ug

ho

ut th

e c

onstr

uctio

n p

ha

se).

Opera

tio

n:

·

Com

ply

with a

ll m

itig

atio

n m

ea

sure

s s

tip

ula

ted in t

he N

ois

e S

pecia

list S

tud

y to

red

uce t

he

impacts

as f

ar

as p

ossib

le.

·

Appoin

t a n

ois

e s

pecia

list

to r

e-m

ode

l th

e n

ois

e c

onto

urs

eve

ry 5

years

to a

cco

unt fo

r

anticip

ate

d incre

ase in c

apacity, cha

nge

d p

olic

ies,

impro

ved techno

log

ies,

altere

d f

light

path

s

and s

che

dule

s, e

tc.

·

Subm

it t

he u

pdate

d n

ois

e m

ode

l to

the r

ele

va

nt C

oC

T d

epart

me

nts

to e

nsure

tha

t th

eir p

lannin

g

is u

ndert

ake

n in a

ccord

ance w

ith t

he n

ois

e le

vels

.

Opera

tio

n:

·

Nois

e insula

tio

n s

ho

uld

be c

onsid

ere

d w

he

re

pra

ctica

lly f

ea

sib

le f

or

com

munity f

acili

tie

s t

hat w

ill

exp

erie

nce incre

ased le

ve

ls o

f no

ise;

sp

ecific

ally

,

scho

ols

in a

rea

s t

hat e

xp

erie

nce (

>10

dB

A

exc

eeda

nce

s)

and h

osp

ita

ls s

ho

uld

be

insula

ted to a

leve

l re

com

mended b

y t

he n

ois

e s

pecia

list.

·

Esta

blis

h a

work

ing g

roup w

ith t

he r

ele

va

nt

CoC

T

auth

oritie

s to d

iscuss la

nd u

se p

lannin

g in t

he a

rea

s

surr

ound

ing t

he A

irpo

rt. A

irp

ort

s C

om

pa

ny S

outh

Afr

ica s

ho

uld

attem

pt to

po

sitiv

ely

influe

nce t

he la

nd

use

pla

nnin

g d

ecis

ions in a

ma

nner

that

support

s t

he

deve

lopm

ent of

resid

entia

l ho

usin

g a

nd s

uitab

le

ind

ustr

ial d

eve

lopm

ents

that w

ill f

acili

tate

lo

ng

-term

em

plo

ym

ent cre

atio

n f

or

local peo

ple

.

·

CS

A, in

part

ners

hip

with C

oC

T a

nd o

the

r re

levant

part

ies c

ould

develo

p a

nd im

ple

men

t an e

ducatio

n

pro

gra

mm

e that

encou

rag

es p

eo

ple

to b

e a

wa

re o

f

facto

rs t

hat m

ay incre

ase th

e r

isk o

f hype

rtensio

n,

card

iovascula

r dis

ease (

eg. o

besity, sm

okin

g, la

ck o

f

exerc

ise).

T

his

initia

tive m

ay m

odify the o

vera

ll risk

of chro

nic

conditio

ns in th

e s

urr

oun

din

g c

om

munitie

s.

Cape T

ow

n I

nte

rnatio

na

l A

irpo

rt R

unw

ay R

ea

lignm

ent: S

ocia

l Im

pact

Asse

ssm

ent

100

Imp

act

Esse

nti

al M

itig

ati

on

/ E

nh

an

cem

en

t B

est

Pra

cti

ce

Mit

igati

on

·

Nois

e (

and

air q

ualit

y)

sh

ould

be m

onitore

d to e

nsure

that

pre

dic

ted e

xp

osure

s f

rom

the m

odels

reflect actu

al exp

osure

s. F

urt

he

r risk a

ssessm

ents

should

be u

nd

ert

aken if exposure

s a

ppear

to

be h

ighe

r th

an p

redic

ted

.

