CRR IV FEIR ~ 26042010 [FINAL].pdf - Environmental Projects
CRR IV FEIR ~ 26042010 [FINAL].pdf - Environmental Projects
CRR IV FEIR ~ 26042010 [FINAL].pdf - Environmental Projects
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (EIA) FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS<br />
DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR<br />
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES REPORT<br />
SUMMARY OF WRITTEN COMMENTS RECE<strong>IV</strong>ED DURING THE COMMENT PERIOD FROM<br />
9 OCTOBER 2009 TO 17 NOVEMBER 2009, AND RESPONSES THERETO<br />
1 Operational phase impacts ................................................................................ 7<br />
1.1 Planning concerns ...................................................................................... 7<br />
1.2 Impact on municipal services .................................................................... 27<br />
1.3 Impact on traffic flow and parking ............................................................. 39<br />
1.4 Access to Harbour .................................................................................... 52<br />
1.5 Competition and Opportunities ................................................................. 56<br />
1.6 Community upliftment ............................................................................... 59<br />
1.7 Impact on character and culture of Struisbaai harbour ............................. 71<br />
1.8 Pollution of the Environment ..................................................................... 96<br />
1.9 Impact of Climate Change and natural forces on development ................ 97<br />
1.10 Impact on fauna, flora and natural processes ......................................... 103<br />
1.11 Impact on view and property value ......................................................... 104<br />
1.12 Cumulative impact .................................................................................. 106<br />
1.13 Needs and desirability ............................................................................ 108<br />
1.14 Impact on safety and security ................................................................. 115<br />
1.15 Sustainability .......................................................................................... 116<br />
1.16 Impact on tourism ................................................................................... 119<br />
2 Construction phase impacts ........................................................................... 121<br />
3 Process .......................................................................................................... 123<br />
4 Consideration of alternatives ......................................................................... 166<br />
5 Opposition to the proposed development ...................................................... 173<br />
6 Support for the proposed development .......................................................... 177<br />
7 General comment .......................................................................................... 178
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR:<br />
<strong>CRR</strong><br />
There were 186 responses submitted during the comment period 9 October 2009 to 17<br />
November 2009 and comments received after this period were included and are responded to<br />
in this comments and responses report. The comment period was for I&APs to comment on<br />
the Draft <strong>Environmental</strong> Impact Report. Table 1 below lists the Interested and Affected Parties<br />
(I&AP) that submitted comments during the period stated above.<br />
Table 1: List of I&APs that submitted comments<br />
Name<br />
Ref<br />
Date<br />
Organisation<br />
No.<br />
received<br />
Method<br />
Michelle Vermeulen 1 12/10/2009 Fax<br />
Werner Vermeulen 2 12/10/2009 Fax<br />
Jannie H Momberg 3 12/10/2009 Fax<br />
Petrus Jurgens<br />
4 15/10/2009 Fax<br />
Visser<br />
Marthinus J.H. Wiese 5 16/10/2009 Fax<br />
Valerie Wiese 6 16/10/2009 Fax<br />
M.J. Edwards 7 16/10/2009 Fax<br />
Mnr Edwards 8 16/10/2009 Fax<br />
Mari Rabie 9 19/10/2009 Fax<br />
Jan Rabie 10 19/10/2009 Fax<br />
Leonie da Luz 11 19/10/2009 Fax<br />
Jacobus J.D.<br />
12 19/10/2009 Fax<br />
Havenga<br />
Paul M. De Kock 13 20/10/2009 Fax<br />
Mark Murtz 14 Moya Manzi Guest 22/10/2009 Fax<br />
House<br />
Johan Van Zyl 15 Southern Staying 13/10/2009 Email<br />
Eldalene Bruwer 16 22/10/2009 Fax<br />
Anton Louw 17 Anton Louw <strong>Projects</strong> 23/10/2009 Fax<br />
Barend J. Viljoen 18 23/10/2009 Post<br />
Hendrik Andreas 19 23/10/2009 Email<br />
Kotze<br />
Carel V. van der 20 26/10/2009 Fax<br />
Merwe<br />
David McKinstry 21 26/10/2009 Email<br />
&<br />
13/11/2009<br />
Louise Louw 22 27/10/2009 Fax<br />
A.S. Lourens and 23 27/10/2009 Email<br />
others<br />
Evan Matthee 24 28/10/2009 Fax<br />
Jonine Mostert 25 28/10/2009 Email<br />
Anneke Kloppers 26 31/10/2009 Hand<br />
Hans Swart 27 31/10/2009 Hand &<br />
Email<br />
Johan D Van der 28 Suidpunt Diepsee 31/10/2009 Hand<br />
Walt<br />
Marlene C. Ellis 29 30/10/2009 Hand<br />
Rene Swart 30 31/10/2009 Hand<br />
Evan Meirion<br />
Williams<br />
31 31/10/2009 Hand<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 2 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR:<br />
<strong>CRR</strong><br />
Eric Consani 32 1/11/2009 Fax<br />
Etienne Jay Van Wyk 33 03/11/2009<br />
17/11/2009<br />
Chris & Ria Reynolds 34 03/11/2009 Post<br />
Rhus Van Wyk 35 03/11/2009 Post<br />
Gaston C. Van Wyk 36 03/11/2009 Post<br />
Hennie F. Mostert 37 Sasol 03/11/2009 Fax<br />
Post &<br />
Email<br />
Gerry Pienaar 38 Gerry Pienaar & 04/11/2009 Email<br />
Associates (Pty) Ltd<br />
Johan van der<br />
39 05/11/2009 Fax<br />
Westhuizen<br />
Emmarentia<br />
40 05/11/2009 Fax<br />
Hesseling<br />
Leon Lotter 41 06/11/2009 Email<br />
Rita Van der Walt 42 07/11/2009 Email<br />
Chris Van der Walt 43 07/11/2009 Email<br />
Robin Green 44 05/11/2009 Fax<br />
MP Loubser 45 09/11/2009<br />
&<br />
11/11/2009<br />
Email<br />
SW Meyer 46 09/11/2009 Fax<br />
Julian G. Williams 47 11/11/2009 Fax<br />
Meg Cowper-Lewis 48 Suidpunt<br />
12/11/2009 Email<br />
<strong>Environmental</strong> Alliance<br />
Ley E Kempthorne 49 12/11/2009 Fax<br />
Andrea M Buys 50 12/11/2009 Fax<br />
Paul Buys 51 12/11/2009 Fax<br />
Minnie Le Roux 52 13/11/2009 Email<br />
Gwen Claasen 53 13/11/2009 Email<br />
Ian W. Hurst 54 13/11/2009 Email<br />
Anna Aletta M. Le 55 13/11/2009 Email<br />
Roux<br />
G.J. Pienaar 56 13/11/2009 Email<br />
Johan and Celia 57 16/11/2009 Email<br />
Janse Van Rensburg<br />
Frances Pienaar 58 16/11/2009 Email<br />
Johan Liebenberg 59 13/11/2009 Email<br />
Jack P. Smith 60 16/11/2009 Fax<br />
Lindie A Snyman 61 16/11/2009 Fax<br />
Olive Knobel 62 16/11/2009 Fax<br />
Stephen Gerber 63 13/11/2009 Email<br />
D.G. and J.L. Falck 64 16/11/2009 Email<br />
Chris Moll 65 16/11/2009 Email<br />
Abrie Bruwer 66 16/11/2009 Email<br />
A.F. & J.H. Tooke 67 16/11/2009 Email<br />
H Du Plessis 68 16/11/2009 Email<br />
Kobus Viljoen 69 16/11/2009 Email<br />
Dawid & Christelle<br />
Kriel<br />
Neville van der<br />
Westhuizen<br />
70 17/11/2009 Email<br />
71 17/11/2009 Email<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 3 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR:<br />
<strong>CRR</strong><br />
Dirk de Jongh 72 Struisbaai Home 16/11/2009 Email<br />
Owners Association<br />
Dorel van der<br />
73 16/11/2009 Email<br />
Westhuizen<br />
Louis Nell 74 16/11/2009 Email<br />
Jeanette Bruwer 75 16/11/2009 Email<br />
Gawie Bruwer 76 17/11/2009 Email<br />
Mariana Swart 77 16/11/2009 Email<br />
Johann Venter 78 17/11/2009 Email<br />
Michele Bruwer 79 17/11/2009 Email<br />
Grant McKinstry 80 17/11/2009 Email<br />
Sanli Zietsman 81 17/11/2009 Email<br />
Ignatius Petrus<br />
82 17/11/2009 Fax<br />
Lourens<br />
Erla Rabe 83 17/11/2009 Email<br />
Rochelle Lourens 84 17/11/2009 Email<br />
Ian and Cheryl Heyns 85 17/11/2009 Email<br />
Martoinette La<br />
86 17/11/2009 Email<br />
Grange<br />
Karin Van Niekerk 87 Bellandia Pty Ltd 17/11/2009 Email &<br />
Fax<br />
Emmerentia De Kock 88 Agulhas National Park 17/11/2009 Email<br />
Andre Morgenthal 89 Wines of South Africa 17/11/2009 Email<br />
Grant van der<br />
90 17/11/2009 Email<br />
Westhuizen<br />
Les C. Freese 91 17/11/2009 Email<br />
Brenda Benton 92 17/11/2009 Email<br />
G.R. Youldon 93 17/11/2009 Email<br />
Jenny Groenewald 94 17/11/2009 Email<br />
Sulmor Swartz 95 17/11/2009 Email<br />
Louis du Pisani 96 17/11/2009 Email<br />
Justine Sweet 97 DLA Cliffe Dekker 17/11/2009 Fax<br />
Hofmeyr Inc<br />
Francois Theron 98 Titan Financial<br />
17/11/2009 Email<br />
Services (Pty) Ltd<br />
Cistiana Viljoen 99 17/11/2009 Email<br />
Saroline Duminy 100 17/11/2009 Email<br />
Ilse Saunders 101 Springfield Estate 17/11/2009 Email<br />
Braham Coetzee 102 17/11/2009 Email<br />
Hanje van Zyl 103 17/11/2009 Email<br />