·

Airpo

rts C

om

pa

ny S

outh

Afr

ica t

o b

roade

n t

he C

oC

T s

takeho

lders

who r

ece

ive u

pdate

d

info

rmatio

n a

bo

ut th

e n

ois

e c

onto

urs

. T

he

y s

ho

uld

be r

eg

ula

rly info

rmed a

nd u

pdate

d o

f a

ny

cha

nge

s.

·

Continue (

thro

ug

h t

he o

pera

tio

n p

ha

se)

to ide

ntify

new

pra

ctice

s in t

he

avia

tio

n ind

ustr

y t

hat

will

impro

ve t

he n

ois

e le

ve

ls. A

irport

s C

om

pa

ny S

outh

Afr

ica s

ho

uld

undert

ake r

eg

ula

r stu

die

s (

at

lea

st

every

5 y

ea

rs)

to ide

ntify

inte

rnatio

nal tr

end

s a

nd b

est p

ractice m

eth

od

s f

or

ma

nag

ing

and

red

ucin

g t

he n

ois

e im

pacts

.

·

Desig

n a

pro

gra

mm

e f

or

dis

cussio

n w

ith k

ey s

take

ho

lde

rs to im

ple

me

nt

new

meth

od

s a

nd

techno

log

ies t

hat

are

deem

ed r

ele

va

nt

to a

chie

ve c

ontinuous im

pro

vem

ents

in t

he n

ois

e le

ve

ls.

·

Deve

lop a

nd im

ple

me

nt

a g

enera

l G

rie

va

nce M

anagem

ent P

roced

ure

. T

his

pro

ced

ure

sho

uld

cle

arl

y d

efine c

om

munic

atio

n p

roto

co

ls (

verb

al a

nd

writte

n),

direct a

nd

accura

te c

onta

ct

nam

es

and n

um

bers

, a

n e

sca

latio

n p

ath

for

com

pla

int

reso

lutio

n,

and a

grie

va

nce c

lose

-out

pro

ce

dure

.

This

pro

ced

ure

sho

uld

be

com

munic

ate

d to y

our

sta

ke

ho

lders

in a

n a

ppro

priate

ma

nner

on a

reg

ula

r ba

sis

(a

nnua

lly a

t a m

inim

um

).

·

As r

ecom

mended

by t

he N

ois

e S

pecia

list, t

he g

rie

va

nce

s/

com

pla

ints

must b

e inte

gra

ted w

ith

the n

ois

e m

onitori

ng s

yste

m in o

rde

r to

dra

w c

orr

ela

tio

ns a

nd e

nab

le c

oord

inate

d a

sse

ssm

ents

and r

espo

nse

s.

Red

uced n

ois

e le

ve

ls

PO

SIT

IVE

·

No e

nha

ncem

ent m

ea

sure

s r

eq

uired/

po

ssib

le t

o e

nha

nce t

his

im

pact.

Impact o

n f

utu

re

resid

entia

l

deve

lopm

ents

NE

GA

TIV

E

Opera

tio

n:

·

Com

ply

with a

ll m

itig

atio

n m

ea

sure

s s

tip

ula

ted in t

he n

ois

e s

pecia

list

stu

dy to r

ed

uce

the

no

ise

impacts

as f

ar

as p

ossib

le.

·

Appoin

t a n

ois

e s

pecia

list

to r

e-m

ode

l th

e n

ois

e c

onto

urs

eve

ry 5

years

to a

cco

unt fo

r cha

nged

polic

ies,

impro

ved t

echno

log

ies, a

ltere

d f

light p

ath

s a

nd s

che

dule

s,

etc

. S

ubm

it t

he u

pdate

d

Opera

tio

n:

·

Lia

ise w

ith t

he

re

leva

nt C

oC

T d

ep

art

me

nts

to

advocate

for

furt

her

ind

ustr

ial d

eve

lopm

ent

and m

ixe

d

land u

se in a

rea

s t

hat

will

not be

suitab

le f

or

resid

entia

l de

ve

lopm

ent.

Cape T

ow

n I

nte

rnatio

na

l A

irpo

rt R

unw

ay R

ea

lignm

ent: S

ocia

l Im

pact

Asse

ssm

ent

101

Imp

act

Esse

nti

al M

itig

ati

on

/ E

nh

an

cem

en

t B

est

Pra

cti

ce

Mit

igati

on

model to

the r

ele

va

nt C

oC

T d

epa

rtm

ents

to e

nsure

that

their p

lannin

g is u

ndert

ake

n i

n

accord

ance w

ith t

he n

ois

e le

ve

ls.

·

Airpo

rts C

om

pa

ny S

outh

Afr

ica t

o b

roade

n t

he C

oC

T s

takeho

lders

who r

ece

ive u

pdate

d

info

rmatio

n a

bo

ut th

e n

ois

e c

onto

urs

. T

he

y s

ho

uld

be r

eg

ula

rly info

rmed a

nd u

pdate

d o

n a

ny

cha

nge

s.

·

Airpo

rts C

om

pa

ny S

outh

Afr

ica t

o p

rom

ote

the u

se o

f in

dustr

ies/ b

usin

esse

s in t

he a

rea

s

surr

ound

ing t

he A

irpo

rt in o

rde

r to

enco

ura

ge d

eve

lopm

ent.

·

Esta

blis

h a

work

ing g

roup w

ith t

he r

ele

va

nt

CoC

T

auth

oritie

s to d

iscuss la

nd u

se p

lannin

g in t

he a

rea

s

surr

ound

ing t

he A

irpo

rt. A

irp

ort

s C

om

pa

ny S

outh

Afr

ica s

ho

uld

attem

pt to

po

sitiv

ely

influe

nce t

he la

nd

use

pla

nnin

g d

ecis

ions in a

ma

nner

that

support

s t

he

deve

lopm

ent of

resid

entia

l ho

usin

g a

nd s

uitab

le

ind

ustr

ial d

eve

lopm

ents

that w

ill f

acili

tate

lo

ng

-term

em

plo

ym

ent cre

atio

n f

or

local peo

ple

.

Impact o

n P

rope

rty

Prices

NE

GA

TIV

E

Opera

tio

n:

·

Com

ply

with a

ll m

itig

ation m

easu

res s

tip

ula

ted in the N

ois

e S

pecia

list S

tudy to

red

uce th

e

impacts

as f

ar

as p

ossib

le.

·

Develo

p a

nd im

ple

ment

a g

en

era

l G

rievance M

an

age

me

nt P

rocedu

re.

This

pro

cedu

re s

hould

cle

arly d

efin

e c

om

munic

ation p

roto

cols

(verb

al and

writte

n),

direct

and

accura

te c

onta

ct n

am

es

and n

um

bers

, an e

scala

tion

path

for

com

pla

int

resolu

tion,

and a

grieva

nce c

lose

-out

pro

ce

dure

.

This

pro

cedu

re s

ho

uld

be

com

munic

ate

d in a

n a

pp

ropri

ate

mann

er

on a

regula

r basis

(annu

ally

at a m

inim

um

).

·

As r

ecom

me

nded

by th

e N

ois

e S

pecia

list, t

he g

rievances/

com

pla

ints

must b

e inte

gra

ted w

ith

the n

ois

e m

onitoring s

yste

m in o

rde

r to

dra

w c

orr

ela

tions a

nd e

nable

co

ord

inate

d a

ssessm

ents

and r

esponses.

Opera

tio

n:

·

Esta

blis

h a

work

ing g

roup w

ith t

he r

ele

vant

CoC

T

auth

orities to d

iscuss land u

se p

lannin

g in

the a

reas

surr

ou

ndin

g t

he A

irpo

rt. A

irp

ort

s C

om

pany S

outh

Afr

ica s

hould

attem

pt to

positiv

ely

influ

ence t

he lan

d

use p

lannin

g d

ecis

ions in a

man

ner

that su

pport

s the

develo

pm

ent o

f re

sid

ential h

ousin

g a

nd s

uitable

industr

ial d

evelo

pm

ents

that

will

facili

tate

long

-term

em

plo

ym

ent cre

ation f

or

local peo

ple

.