John Butler 104 17/11/2009 Email<br />
W.J. & S.N. Wilken 105 16/11/2009 Fax<br />
Nelda Basson 106 Entrepeneur 16/11/2009 Fax<br />
Amaria Erasmus 107 16/11/2009 Fax<br />
H.F. & H.L. Conradie 108 16/11/2009 Fax<br />
Lois Albertyn 109 17/11/2009 Fax<br />
Tiaan P. Lourens 110 Cachalot Fishing 17/11/2009 Fax<br />
Ken Hogde 111 KA Hodge Land 17/11/2009 Fax<br />
Surveyors<br />
Lynne M Shield 112 17/11/2009 Fax<br />
Glynn D. Shield 113 17/11/2009 Fax<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 4 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR:<br />
<strong>CRR</strong><br />
Dirk C. Kleinschmidt 114 17/11/2009 Fax<br />
Louise Knobel 115 17/11/2009 Fax<br />
Margaret Wippich 116 17/11/2009 Email<br />
Johannes P. Albertyn 117 17/11/2009 Fax<br />
Hellen Rabe 118 17/11/2009 Fax<br />
Robert A.N. Nell 119 17/11/2009 Fax<br />
Johnny S. Edwards 120 17/11/2009 Fax<br />
Gideon A. Pitzer 121 17/11/2009 Fax<br />
Lorinda Jacobs 122 17/11/2009 Fax<br />
Jacobus Joaan 123 17/11/2009 Fax<br />
Odendaal<br />
Mariska Brand 124 17/11/2009 Fax<br />
Ricardo Reichert 125 17/11/2009 Fax<br />
Michelle L. Loubser 126 17/11/2009 Fax<br />
Andrea Theron 127 17/11/2009 Fax<br />
Anelda Van Zyl 128 17/11/2009 Fax<br />
Renate‟ Reichert 129 17/11/2009 Fax<br />
Mia Loubser 130 17/11/2009 Fax<br />
Koos Scheepers 131 17/11/2009 Fax<br />
Pauli Bester 132 17/11/2009 Fax<br />
Anina Theron 133 17/11/2009 Fax<br />
Wentzel A. Van 134 17/11/2009 Fax<br />
Renen<br />
Wayne D. Meiring 135 17/11/2009 Fax<br />
Verlasety A. Meiring 136 17/11/2009 Fax<br />
Stephen Knobel 137 17/11/2009 Fax<br />
Gert J. Groenewald 138 17/11/2009 Fax<br />
A.J. Vlok 139 17/11/2009 Fax<br />
Henri R. Du Plessis 140 17/11/2009 Fax<br />
Jacobus J.R. Du 141 17/11/2009 Fax<br />
Plessis<br />
Brian Knobel 142 17/11/2009 Fax<br />
Bob P. De Groot 143 17/11/2009 Fax &<br />
Email<br />
Katherine C. Drake 144 17/11/2009 Fax<br />
Andre M. Van der 145 17/11/2009 Fax<br />
Berg<br />
John W. Newman 146 17/11/2009 Fax<br />
Adriaan Grandfield 147 17/11/2009 Fax<br />
Adriaan Newman 148 17/11/2009 Fax<br />
G.G. Newman 149 17/11/2009 Fax<br />
Lynn Steenkamp 150 17/11/2009 Email<br />
Neil Kroese 151 17/11/2009 Email<br />
Gillian Vermaak 152 17/11/2009 Email<br />
Rina Hendricks 153 Gerry Pienaar & 17/11/2009 Email<br />
Associates (Pty) Ltd<br />
Bernhard<br />
154 17/11/2009 Email<br />
Munzenmaier<br />
Julius Herfurth 155 17/11/2009 Email<br />
J.B. Smith 156 17/11/2009 Email<br />
Marian Huyser 157 17/11/2009 Email<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 5 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR:<br />
<strong>CRR</strong><br />
Liesa Schwarzenbek 158 17/11/2009 Email<br />
Marie-Lou Roux 159 17/11/2009 Email<br />
Andreas Griebel 160 17/11/2009 Email<br />
Rhona de Groot 161 17/11/2009 Email<br />
Peter Wesselsky 162 17/11/2009 Email<br />
Hannes and Erica 163 17/11/2009 Email<br />
Pienaar<br />
Michael Inselmann 164 17/11/2009 Email<br />
Carel Schaap 165 17/11/2009 Email<br />
Yvonne M. Burke 166 13/11/2009 Post<br />
Kyra Muenzenmaier 167 13/11/2009 Post<br />
Dirk de Jongh (Jnr) 168 17/11/2009 Email<br />
Frederick J. Janse 169 17/11/2009 Email<br />
Van Rensburg<br />
Johan Burger 170 17/11/2009 Email<br />
Stuart Du Plessis 171 17/11/2009 Email<br />
Bertus Hayward 172 Agulhas Municipality 20/11/2009 Fax<br />
C.J.H. Van Wyk 173 17/11/2009 Email<br />
M.M. Van Wyk 174 17/11/2009 Email<br />
G.C. Van Wyk 175 17/11/2009 Email<br />
Prof Eng 176 17/11/2009 Email<br />
C. Williams 177 17/11/2009 Email<br />
L. Van Wyk 178 17/11/2009 Email<br />
R.R.M Van Wyk 179 17/11/2009 Email<br />
I.J. De Villiers 180 17/11/2009 Email<br />
N.M. Sanders 181 17/11/2009 Email<br />
S. Spies 182 17/11/2009 Email<br />
Anna-Marie<br />
183 17/11/2009 Fax<br />
Groenewald<br />
Juliana Van der 184 17/11/2009 Fax<br />
Merwe<br />
Anneke Groenewald 185 17/11/2009 Fax<br />
Gerda Groenewald 186 17/11/2009 Fax<br />
Comments and Responses Themes<br />
Note that the figure in brackets behind the respondents name refers to the<br />
Reference Number in the list of submissions above.<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 6 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
No<br />
Name Issue Response<br />
1 Operational phase<br />
impacts<br />
1.1 Planning concerns<br />
1.1.1<br />
1.1.2<br />
1.1.3<br />
1.1.4<br />
1.1.5<br />
Johan Van Zyl (15)<br />
Anton Louw (17)<br />
Anton Louw (17)<br />
Anton Louw (17)<br />
Emmerentia<br />
Hesseling (on<br />
behalf of 4 tax<br />
payers) (41)<br />
Successful zoning applications would result<br />
in an extension of the business area into an<br />
area that includes an ecological sensitive<br />
system.<br />
The site for the proposed development is<br />
very small for such an over-bulked<br />
development. No mention in the draft EIA<br />
report about the size (in square meters) of<br />
the proposed building.<br />
No provisions have been made for any kind<br />
of public open space on the site and such<br />
calculations don't even form part of the draft<br />
EIA report. Calculations of this nature are<br />
relevant to ascertain the density and bulk of<br />
this site.<br />
One would expect that the zoning scheme<br />
of the relevant authorities would have to<br />
form part of the draft EIA Report to see<br />
what the guidelines are for planning such<br />
development.<br />
I wish to know exactly how much support<br />
you have for this so-called “multi-level<br />
alternative”. According to my knowledge,<br />
the Struisbaai community is against the<br />
development as it would be out of place.<br />
There are no buildings higher than two<br />
storeys in Struisbaai.<br />
According the spatial development framework<br />
erf 848 is positioned in the Secondary<br />
Business Node<br />
Please refer to Section 2.4 and 2.5 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong><br />
The site is private property and thus does not<br />
accommodate public open space. Please<br />
refer to Section 2.4 and 2.5 of the <strong>FEIR</strong> for<br />
bulk factor<br />
Please refer to Sections 1.3.8, 2.6 and 2.7 of<br />
the <strong>FEIR</strong><br />
Public participation processes within the<br />
environmental legislation are aimed at<br />
ensuring that issues and concerns are voiced<br />
by the interested and/or affected parties. As<br />
such, it is not a support poll for particular<br />
options or developments and frequently those<br />
in favour of a proposal will not even<br />
participate as they have no issues to raise.<br />
The multi-level alternative was the<br />
proponent‟s response to the initial issues<br />
raised by the public during the early phases of<br />
the EIA. It should be noted that the Tides has<br />
been confirmed to exceed 2 storeys.<br />
Planning<br />
Planning<br />
Planning<br />
Planning<br />
Planning<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 7 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
1.1.6<br />
1.1.7<br />
1.1.8<br />
1.1.9<br />
1.1.10<br />
1.1.11<br />
Julian G Williams<br />
(47)<br />
E. Ley Kempthorne<br />
(49)<br />
Frances Pienaar<br />
(58)<br />
Frances Pienaar<br />
(58)<br />
Frances Pienaar<br />
(58)<br />
David McKinstry<br />
(21)<br />
1.1.12 David McKinstry<br />
(21)<br />
1.1.13<br />
David McKinstry<br />
(21)<br />
The proposed development will encroach<br />
the 100m from high water mark building<br />
restriction.<br />
The EIA Report mentions six different<br />
alternatives, four of which are rejected as<br />
being not accepted by the broader public<br />
and only two alternatives were considered<br />
in detail. The preferred alternative is not in<br />
line with the planning regulations in the<br />
area, namely 70% coverage and a height of<br />
only 2 stories, this option is clearly an<br />
attempt on the developer's side to maximise<br />
profits.<br />
The site is not zoned for a residential or<br />
hotel development.<br />
Four storey buildings are not allowed under<br />
the regulations in place.<br />
The proposed building will cover more than<br />
the regulated ground coverage allowances.<br />
The proposed building is in contradiction<br />
with the Spatial Development Plan for the<br />
area which allows for a limit of two stories<br />
and this should be enforced.<br />
The Tommy Brummer report is essentially a<br />
proposal to circumvent by application or<br />
negotiation substantive issues of coverage<br />
as well as height e.g. street access, loading<br />
bays and of course, site coverage.<br />
Apart from the fact that the proposed<br />
building would cover the whole site, the<br />
developer and his agents want to<br />
appropriate public land. They want to build<br />
on a servitude and access their<br />
development over public parking.<br />
This is one of the factors that triggered the<br />
basic assessment listed activities of R386.<br />
Refer to Section 1.3.1, Table 1.1.<br />