Incre

ase

d R

eve

nue to

Govern

me

nt.

PO

SIT

IVE

·

No e

nha

ncem

ent m

ea

sure

s r

eq

uired/

po

ssib

le t

o e

nha

nce t

his

im

pact.

Ge

nera

tio

n o

f

Em

plo

ym

ent,

Incom

e

and S

kill

s T

rain

ing.

PO

SIT

IVE

Constr

uctio

n:

·

Inclu

de t

he f

ollo

win

g r

eq

uirem

ents

in t

he te

nde

r docum

ents

:

o

em

plo

ym

ent of

loca

l pe

op

le m

ust be p

rioritised a

nd e

xp

licitly

outlin

ed in t

he t

ende

r

app

licatio

n;

and

o

whe

re a

pp

licab

le,

all

loca

l em

plo

yee

s a

re t

o r

ece

ive a

dd

itio

na

l jo

b-s

pecific

tra

inin

g,

as

req

uired; th

is m

ay b

e f

orm

al o

n-t

he

-job m

ento

ring / t

rain

ing.

Cape T

ow

n I

nte

rnatio

na

l A

irpo

rt R

unw

ay R

ea

lignm

ent: S

ocia

l Im

pact

Asse

ssm

ent

102

Imp

act

Esse

nti

al M

itig

ati

on

/ E

nh

an

cem

en

t B

est

Pra

cti

ce

Mit

igati

on

Opera

tio

n:

·

Com

ply

with a

ll re

leva

nt S

outh

Afr

ica

n e

mplo

ym

ent

leg

isla

tio

n.

·

Prioritise t

he e

mplo

ym

ent

of

loca

l peop

le w

ith a

pp

rop

riate

skill

s.

Incre

ase

d I

nve

stm

ent

in a

nd S

tim

ula

tio

n o

f

the W

este

rn C

ape

Econom

y.

PO

SIT

IVE

Constr

uctio

n:

·

Main

tain

ongo

ing c

om

munic

atio

n w

ith a

ppro

priate

busin

ess f

oru

ms t

o o

ptim

ise o

pport

unitie

s f

or

loca

l b

usin

esse

s to p

art

icip

ate

in a

nd b

enefit fr

om

the P

roje

ct.

:

Opera

tio

n:

·

No e

nha

ncem

ent m

ea

sure

s r

eq

uired/

po

ssib

le t

o e

nha

nce t

his

im

pact.

Cape Town International Airport Runway Realignment: Social Impact Assessment 103

6.3 Conclusion

The Project provides a significant opportunity for Cape Town and the Western Cape to benefit from the

economic benefits, including direct and indirect capital expenditure, increased rates and taxes, local

economic growth resulting from increased business and tourism, and employment (direct, indirect and

induced). The increased capacity will improve accessibility to Cape Town and the Western Cape more

broadly, thus enhancing its reputation, and enabling the potential for greater economic growth and

employment generation. It is evident that many of the local, district, provincial and national development

plans anticipate the benefits associated with the proposed Airport expansion.

The increased noise levels will affect a large number of people as well as sensitive community facilities

(e.g. schools and healthcare facilities); however, the implementation of Mitigation Scenario B will result in

an overall reduction in the number of affected people and community facilities as compared to the No-Go

option (Scenario 2). While it is not possible to quantify the human response to noise impacts, it is certain

that quality of life will be negatively affected for some people in the areas immediately adjacent to the

Airport as well as in corridors north and south of it. Quality of life will be further degraded for those people

who also experience the negative air quality and traffic impacts (these are described in the respective

specialist studies). The extent of this impact will reduce furthest from the Airport. As a result of the

growth (land use types and extent) that has been permitted around the Airport, there are currently

significant exceedances of the recommended noise guidelines. Scenario 4 with the implementation of

Mitigation Scenario B will result in a decrease in the number of affected people. This improvement

makes the proposed Project a more superior alternative to the current runway operating at full

capacity (Scenario 2) in terms of the number of people affected by noise.

There will be a large number of people positively affected by the Project as they will experience a

reduction in noise levels due to the proposed rotation of the runway. Approximately 80% of these people

will no longer experience noise exceedances.

The impact on future residential developments is also significant given the high demand for housing in the

area. The Project will limit the number of sites that are suitable for residential development and affect

some planned and proposed housing projects. There will, however, also be some housing projects that

will benefit from improved noise levels. More potential sites may become more attractive for development

in areas that experience reduced levels of noise.

The negative impact on properties is limited to full-title houses located in Richmond Estate in Goodwood

and in Edgemead; it is anticipated that there may be a reduction of less than 4% in Richmond East and

no more than 3.5% in Edgemead for the short-term, prices are expected to stabilise in Edgemead over

the long-term. These suburbs continue to be affected despite the implementation of Mitigation Scenario

B. The majority of the affected area is comprised of houses below R700,000 – below which there is little

evidence that noise will impact on property values. Areas that will no longer be affected by noise due to

the shift in the noise contours are unlikely to experience an increase in property values given that they are

predominantly below the value of R700,00 thus they never experienced depreciation in the first instance.

Cape Town International Airport Runway Realignment: Social Impact Assessment 104

The only potential exceptions are Sonnendal and Parow North in Parow where property values are

higher.

Due to the proposed use of the land to the east of the Airport, a small number of people will lose access

to firewood. This will be significant to the people affected, however, this is presumed to be a relatively

small percentage of people.

Inherent in impact assessments is the tension between development and the responsibility for

consequences. Socio-economic impact identification and assessment is complex as the social

environment may respond to activities in unpredictable, complex and often intangible ways. Airports

Company South Africa, as the developer, and the National Department of Environmental Affairs as the

permitting authority will need to agree on the extent to which the developer and various government

stakeholders will commit themselves to implementing mitigation measures in conjunction with additional

planning and development activities that will be necessary to provide a healthy social environment.

Development and management of the broader socio-economic environment is outside of the developer’s

ambit of responsibility, but failure to implement appropriate measures to ensure controlled development

and change will have negative consequences for both the Project as well as existing and future residents

in the Study Area. The CoCT must ensure that land use planning and the associated development is

undertaken in a manner that supports and promotes the operation and expansion of the Airport. The

Airport is a significant contributor to enhancing the reputation of the CoCT and Western Cape, and

building the local and provincial economies.

Overall, despite the significance of the negative impacts, the benefits of the Project are also significant.

The proposed Project warrants extensive consideration, especially considering the re-alignment of the

runway results in an overall net decrease in the number of people affected by noise. While many of the

negative impacts are high and the significance of these ratings cannot be denied, the existing scenario is

also negative. The CoCT has continued to enable development around the Airport despite knowing the

noise contours. The areas located in closest proximity to the Airport are impoverished, and lack adequate

housing and some basic services. As a result of the extreme need, people are adapting to the already

degraded quality of life. While this is not ideal, it is the current reality. The proposed Project will increase

the number of affected people. Further housing developments and densification should be avoided,

specifically in areas that experience noise levels above 65 dBA. Commercial and industrial development

must be promoted by the CoCT as a means of generating income, thus benefitting the surrounding

population.

The positive impacts are significant. The significance ratings may appear to be tempered (as compared

to the negative impacts) but that is because they are considered within the context of a fairly healthy local

and provincial economy. The positive impact ratings cannot be directly compared with the ‘very high’ and

‘high’ significance ratings assigned to some of the negative impacts. The financial and economic benefits

that will be generated could serve to bolster the ability of the government to address the persistent socio-

economic challenges.