Please refer to Sections 2.6 and 2.7 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Please refer to Sections 2.6 and 2.7 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Please refer to Sections 2.6 and 2.7 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Please refer to Sections 2.6 and 2.7 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
A new SDF has been passed in accordance<br />
with the Municipal Systems Act as of<br />
December 2009. The 2009 CAM SDF<br />
promotes development within the urban edge,<br />
of which Erf 848 is located. Please refer to<br />
Section 1.4 and 2.7 of the <strong>FEIR</strong><br />
The Tommy Brummer report provides detailed<br />
information in terms of the proposed process<br />
that would be applied for to secure the<br />
requisite zonation & amendment of certain<br />
title deed restrictions<br />
Please refer to Sections 1.3.8, 2.6 and 2.7 of<br />
the <strong>FEIR</strong>. Unless the servitude restriction<br />
amendment is approved, the proponent is<br />
required to respect the rights maintained in<br />
the title deeds regarding the servitude. The<br />
formalization of erf 921 for public parking and<br />
access as well as an entry/exit point was<br />
provisionally granted in accordance with the<br />
CAM letter in Annexure A of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Planning<br />
Planning<br />
Planning<br />
Planning<br />
Planning<br />
Planning<br />
Planning<br />
Planning<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 8 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
1.1.14<br />
1.1.15<br />
1.1.16<br />
1.1.17<br />
1.1.18<br />
1.1.19<br />
David McKinstry<br />
(21)<br />
David McKinstry<br />
(21)<br />
David McKinstry<br />
(21)<br />
Evan Meirion<br />
Williams (31)<br />
Dirk de Jongh on<br />
behalf of Struisbaai<br />
Home Owners<br />
Assosciation (72)<br />
Dirk de Jongh on<br />
behalf of Struisbaai<br />
Home Owners<br />
Assosciation (72)<br />
There is an existing right of way for the<br />
public. The fact that additional land has<br />
been reclaimed from the sea in front of erf<br />
848 does not entitle the developer or<br />
anyone else to appropriate the existing right<br />
of way for their own purposes. They have<br />
no more right to that ground than I have!<br />
Erf 848 in Struisbaai was not planned to be<br />
a residential property rather as a fish<br />
handling facility with later modifications to<br />
allow for the Pelican restaurant operation.<br />
It would be reasonable for the proponent to<br />
re-develop the current site within the current<br />
regulations and planning guidelines<br />
including height and coverage restrictions to<br />
accommodate other food and small shop<br />
facilities<br />
A high rise building for whatever purpose on<br />
the most prominent and most visited<br />
position on the unspoiled seafront of<br />
Struisbaai is ridiculous.<br />
The proposed development would violate<br />
many legal issues and I am sure the Cliffe<br />
Decker submission will cover this.<br />
Referring to the Need and desirability”. The<br />
statement that “strategic documents such<br />
as the Spatial Development<br />
Framework……….support the development”<br />
is not true. The current SDF (2005), as well<br />
as the 1992 Structure Plan for Struisbaai,<br />
does not provide for this type of high density<br />
development.<br />
The SDF is currently being revised. None of<br />
the suggestions made by consultants in the<br />
review document makes provision for the<br />
type of development planned for erf 848. In<br />
fact, the document notes that coastal<br />
developments must adhere to national<br />
requirements, including that developments<br />
must take place based on the capacity of<br />
municipal infrastructure<br />
Please refer to Section 1.1.13 of this<br />
Comment and Response Report.<br />
As there were amendments to cater for<br />
Pelicans so to would further amendments be<br />
required to the title deeds. Please refer to<br />
Sections 1.4, 2.6 and 2.7 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Your concern is noted. Please refer to Section<br />
2.7 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
The final development would need to comply<br />
with all legislation. Please refer to Sections<br />
1.3, 1.6, 2.6 and 2.7 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Please refer to Sections 1.4 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>. A<br />
new SDF has been passed in accordance<br />
with the Municipal Systems Act as of<br />
December 2009. The 2009 CAM SDF<br />
promotes development within the urban edge,<br />
of which Erf 848 is located.<br />
Please refer to Section 1.3.5, 1.3.8, 1.4, 2.6,<br />
2.7 and 7.5 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Planning<br />
Planning<br />
Planning<br />
Planning<br />
Planning<br />
Planning<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 9 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
1.1.20<br />
1.1.21<br />
1.1.22<br />
1.1.23<br />
1.1.24<br />
1.1.25<br />
1.1.26<br />
1.1.27<br />
Glynn D. Shield &<br />
Lynne M. Shield<br />
(113 & 112)<br />
Glynn D. Shield &<br />
Lynne M. Shield<br />
(113 & 112)<br />
Glynn D. Shield &<br />
Lynne M. Shield<br />
(113 & 112)<br />
Lynne M. Shield<br />
(112)<br />
Louis Pisani (96)<br />
Louis Pisani (96)<br />
Louis Pisani (96)<br />
Lorinda Jacobs<br />
(122)<br />
The coverage of Erf 848 must not exceed<br />
the municipal regulation, should be the<br />
same as for the surrounding properties.<br />
The ground floor should not exceed 700mm<br />
above car park on the northern side.<br />
The maximum length of the floors for the<br />
proposed development must be the same<br />
as the surrounding properties and must<br />
conform with the municipal regulation<br />
Parking must be in accordance to Municipal<br />
regulations<br />
On which basis has the zoning of the erf<br />
being changed from an industrial zoning to<br />
allow commercial and residential usage of<br />
the erf-or has it not been changed.<br />
On which basis was the footprint increased<br />
to 75% of the erf?<br />
If it is true that the total height of the<br />
building from natural ground level is to be<br />
16 meter it is really not acceptable,<br />
especially taking the location of the stand<br />
and present building regulations in<br />
consideration.<br />
Erf 848 in Struisbaai was not planned to be<br />
a residential property rather is for landing,<br />
processing, storing and selling of fish.<br />
Please refer to Sections 1.3.8, 2.6 and 2.7 of<br />
the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Please refer to Section 5.2.8 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Stauch Vorster (pers comm.) has stated that<br />
the clearance needs to be a minimum of 2.1m<br />
from basement level to ground level.<br />
Please refer to Sections 2.6 and 2.7 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Correct, refer to Section 5.2.2 for the<br />
proposed alternatives for consideration.<br />
Please refer to Sections 1.3.8, 2.6 and 2.7 of<br />
the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Please refer to Sections 1.3.8, 2.6 and 2.7 of<br />
the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Your concern is noted. Please refer to<br />
Sections 2.6, 2.7 and 5.2.5 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Your concern is noted. The current zoning is<br />
dealt with in Section 2.7 of the <strong>FEIR</strong> and the<br />
proponent plans to apply for an amendment to<br />
this zoning as discussed in Section 2.7<br />
Planning<br />
Planning<br />
Planning<br />
Planning<br />
Planning<br />
Planning<br />
Planning<br />
Planning<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 10 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
1.1.28<br />
1.1.29<br />
1.1.30<br />
1.1.31<br />
1.1.32<br />
1.1.33<br />
1.1.34<br />
D.G. & J.L. Falck<br />
(64)<br />
E. Ley Kempthorne<br />
(49)<br />
Gideon A. Pitzer<br />
(121)<br />
Gawie Bruwer (76)<br />
Gawie Bruwer (76)<br />
Dirk de Jongh (Jnr)<br />
(168)<br />
Bob P. De Groot<br />
(143)<br />
It should be noted that a spatial<br />
development plan does not infer or take<br />
away any rights to a property. The fact that<br />
the proposed development is “supported by<br />
the Cape Agulhas Spatial Development<br />
Plan” is therefore of little significance. Any<br />
similar commercial or residential<br />
development of lower density and smaller<br />
footprint will also be supported by this<br />
spatial plan. The biggest problem with the<br />
approval of this development it will set a<br />
precedent for the approval of more rezoning<br />
and multi-level buildings. That would result<br />
in the subsequent loss of views and the law<br />
suits.<br />
Granting rights for the proposed design<br />
would lead to a dangerous precedent being<br />
set in terms of height which would change<br />
the nature and the character of the area<br />