Cape Town International Airport Runway Realignment: Social Impact Assessment 105

It is difficult to conclude that it is acceptable to negatively affect already vulnerable people; however time

has shown that people can, and do, reside in areas that are already exposed to these same negative

impacts. Many of them are not thriving, but this is the combined result of a far more complex set of

political, physical, socio-economic, environmental, and psychological matters. Further government

planning should be undertaken in a more sensitive and strategic manner and the positive economic

impacts should be maximised by government.

Given the significance of the positive impacts and the overall reduction in the number of people affected

by noise, it is the reasoned opinion of the Social Specialist that the proposed Project should be

authorised.

Cape Town International Airport Runway Realignment: Social Impact Assessment 106

7 REFERENCES

Airports Company South Africa (2014). Integrated Report 2014. Available online:

http://www.acsa.co.za/2014_acsa_finacial_reports/2014%20Integrated%20Annual%20Report%202014.p

df, accessed September 2014.

Barbour (2007). Guideline for involving social assessment specialists in EIA processes. Prepared for

Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning, Western Cape Province.

Barbour (2011). Social Impact Assessment (Draft Report): Touwsrivier Solar Energy Facility Western

Cape Province. Available online: http://www.eeu.org.za/downloads/touwsrivier-

documents/Appendix%208.5_Social%20Impact%20Assessment.pdf, accessed in May 2011.

CDM Smith (2012). The Economic Impact of Commercial Airports in 2010. Available online:

http://airportsforthefuture.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Economic-Impact-of-Commercial-Airport-2010-

final.pdf, accessed September 2014.

CoCT (2006). The spatial distribution of socio-economic status, services levels and levels of living in the

City of Cape Tow 2001 – to highlight suburbs in need. Phillip Romanovsky and Janet Gie, Information &

Knowledge Management Department, Strategic Information Branch, March 2006. Available online:

http://www.capetown.gov.za/en/stats/CityReports/Documents/Households/Levels_of_Living_Report_2610

200613451_359.pdf, accessed in May 2011.

CoCT (2009). Cape Town’s Economic Environment. Available online:

http://www.capetown.gov.za/en/ehd/Documents/EHDEcon.pdf, accessed in May 2011.

CoCT (2011). Tygerberg District Plan: Volume 1 Baseline Information and Analysis Report. March 2011.

Available online: http://www.capetown.gov.za/en/Planningportal/Pages/Tygerbergdistrictplan.aspx,

accessed in May 2013.

CoCT (2011a). The City of Cape Town’s Integrated Development Plan (IDP) 2011/12 review. Available

online:

http://www.capetown.gov.za/en/IDP/Statutory%20plans%202011%20%202012/2011_12_review_IDP_for

_Cape_Town.pdf, accessed in May 2013.

CoCT (2012). Integrated Human Settlements: Five-year Strategic Plan 1 July 2012 – 30 June 2017.

Available online: http://www.capetown.gov.za/en/Housing/Documents/housing_booklet_final_1.pdf,

accessed June 2013.

CoCT (2013). Integrated Human Settlements: Five-year Strategic Plan 1 July 2012 – 30 June 2017,

2013/14 Review. Available online:

http://www.capetown.gov.za/en/Housing/Documents/T4IB03837_CCT_Housing_Plan_Prf7.pdf, accessed

August 2014.

Cape Town International Airport Runway Realignment: Social Impact Assessment 107

CoCT (2013). Compiled by Strategic Development Information and GIS Department, City of Cape Town,

2011 and 2001 Census data supplied by Statistics South Africa, January 2013. Available online:

http://www.capetown.gov.za/en/stats/Documents/2011_Census_CT_Ward_Index_2.htm, accessed in

May 2013.

CTICC (2012). 2012 Sustainability Report. Available online:

http://www.cticc.co.za/Files/Attachments/documents/CTICC%20Sustainability%20Report%202011_2012(

final).pdf, accessed in June 2013.

DDA (2014). Air Quality Impact Assessment for the Proposed Runway Re-Alignment at the Cape Town

International Airport. Prepared for SRK Consulting. Unpublished.

DDA (2016). Noise Impact Assessment for the Proposed Runway Re-Alignment at the Cape Town

International Airport. Prepared for SRK Consulting. Unpublished.

EOH (2016). Health Impact Assessment: Cape Town International Airport Runway Re-alignment and

Associated Infrastructure Project. Unpublished

Floud, S. et. al. (2013). Exposure to aircraft and road traffic noise and associations with heart disease and

stroke in six European countries: a cross-sectional study. Environmental Health 2013, 12:89

doi:10.1186/1476-069X-12-89. Published 16 October 2013.

GAB Consulting (2010). Update on the economic value of tourism June 2010. Available online:

http://www.capetown.travel/uploads/legacy/City_of_Cape_Town_June_2010_Ecionomic_Value_of_Touris

m_Report.pdf, accessed in May 2013.

Hansell, A. L. et. al. (2013). Aircraft noise and cardiovascular disease near Heathrow airport in London:

small area study. BMJ 2013;347:f5432 doi: 10.1136/bmj.f5432. Published 8 October 2013.

ICF SH&E (2013). 2013 Economic Impact Study for Colorado Airports. Available online:

http://www.coloradodot.info/programs/aeronautics/Economic%20Impact%20Study, accessed September

2014.

Iliso Consulting and Royal HaskoningDHV (2013). Cape Town International Airport Transport Impact

Assessment Study.

Investec (2012). Macro-economic forecasts: South Africa continues to become wealthier. 2nd Quarter

2012. Available online: http://www.investec.co.za/content/dam/investec/investec-

international/documents/EconomicReportsPDFs/2012/Macro%20Economic%20Forecasts%20Q2%20201

2.pdf, accessed in May 2013.

Cape Town International Airport Runway Realignment: Social Impact Assessment 108

Investopedia, Available online at http://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/leakage.asp, accessed in

September 2014.

Johnston, M. L. (1989). An Examination of Maslow's Need Hierarchy. Physiological Attitude and Human

Behaviour. 2, 138-139, Springer Press: New York.

KPMG (2012). Airports Company of South Africa (ACSA) – Economic impact study of all the airports

managed by ACSA.

Lewis, F., Mitchell D. and Oelofse C. (2007). Community Impact Assessment for the Proposed Dube

Transport.

National Film and Video Foundation South Africa (2013). South African Film Industry Economic Baseline

Study. Available online:

http://www.dac.gov.za/notices/2013/NFVF%20South%20African%20Film%20Industry%20Economic%20

Baseline%20Study%20April%202013.pdf, accessed June 2013.

National Treasury (2011). Statistical Tables of the 2010 Budget Review. Republic of South Africa,

National Treasury.

Nchemanyi, J.N. (2006). Community Perceptions on Noise Generated by Aircraft in Cape Town. Thesis,

Cape Peninsula University of Technology. Unpublished.

Rode, E. et al (2016). Property Valuation study: Cape Town International Airport Runway Realignment

and Associated Infrastructure Project. Rode Property Consultants. Unpublished.

SARB (2010). Annual Economic Report, 2010. Available online: http://www.reservebank.co.za/aer,

accessed in December 2010

SARB (2011). Annual Economic Report, 2011. Available online: http://www.reservebank.co.za /aer,

accessed in July 2011.

SARB (2012). Annual Economic Report, 2012. Available online: http://www.reservebank.co.za /aer,

accessed in May 2013

SARS (2013). 2013 Tax Statistics – Highlights. Available online:

http://www.sars.gov.za/AllDocs/Documents/Tax%20Stats/TStats%202013%20Highlights%20WEB.pdf,

accessed September 2014.

Smit M., Koopman M. and Faber J. (2013). The Economics of Airport Expansion. Aviation Policy

Development Framework, CE Delft. Available online:

http://www.cedelft.eu/publicatie/the_economics_of_airport_expansion/1363, accessed September 2014.