The proposed development will set<br />
precedent which was also created in<br />
Gordons Bay or Hout Bay<br />
The four storey building is illegal according<br />
to local Municipality building regulations (i.e.<br />
two storeys only). The proposed building<br />
exceeds 75% of the surface area of the plot.<br />
The land is intended for a fish-processing<br />
plant. You do not indicate any intention to<br />
adhere to this nor show the area of the<br />
building for this purpose.<br />
The development proposes a maximum<br />
height of four storeys (
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
1.1.35<br />
1.1.36<br />
1.1.37<br />
1.1.38<br />
1.1.39<br />
1.1.40<br />
1.1.41<br />
Marie-Lou Roux<br />
(159)<br />
Marie-Lou Roux<br />
(159)<br />
Gillian Vermaak<br />
(152)<br />
Brian Knobel (142)<br />
Brian Knobel (142)<br />
Brian Knobel (142)<br />
Koos Scheepers<br />
(131)<br />
The developer has bought an industrial plot<br />
and is now proposing to build a residential<br />
building on it. Can this be done without a<br />
formal rezoning process?<br />
The proposed 16 meter building will<br />
transgress the height restriction by two<br />
storeys and will occupy more than 75% of<br />
the plot.<br />
according to the municipal planning<br />
regulations for the area, the height of the<br />
buildings should not be more than two<br />
storeys and should be a maximum of 10<br />
meters<br />
The purpose for this erf is found in the<br />
restrictions of the title deed i.e. it shall be<br />
used only for the erection of a building to be<br />
used for the cleaning, salting, storing of<br />
fresh fish in refrigerated rooms (page 2(b) of<br />
the title deed)<br />
The change of land use for this erf would<br />
mean that fisherman are being chased out<br />
of the harbour.<br />
Every plot in Struisbaai has to abide by<br />
building regulations and title deed<br />
restrictions. The proposed development will<br />
cover the whole plot and totally ignore the<br />
regulation that ordinary home owners or<br />
ratepayers have to abide by.<br />
The proposed development does not take<br />
into consideration the building height<br />
restrictions of the area<br />
Please refer to Sections 2.6 and 2.7 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
A new SDF has been passed in accordance<br />
with the Municipal Systems Act as of<br />
December 2009. The 2009 CAM SDF<br />
promotes development within the urban edge,<br />
of which Erf 848 is located. Please refer to<br />
Section 1.4 and 2.7 of the <strong>FEIR</strong><br />
A new SDF has been passed in accordance<br />
with the Municipal Systems Act as of<br />
December 2009. The 2009 CAM SDF<br />
promotes development within the urban edge,<br />
of which Erf 848 is located. Please refer to<br />
Section 1.4 and 2.7 of the <strong>FEIR</strong><br />
Please refer to Sections 2.6 and 2.7 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Erf 848 is private land and the fisherfolk<br />
should be independent of it. The proponent<br />
would however attempt to accommodate them<br />
where he can. The operations within the<br />
harbor are comtrolled by MCM and<br />
Department of Public Works, of which the<br />
proponent has no influence. Please refer to<br />
Annexure O of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
The site is currently not- and will not be zoned<br />
as residential. Please refer to Sections 2.6<br />
and 2.7 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
A new SDF has been passed in accordance<br />
with the Municipal Systems Act as of<br />
December 2009. The 2009 CAM SDF<br />
promotes development within the urban edge,<br />
of which Erf 848 is located. Please refer to<br />
Section 1.4 and 2.7 of the <strong>FEIR</strong><br />
Planning<br />
Planning<br />
Planning<br />
Planning<br />
Planning<br />
Planning<br />
Planning<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 12 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
1.1.42<br />
1.1.43<br />
1.1.44<br />
1.1.45<br />
1.1.46<br />
1.1.47<br />
1.1.48<br />
Koos Scheepers<br />
(131)<br />
Koos Scheepers<br />
(131)<br />
Pauli Bester (132)<br />
Yvonne M Burke<br />
(166)<br />
Kyra Muenzenmaier<br />
(167)<br />
Stephen Knobel<br />
(137)<br />
Stephen Knobel<br />
(137)<br />
The building coverage of the area is too<br />
large<br />
Erf 848 is for processing of fish and<br />
therefore is not suitable for a residential<br />
development.<br />
The proposed development does not<br />
comply to local height restrictions for<br />
buildings<br />
Two storey building above basement is<br />
preferably for the proposed development to<br />
have a positive impact on Struisbaai.<br />
Only a two storey building is allowed to be<br />
constructed in Struisbaai.<br />
Erf 848 stretches to the high water mark<br />
and the purpose of this plot is clearly in its<br />
title deed (Page 2(b): Copy of Title deed<br />
obtained from CAM office, Struisbaai.<br />
Title deed restrictions of erf 848 should be<br />
adhered to and be viewed with great<br />
importance and should not be altered.<br />
A new SDF has been passed in accordance<br />
with the Municipal Systems Act as of<br />
December 2009. The 2009 CAM SDF<br />
promotes development within the urban edge,<br />
of which Erf 848 is located. Please refer to<br />
Section 1.4 and 2.7 of the <strong>FEIR</strong><br />
Your concern is noted. Please refer to<br />
Sections 2.6 and 2.7 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
A new SDF has been passed in accordance<br />
with the Municipal Systems Act as of<br />
December 2009. The 2009 CAM SDF<br />
promotes development within the urban edge,<br />
of which Erf 848 is located. Please refer to<br />
Section 1.4 and 2.7 of the <strong>FEIR</strong><br />
Your comment is noted; however Annexure O<br />
provides the proponent‟s argument for why a<br />
two storey alternative is not financially feasible<br />
for them. Also refer to Section 2.4.6 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
A new SDF has been passed in accordance<br />
with the Municipal Systems Act as of<br />
December 2009. The 2009 CAM SDF<br />
promotes development within the urban edge,<br />
of which Erf 848 is located. Please refer to<br />
Section 1.4 and 2.7 of the <strong>FEIR</strong><br />
The realignment of the high water mark is<br />
being made to the Surveyor General due to<br />
the land reclamation; however the total area<br />
of Erf 848 would remain 3,804m 2 . Please<br />
refer to Sections 2.6 and 2.7 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Your concern is noted however planning<br />
legislation allows for landowners to undertake<br />
a legal process to alter such restrictions which<br />
may or may not be granted. Please refer to<br />
Sections 2.6 and 2.7 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Planning<br />
Planning<br />
Planning<br />
Planning<br />
Planning<br />
Planning<br />
Planning<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 13 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
1.1.49<br />
1.1.50<br />
1.1.51<br />
1.1.52<br />
Stephen Knobel<br />
(137)<br />
D.G. & J.L. Falck<br />
(64)<br />
D.G. & J.L. Falck<br />
(64)<br />
D.G. & J.L. Falck<br />
(64)<br />
Referring to Page 126, there's a gap in your<br />
historical background with regards to when<br />
the Coloured fishermen who resided in<br />
harbour are were removed to make a way<br />
for the white, current day settlement.<br />
Please investigate if there are no links<br />
between this event and the peculiar title<br />
deed restriction.<br />
The design of the building is fairly formal,<br />
and will inhibit the holiday feeling the<br />
harbour and Erf 848 currently has. This is<br />
further enhanced by the fact that a wall is<br />
planned between the harbour and Erf 848 –<br />
a sure way of creating a psychological and<br />
physical boundary between the property<br />
and harbour and their respective uses<br />
The proposed building is not in line with<br />
existing buildings in the area, nor is it‟s<br />
proposed usage. It can therefore not be<br />
approved.<br />
Up to now, all buildings in Struisbaai have<br />
been fewer storeys than what is planned.<br />
The fact that a two storey development is<br />
not feasible should not be a reason to<br />
extend zoning parameters to more levels,<br />
this is a town-planning issue not an<br />
economic concern. Should the economic<br />
concern outweigh the town-planning<br />
concerns, I can probably request to have<br />
more buildings on my residential plot, so<br />
that my tenants can share in my bond<br />
repayment costs - clearly this is not a<br />
legitimate argument for a four storey<br />
development being approved!<br />
Please refer to Section 2.8.1 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Your comment is noted. The proposed design<br />
does not have a boundary wall planned on the<br />
north and west side of the development.<br />