Cape Town International Airport Runway Realignment: Social Impact Assessment 109

South African Tourism Strategic Research Unit (2012). 2011 Annual Tourism Report. Available online:

http://www.southafrica.net/uploads/legacy/1/528609/2011_Annual_Report_v9_06072012.pdf, accessed in

May 2013.

SRK Consulting (2016). Spatial Analysis of Land Use and Population in Areas Affected by Noise

Associated with the Proposed Re-alignment of the Runway at the Cape Town International Airport.

Prepared for Airports Company South Africa, August 2014. Unpublished.

StatsSA (2010). Gross Domestic Product: Annual Estimates 2000 – 2009. Statistics South Africa,

Statistical release P0441.

StatsSA (2011). Gross domestic product. Annual estimates 2002 – 2010, Regional estimates 2002 –

2010, Third quarter 2011. Statistical release P0441. Available online:

http://www.statssa.gov.za/publications/P0441/P04413rdQuarter2011.pdf, accessed in May 2013.

StatsSA (2013a). P0211 - Quarterly Labour Force Survey (QLFS), 1st Quarter 2013. Available online:

http://www.statssa.gov.za/publications/statsdownload.asp?PPN=P0211&SCH=5518, accessed in May

2013.

StatsSA (2013b). P0441 – Gross domestic product, Fourth quarter 2012. Available online:

http://www.statssa.gov.za/Publications/P0441/P04414thQuarter2012.pdf, accessed in May 2013.

The Economist (2012). Top flights. 14 May 2012. Available online:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2012/05/daily-chart-8, accessed in May 2013.

Urban-Econ: Development Economists (2011). ACSA: Cape Town international Airport. Macro Economic

Impact Study.

Van der Merwe, J.H. and von Holdt, D.S. (2005). Aircraft noise management through controlled area

demarcation in South Africa: its application at Cape Town International Airport. South African Journal of

Science, 101, 400-408.

van Zyl H., de Wit M. and Leiman A. (2005). Guideline for Involving Economists in EIA Processes.

Available online: http://www.westerncape.gov.za/text/2005/10/6_deadp_economics_guideline_june05.pdf.

Vanclay F. (2003). International Principles for Social Impact Assessment. Impact Assessment and Project

Appraisal for IAIA. Available online: http://www.iaia.org/publicdocuments/sections/sia/IAIA-SIA-

International-Principles.pdf.

WESGRO (2011). Labour Skills in the Western Cape – the Western Cape Investment and Trade

Promotion Agency, South Africa. Available online at:

http://www.wesgro.co.za/publications/files/useruploads/user_anon/files/2011%20Labour%20Skills.pdf,

accessed in: July 2011.

Cape Town International Airport Runway Realignment: Social Impact Assessment 110

Western Cape Government Provincial Treasury (2012). Provincial Economic Review & Outlook 2012.

Western Cape Government Provincial Treasury (2013). Provincial Economic Review and Outlook 2013.

Available online:

http://www.westerncape.gov.za/assets/departments/treasury/Documents/2013_pero_to_printers_11_octo

ber_2013_final.pdf, accessed September 2014.

Whitfield, A. (2003). Assessment of noise annoyance in three distinct communities living in close

proximity to a UK regional airport. International Journal of Environmental Health Research, 13(4), 361-

372.

World Economic Outlook (2011). World Economic Outlook Country Macroeconomic Data: South Africa.

Available online at: http://www.econstats.com/weo/CZAF.htm, accessed in July 2011.

Personal communication:

Janet Gie, Information and Knowledge Management Department, CoCT, email 15 May 2013.

Sean Bradshaw, Airports Company South Africa, various occasions.

Cape Town International Airport Runway Realignment: Social Impact Assessment 111

8 ANNEX A: SPATIAL ANALYSIS REPORT BY SRK CONSULTING