Your statement is noted. Please refer to<br />
Section 2.7 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Noted. The proponent has been required to<br />
motivate the height of their design and this is<br />
included in Annexure O & Annexure P of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>. Please refer to Sections 1.4, 2.6 and<br />
2.7 of the <strong>FEIR</strong> for a discussion of this matter.<br />
The SDF has a two storey height restriction<br />
for the area and thus Cape Agulhas<br />
Municipality and the competent authority<br />
would be required to make a decision whether<br />
or not this development could be exempted<br />
from this restriction and to what extent.<br />
Planning<br />
Planning<br />
Planning<br />
Planning<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 14 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
1.1.53<br />
1.1.54<br />
1.1.55<br />
1.1.56<br />
1.1.57<br />
1.1.58<br />
1.1.59<br />
D.G. & J.L. Falck<br />
(64)<br />
Jeanette Bruwer<br />
(75)<br />
Hannes and Erica<br />
Pienaar (163)<br />
Grant McKinstry<br />
(80)<br />
Carel Schaap (165)<br />
Bertrus Hayward<br />
(172)<br />
Jack Smith (60)<br />
How a new sectional title development will<br />
change this is beyond me, except of course<br />
if the development‟s proposed market is not<br />
South African? The concern posed relates<br />
to the market for foreign tourists that the<br />
sectional title deed units would attract, the<br />
comment follows. This also links up with the<br />
price of units, which may place it outside the<br />
local market. It will be a sad day if<br />
Struisbaai becomes “Struis Bay” because of<br />
the make-up of owners here.<br />
The developer must adhere to the building<br />
restrictions of erf 848.<br />
When the plots were bought and the houses<br />
were built the harbour area was not<br />
supposed to be rezoned as a residential<br />
area.<br />
Building height that is greater than two<br />
stories is not allowed in Struisbaai.<br />
Everyone has to adhere to these<br />
regulations for so many years.<br />
I find it strange to note that the fact that the<br />
applicant owns Erf 848 be used as<br />
justification for an application for change of<br />
use ("only land available to"). Why did he<br />
purchase it in the first instance, and why not<br />
a more suitable erf? Were we all born<br />
yesterday?<br />
The height of the proposed building is a<br />
concern<br />
I don‟t have objections to the development<br />
of the property, however I do object to the<br />
proposed four storey development that<br />
apparently exceeds certain building<br />
regulations and would put additional strain<br />
on municipal services.<br />
Please refer to Section 2.4.6 and 2.8 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong> regarding Feasibility Assessment as<br />
well as needs and desirability detailed in<br />
Section 7.4.<br />
Please refer to Sections 2.6 and 2.7 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Noted however planning legislation allows for<br />
landowners to undertake a legal process to<br />
alter such restrictions which may or may not<br />
be granted by the authorities.<br />
A new SDF has been passed in accordance<br />
with the Municipal Systems Act as of<br />
December 2009. The 2009 CAM SDF<br />
promotes development within the urban edge,<br />
of which Erf 848 is located. Please refer to<br />
Section 1.4 and 2.7 of the <strong>FEIR</strong><br />
The proponent bought Erf 848 because of its<br />
unique qualities to build the proposed<br />
development on it and therefore does not wish<br />
to consider other location alternatives.<br />
Your concern is noted. Please refer to Section<br />
5.2.6 of the <strong>FEIR</strong> and Section 1.1.95 of this<br />
Comment and Response Report.<br />
A new SDF has been passed in accordance<br />
with the Municipal Systems Act as of<br />
December 2009. The 2009 CAM SDF<br />
promotes development within the urban edge,<br />
of which Erf 848 is located. Please refer to<br />
Section 1.4 and 2.7 of the <strong>FEIR</strong><br />
Planning<br />
Planning<br />
Planning<br />
Planning<br />
Planning<br />
Planning<br />
Planning<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 15 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
1.1.60<br />
1.1.61<br />
1.1.62<br />
1.1.63<br />
1.1.64<br />
Jack Smith (60)<br />
Jack Smith (60)<br />
Jack Smith (60)<br />
Jack Smith (60)<br />
Jack Smith (60)<br />
The property size is indicated as 3 805 m 2<br />
(page 3 of the Executive Summary) and on<br />
page 4 the soil surface area of the<br />
development is indicated as 3 659 m 2 .<br />
Thus, 96% of the property will be<br />
developed, which to my knowledge is<br />
against the building regulations. To my<br />
knowledge building areas are restricted to<br />
75%.<br />
What other building regulations will be<br />
infringed upon? There is no reference in<br />
your documents regarding these<br />
transgressions.<br />
The following comment on page 3 doesn‟t<br />
ring true: “As the site is limited in size (3 805<br />
m 2 ), maximum use is proposed for the site<br />
for the project to be financially optimized.<br />
Site layout alternatives are thus limited. Site<br />
layout alternatives have been considered in<br />
the design iterations. Only one feasible<br />
layout is therefore assessed.” This is an<br />
unacceptable excuse. Restrictions should<br />
have been investigated beforehand. The<br />
developer should not try to play on people's<br />
feelings and argue there are limited<br />
alternatives.<br />
Did the developer receive approval<br />
beforehand from the municipality to exceed<br />
the building regulations?<br />
General opinion: “Design buildings to<br />
optimize on natural energy, i.e. North facing<br />
and windows shaded in summer”. What<br />
about winter months?<br />
A new SDF has been passed in accordance<br />
with the Municipal Systems Act as of<br />
December 2009. The 2009 CAM SDF<br />
promotes development within the urban edge,<br />
of which Erf 848 is located. Please refer to<br />
Section 1.4 and 2.7 of the <strong>FEIR</strong><br />
Please refer to Sections 2.6 and 2.7 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
The proponent bought the site with the view to<br />
develop it in such a way to ensure that it is<br />
economically sustainable. The competent<br />
authority would need to make a final decision<br />
on whether the proposal is acceptable.<br />
The developer was advised that due process<br />
needed to be followed as standard practive.<br />
Please refer to Sections 2.6 and 2.7 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
North facing is particularly important for winter<br />
months.<br />
Planning<br />
Planning<br />
Planning<br />
Planning<br />
Planning<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 16 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
1.1.65<br />
1.1.66<br />
1.1.67<br />
Mr. and Mrs.<br />
Hendrik/ Helen<br />
Conradie (108)<br />
Mr. and Mrs.<br />
Hendrik/ Helen<br />
Conradie (108)<br />
Mr. and Mrs.<br />
Hendrik/ Helen<br />
Conradie (108)<br />
The photo on page 2 of the executive<br />
summary clearly shows that proposed<br />
alternative 6 will replace our much loved<br />
harbour area with a particularly large<br />
building that will dwarf everything else. This<br />
photo shows the northern and western front<br />
of a five storey building and not four as<br />
mentioned elsewhere in the report. Are you<br />
trying to soften us up to acceptance when<br />
the parking level will not be constructed<br />
below ground anymore due to the water<br />
level issues? Furthermore, the development<br />
covers the full length of the seafront of the<br />
erf, impacting, to my opinion, completely on<br />
the view and accessibility.<br />
With every presentation we strenuously<br />
objected to this development that ignores all<br />
building regulations very clearly. We cannot<br />
believe that the authorities would knowingly<br />
approve this despite the fact that the<br />
building limitations are ignored or that you<br />
believe you will get approval.<br />
The developer should have known before<br />
buying the property whether this<br />
development has a chance to be<br />
successful. Your argument that you have<br />
the right to develop the property into a<br />
viable waterfront complex with a hotel,<br />
sectional title flats, informal restaurants and<br />
retail shops despite the building regulations,<br />
as well as your arguments that this is the<br />
only suitable property, cannot be true.<br />
Your concern is noted. The EIR<br />
documentation attempts to clearly represent<br />
and independently assess the facts of the<br />
proposal. Regarding the basement please<br />
refer to Section 5.2.8 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>. Regarding<br />
the height of the building, please refer to<br />
Sections 5.2.5 and 5.2.6 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
The public comments and objections are<br />
included in the EIA documentation and must<br />
be considered by the competent decisionmaking<br />
authorities. The competent authority<br />
may decide not to approve the proposed<br />
development. Regarding the restrictions, a<br />
new SDF has been passed in accordance<br />
with the Municipal Systems Act as of<br />
December 2009. The 2009 CAM SDF<br />
promotes development within the urban edge,<br />
of which Erf 848 is located. Please refer to<br />
Section 1.4 and 2.7 of the <strong>FEIR</strong><br />
A new SDF has been passed in accordance<br />
with the Municipal Systems Act as of<br />
December 2009. The 2009 CAM SDF<br />
promotes development within the urban edge,<br />
of which Erf 848 is located. Please refer to<br />
Section 1.4 and 2.7 and Annexure L & U of<br />
the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Planning<br />
Planning<br />
Planning<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 17 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
1.1.68<br />
1.1.69<br />
1.1.70<br />
1.1.71<br />
1.1.72<br />
Lois Albertyn (109)<br />
W. J. and S.N.<br />
Wilken (105)<br />
W. J. and S.N.<br />
Wilken (105)<br />
Frederick Janse van<br />
Rensburg (169)<br />
H du Plessis (68),<br />
Dawid & Christelle<br />
Kriel (70)<br />
During the construction of the construction<br />
of the Nostra, it was necessary to demolish<br />
existing buildings only to find that there<br />
wasn‟t any foundation. What guarantee is<br />
there for construction on erf 848?<br />
We vehemently object to proposed attempts<br />
to change the existing building regulations<br />
by allowing construction of a building that<br />
would cover more than 75% of the property<br />
– even up to 100%.<br />
Object to: Making allowance to change<br />
height restrictions for the proposed new<br />
building. It‟s misleading to compare the<br />
development with other height violations<br />
and cannot be used as examples. This is a<br />
new project that has to get approval.<br />
If necessary, rather upgrade existing<br />
commercial buildings.<br />
While reading the information provided to<br />
homeowners in the Agulhas Municipal area,<br />
I got a strong impression that the opinions<br />
and needs of homeowners are not<br />
respected or considered during the planning<br />
of this development.<br />
The building would be built in accordance with<br />
National Building Regulations and the<br />
foundations would be inspected by the<br />
municipality. A geotechnical assessment was<br />
undertaken to determine what foundations<br />
would be necessary based on the existing<br />
substrate conditions. Please refer to Annexure<br />
L of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Your objection is noted however planning<br />
legislation allows for landowners to undertake<br />
a legal process to alter such restrictions. Such<br />
an application may be granted or refused by<br />
the authorities. A new SDF has been passed<br />
in accordance with the Municipal Systems Act<br />
as of December 2009. The 2009 CAM SDF<br />
promotes development within the urban edge,<br />
of which Erf 848 is located. Please refer to<br />
Section 1.4 and 2.7 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Agreed, the proposed project must abide by<br />
the legal requirements applied to it by the<br />
relevant authorities, who may refuse<br />
applications for amendments to the<br />
restrictions. It should be noted however that<br />
the comparative assessment was simply<br />
aimed at identifying whether comparative<br />
heights within Struisbaai. A new SDF has<br />
been passed in accordance with the Municipal<br />
Systems Act as of December 2009. The 2009<br />
CAM SDF promotes development within the<br />
urban edge, of which Erf 848 is located.<br />
Please refer to Section 1.4 and 2.7 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
The proponent is exercising their right to apply<br />
for the development of Erf 848.<br />
The EIA process has gone to great lengths to<br />
accommodate I&APs. Please refer to Chapter<br />
3 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>. Further to this the public<br />
comments and objections are included in the<br />
EIA documentation and must be considered<br />
by the competent decision-making authorities.<br />
Planning<br />
Planning<br />
Planning<br />
Planning<br />
Planning<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 18 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
1.1.73<br />
1.1.74<br />
1.1.75<br />
A. J. Vlok (139)<br />
Andre van der Berg<br />
(145)<br />
Justine Sweet (97)<br />
High water mark and setback lines – the<br />
background image notes that buildings<br />
would be approximately 9 m above the<br />
average sea level and alternatively 5 m<br />
above the natural ground level. Thus earthmoving<br />
activities to raise the ground level<br />
would have to do so by 5 m. In other<br />
words, the total presentation is wrong as the<br />
development‟s height would vary between 3<br />
to 5 storeys, a situation that is not<br />
acceptable. Thus, we have to ask the<br />
question if this mistake was made on<br />
purpose.<br />
The buildings are too high and do not fit into<br />
the rest of Struisbaai<br />
Although it is not so zoned, the site is<br />
presently regarded as a public space [We<br />
note that although the property is not zoned<br />
"public open space", in our view, it is<br />
arguable (and in fact, environmentally and<br />
socially appropriate) that a more extensive<br />
public participation process should be<br />
conducted as a result of the significant<br />
public rights granted in respect of this<br />
property and the concomitant potentially<br />
negative impacts on the public if the<br />
proposed development goes ahead. We<br />
have elaborated on this argument below]<br />
(in line with the extensive rights of way and<br />
other public use rights imposed on the<br />
property). Bordering the harbour, it is much<br />
used by local fishermen and the general<br />
public and, although it is in some state of<br />
disrepair, the rights attaching to the property<br />
are generally considered a significant public<br />
asset [the question of expropriation has<br />
been raised by at least, John van Niekerk.<br />
In addition, during a telephone discussion, a<br />
representative of the DEA&DP queried<br />
whether it should ever have been privately<br />
owned given its proximity to the harbour<br />
and immediate benefit to the public].<br />
Please refer to Sections 5.2.5 and 5.2.6 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong> for a description of the height. With<br />
reference to page 2 of the Executive<br />
Summary that you are referring to, please<br />
note that these heights are relative only to the<br />
existing buildings and not that of the proposed<br />
Langezandt Quays.<br />
Your comment is noted. Please refer to<br />
Section 2.7 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Erf 848 is private property and the proponent<br />
is exercising their right to apply for the<br />
development of the erf. Current usage does<br />
not alter the private status of the property. The<br />
property is outside of the designated harbour<br />
area although adjacent to it.<br />
The applicant desputes the notion that the site<br />
“is plesently regarded as a public space”. It is<br />
noteworthy that the comment to which this<br />
response relates cites no authority for the<br />
proposition.<br />
Erf 848 cannot be regarded as public open<br />
space since the western, southern and<br />
eastern boundaries of the erf have been<br />
fenced off for a number of years. The only<br />
perceived public open space is relevant to the<br />
right of way servitude on the northern<br />
boundary of Erf 848.<br />
The EIA process has been extensive and has<br />
gone to great lengths to accommodate I&APs.<br />
Please refer to Chapter 3 of the <strong>FEIR</strong> for the<br />
public participation process undertaken.<br />
Planning<br />
Planning<br />
Planning<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 19 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
1.1.76<br />
1.1.77<br />
1.1.78<br />
Justine Sweet (97)<br />
Justine Sweet (97)<br />
Justine Sweet (97)<br />
At present, the preferred proposed<br />
development alternative includes a mix of<br />
two and four storey development which<br />
includes a retail, hotel and residential<br />
component [p. 48 of dEIR]. The<br />
development proponent has entirely<br />
disregarded a two storey development [this<br />
is, and the consequences thereof, are more<br />
fully discuss elsewhere in this objection].<br />
The preferred proposed development<br />
alternative of four storeys remains<br />
incompatible with surrounding land uses<br />
and development trends. Given its size<br />
(particularly compared with the existing land<br />
uses), it would significantly detract from the<br />
sense of place (and peace) created by the<br />
harbour. Essentially, it would be a<br />
development entirely out of context with<br />
Struisbaai<br />
The proposed development includes<br />
residential and hotel units as well as shops<br />
and restaurants [p. 52-53 of the dEIR]. This<br />
is not permitted in terms of the title deed<br />
restriction which stipulates that the site<br />
"shall be used only for the erection thereon<br />
of a building to be used for the cleaning,<br />
salting and storing of fresh fish in<br />
refrigerated rooms."[B.6(b)] . It is also not<br />
clear why this restrictive condition is not<br />
mentioned in the draft EIR;<br />
The basement will have a plan area of<br />
3 659m² (equivalent to the surface area of<br />
the proposed development) [p.52 of the<br />
dEIR]. This plan area exceeds that<br />
permitted in terms of the title deed<br />
conditions which do not permit more than<br />
three-quarters of the site to be built upon [p.<br />
53 of dEIR]; and<br />
The two storey development was not<br />
assessed as the proponent has provided<br />
motivation in Annexure O as to why they<br />
would not consider such an alternative viable.<br />
Only reasonable, feasible alternatives should<br />
be provided to the environmental authority for<br />
consideration. The proponent has indicated<br />
that they would not develop a two storey<br />
development if it was approved as it is not<br />
financially feasible. Therefore only viable<br />
alternatives have been provided in the<br />
reporting on which to make a decision. The<br />
environmental authorities may reject the<br />
proposed alternative. Refer to Section 2.4.6<br />
and Annexure P or the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Please refer to Sections 2.6 and 2.7 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong> regarding the title deed restrictions and<br />
the proponent‟s intention to apply for the<br />
removal of these restrictions. Please refer to<br />
Annexure Q of the <strong>FEIR</strong> for a copy of the title<br />
deeds.<br />
With reference to the appointed architects,<br />
this requirement applies only to natural<br />
ground level and above and therefore<br />
excludes below natural ground level.<br />
Planning<br />
Planning<br />
Planning<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 20 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
1.1.79<br />
1.1.80<br />
1.1.81<br />
1.1.82<br />
1.1.83<br />
Justine Sweet (97)<br />
Justine Sweet (97)<br />
Justine Sweet (97)<br />
Justine Sweet (97)<br />
Justine Sweet (97)<br />
The site is located within the secondary<br />
business node in terms of the SDF.<br />
According to the SDF, buildings within the<br />
secondary business node may not exceed a<br />
height of 2 storeys and the total built<br />
footprint may not exceed 1.5 times the erf<br />
size. Residential development to a<br />
maximum density of 30 units per hectare is<br />
permitted [p.22 of dEIR]. Hotels and<br />
residential units are not specifically provided<br />
for [p.22 of dEIR].<br />
The proposed development will contravene<br />
the SDF in a number of ways:<br />
It will exceed the two storey height limit [our<br />
client's specific objections relating to this<br />
and other SDF contraventions are dealt with<br />
under the heading "alternatives" below];<br />
It will exceed the total allowable built<br />
footprint area - the erf size is approximately<br />
3 805m² [according to title deed<br />
T000078946/2000] while the proposed total<br />
floor area, including the basement will be 12<br />
320m² with a bulk of 7 332m²; and [p. 53 of<br />
dEIR]<br />
The maximum residential density will also<br />
potentially be exceeded in that the<br />
proposed development caters for 28<br />
residential units and 70 hotel units.<br />
A new SDF has been passed in accordance<br />
with the Municipal Systems Act as of<br />
December 2009. The 2009 CAM SDF<br />
promotes development within the urban edge,<br />
of which Erf 848 is located. Please refer to<br />
Section 1.4 and 2.7 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
A new SDF has been passed in accordance<br />
with the Municipal Systems Act as of<br />
December 2009. The 2009 CAM SDF<br />
promotes development within the urban edge,<br />
of which Erf 848 is located. Please refer to<br />
Section 1.4 and 2.7 of the <strong>FEIR</strong><br />
A new SDF has been passed in accordance<br />
with the Municipal Systems Act as of<br />
December 2009. The 2009 CAM SDF<br />
promotes development within the urban edge,<br />
of which Erf 848 is located. Please refer to<br />
Section 1.4 and 2.7 of the <strong>FEIR</strong><br />
Please refer to Sections 2.6 and 2.7 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Please refer to Sections 1.4, 2.6 and 2.7 of<br />
the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Planning<br />
Planning<br />
Planning<br />
Planning<br />
Planning<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 21 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
1.1.84<br />
1.1.85<br />
Justine Sweet (97)<br />
Justine Sweet (97)<br />
It is submitted that due to its failure to<br />
conform to the town-planning<br />
considerations alone, the proposed<br />
development should be refused. In this<br />
regard, we refer to the Department of<br />
<strong>Environmental</strong> Affairs and Development<br />
Planning's letter ("DEADP") [p. 48 of dEIR]<br />
to the development proponent which<br />
required that it consider a development<br />
which falls within the parameters outlined in<br />
the SDF (which instruction, the<br />
development proponent has failed to<br />
adequately abide, if at all).<br />
The site is currently zoned Industrial Zone 1<br />
in terms of Section 8 of the Scheme<br />
Regulations in the Land Use Planning<br />
Ordinance ("LUPO") [15 of 1985]. Various<br />
land use restrictions within this zone are<br />
stipulated which will be contravened by the<br />
proposed development unless an<br />
application for rezoning is made. The<br />
development proponent has indicated that it<br />
intends to apply for a rezoning of the site to<br />
Special Zone.[P. 56 of dEIR] It is therefore<br />
somewhat confusing that the development<br />
proponent positively refers to the current<br />
zoning of the site and specifically to the fact<br />
that the current zoning does not impose<br />
height restrictions, when it is well aware that<br />
its proposed development requires a<br />
rezoning application.<br />
A new SDF has been passed in accordance<br />
with the Municipal Systems Act as of<br />
December 2009. The 2009 CAM SDF<br />
promotes development within the urban edge,<br />
of which Erf 848 is located. Regarding the title<br />
deed restrictions and the proponent‟s intention<br />
to apply for the removal of these restrictions<br />
please refer to Section 1.4, 2.6 and 2.7 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
EAP response:<br />
Thank you for highlighting this possible<br />
confusion. We have requested the proponent<br />
to clarify its intent and wording. Sections 2.6<br />
and 2.7 of the <strong>FEIR</strong> have been revised to<br />
clarify this matter.<br />
Proponent response: The text was referring<br />
to what is acceptable in terms of the current<br />
zoning scheme and is expecting this to be<br />
considered when rezoning.<br />
Planning<br />
Planning<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 22 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
1.1.86<br />
1.1.87<br />
Justine Sweet (97)<br />
Justine Sweet (97)<br />
Reference is made to the second draft [it is<br />
interesting to note that the development<br />
applicant seeks to rely on this draft whereas<br />
it simply disregards the Integrated Coastal<br />
Management Act, which, although not yet<br />
enforce, is no longer in draft format] of the<br />
Cape Agulhas Municipality Integrated<br />
Zoning Scheme which would permit the<br />
development proponent to apply for a<br />
rezoning to Business Zone [p. 57 of dEIR].<br />
Various restrictions are imposed in terms of<br />
this zoning, including a floor factor of 2. The<br />
development proponent makes no<br />
reference to this restriction when it is<br />
alleged that the "proposed<br />
development…conforms to the<br />
requirements as per Business Zone<br />
definition."[P. 58 of dEIR]<br />
Our clients are of the view that the site is<br />
not suitable for the purposes of a hotel,<br />
particularly due to the proximity to the<br />
harbour with the concomitant noise created<br />
by the local fishermen at very early hours.<br />
Our clients are also of the view that there is<br />
insufficient demand for 70 hotel units within<br />
Struisbaai.<br />
Please note that Section 1.3.5. of the <strong>FEIR</strong><br />
has been revised to include the requirements<br />
of the Integrated Coastal Management Act as<br />
that statute became operastive on 1<br />
December 2009.<br />
Please refer to Sections 2.5 of the <strong>FEIR</strong> for a<br />
description of the bulk of the proposed<br />
development. It appears to be within the<br />
limits as described in Section 2.7 c.<br />
Please note that issue relating to noise was<br />
addressed in Section 5.2.8 of the DEIR. With<br />
regard to the demand for 70 hotel units, an<br />
assessment was commissioned post the<br />
public participation meeting which took place<br />
on the 31 October 2009 to confirm the<br />
proponents‟ concept/vision as per Annexure<br />
O. Please refer to Annexure U of the <strong>FEIR</strong> for<br />
a market study. We note that your clients<br />
views are effectively unsubstantiated.<br />
Planning<br />
Planning<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 23 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
1.1.88<br />
1.1.89<br />
1.1.90<br />
Justine Sweet (97)<br />
Justine Sweet (97)<br />
Justine Sweet (97)<br />
Our clients would likely not object to a<br />
development which is proved to be feasible,<br />
which is consistent with the prevailing townplanning<br />
requirements and which takes the<br />
public rights relating to the property into<br />
account. Such development could include<br />
an upgrade of Pelican's restaurant and<br />
Harbour Catch could also be included as<br />
well as the provision of additional shops and<br />
restaurants, as envisaged in the<br />
development applicant's proposed<br />
development. It is our clients' submission<br />
that this alternative would be met with far<br />
less resistance from other interested and<br />
affected parties because it would be<br />
consistent with the surrounding land uses<br />
and would complement the current<br />
character of the harbour.<br />
Accordingly, our clients propose an<br />
additional activity alternative comprising low<br />
rise buildings of not more than two and half<br />
storeys, which comprise two storey<br />
buildings with a loft and a pitched roof, on<br />
the south-west portion of the site and one<br />
storey buildings on the remainder of the<br />
site. This option ensures that the character<br />
and architectural style of the harbour is<br />
maintained [the present proposed<br />
development's architectural design is not in<br />
keeping with prevailing designs and<br />
cottages.<br />
On the development proponent's own<br />
concession, the height of the proposed<br />
development may detract from the allegedly<br />
"aesthetically pleasing" quality of the<br />
development from certain vantage points [p.<br />
122 of dEIR.] However, the development<br />
proponent has refused to consider a two<br />
storey development based upon the<br />
findings contained in its feasibility study.<br />
Your suggestion is noted. Reasonable and<br />
feasible alternatives have been assessed and<br />
Alternative 6 has been shown to be<br />
economically and socially feasible in the<br />
context of this comment.<br />
Applicants response:<br />
The aplicant is not willing to pursue such a<br />
development as it is not financially feasible<br />
and does not deliver broader goals such as a<br />
community trust, upliftment and a tourism<br />
anchor. Please refer to Section 2.4.6 and<br />
Annexure P of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Please refer to Section 1.1.88 of this<br />
Comment and Response Report. Please refer<br />
to a description of the present architecture in<br />
Section 5.2.5 b of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
EAP response: Please refer to Section 2.4.6<br />
and Annexure P & R of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Applicants response: The applicant is not<br />
willing (nor legally obligded) to pursue a two<br />
storey development as it is not financially<br />
viable nor does it meet the social objectives<br />
and benefits. Accordingly this alternative,<br />
objectively viewed, is neither reasonable nor<br />
feasible.<br />
Planning<br />
Planning<br />
Planning<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 24 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
1.1.91<br />
1.1.92<br />
1.1.93<br />
1.1.94<br />
GJ Pienaar (56)<br />
GJ Pienaar (56)<br />
David McKinstry<br />
(21)<br />
Johan Liebenberg,<br />
Dorel Van der<br />
Westhuizen, Kobus<br />
Viljoen, Abrie<br />
Bruwer, Chris Moll,<br />
Stuart Du Plessis,<br />
G. R. Youldon,<br />
Johan Venter (59,<br />
73, 69, 66, 65, 172,<br />
93, 78)<br />
1. The buyer of land zoned for business<br />
purposes should be aware of the local<br />
government‟s development conditions for<br />
that particular property. Should changes be<br />
made to these conditions at a later stage,<br />
adjacent property owners as well as the<br />
original plans of the local government will<br />
be negatively impacted.<br />
It is highly questionable whether the<br />
development of erf 572 will be beneficial to<br />
Struisbaai. It is definitely not to the<br />
advantage of the homeowners in the<br />
harbour area.<br />
Struisbaai area has a history of<br />
unsuccessful hotel operations viz. the<br />
Agulhas Hotel which was converted to<br />
apartment and the Struisbaai Motel to be<br />
developed into up market accommodation<br />
with a rental pool. In addition Golden Falls<br />
and Langezandt Quays already has an<br />
approved hotel site in his Langezandt<br />
Fisherman‟s Village development which the<br />
web site and promotional literature<br />
promises will be developed into an “up to 40<br />
room boutique hotel”. Why would the<br />
developer want another hotel in the area<br />
when his current plans have not been<br />
completed?<br />
It is illegal to build a residential building on<br />
an industrial plot<br />
The proponent is exercising their right to apply<br />
for the development of the erf and the<br />
amendment of restrictions. These applications<br />
may not be successful. The Spatial<br />
Development Framework however makes<br />
provision for several aspects of the proposed<br />
development. Please refer to Section 1.4 of<br />
the <strong>FEIR</strong>. Your concern is however noted.<br />
Please note we areassessing Erf 848 not Erf<br />
572. Your comment is however noted in<br />
relation to Erf 848.<br />
From research it appears that both the<br />
Agulhas Hotel and Struisbaai Hotel/Motel got<br />
to the end of their structural lifecycle and<br />
presented better opportunity to a complete redevelopment,<br />
confirming the growth demand<br />
for tourism and leisure related products.The<br />
Fishermen‟s Village concept does make<br />
provision for a “Boutique Hotel” however the<br />
proposed development is catering for a<br />
different market and grading (5 star).<br />
Please refer to Sections 2.6 and 2.7 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Planning<br />
Planning<br />
Planning<br />
Planning<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 25 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
1.1.95<br />
1.1.96<br />
1.1.97<br />
1.1.98<br />
1.1.99<br />
Johan Liebenberg,<br />
Dorel Van der<br />
Westhuizen, Kobus<br />
Viljoen, Abrie<br />
Bruwer, Chris Moll,<br />
Stuart Du Plessis,<br />
G. R. Youldon,<br />
Johan Venter (59,<br />
73, 69, 66, 65, 172,<br />
93, 78)<br />
Johan Liebenberg,<br />
Dorel Van der<br />
Westhuizen, Kobus<br />
Viljoen, Abrie<br />
Bruwer, Chris Moll,<br />
Stuart Du Plessis,<br />
G. R. Youldon,<br />
Johan Venter (59,<br />
73, 69, 66, 65, 172,<br />
93, 78)<br />
Johan Liebenberg,<br />
Dorel Van der<br />
Westhuizen, Kobus<br />
Viljoen, Abrie<br />
Bruwer, Chris Moll,<br />
Stuart Du Plessis,<br />
G. R. Youldon,<br />
Johan Venter (59,<br />
73, 69, 66, 65, 172,<br />
93, 78)<br />
Jannie Momberg (3)<br />
Glynn D. Shield &<br />
Lynne M. Shield<br />
(113 & 112)<br />
It is illegal to have a building that is more<br />
than two stories in an area where there is<br />
height restriction of two storeys.<br />
You also imply that for 2000 years the<br />
Xoisan has lived here and at that time it was<br />
a heritage but since the holiday makers and<br />
local farmers have erected dwellings, it is<br />
now a free for all. It can also be argued that<br />
cities constructed high rise when they ran<br />
out of land. In Struisbaai, 50% of land is<br />
undeveloped (4 000 electricity accounts vs.<br />
8 000 plots), thus the two storey building<br />
restriction. Just that is an attraction by<br />
itself. There is also an undeveloped hotel<br />
site.<br />
It is illegal to construct the building that will<br />
occupy more than 75% of the plot.<br />
The proposed development will close the<br />
only swimming place left as other swimming<br />
areas already destroyed.<br />
The public servitude on eastern side of the<br />
property must remain, it should not be for<br />
Municipality to decide nor for the developer<br />
A new SDF has been passed in accordance<br />
with the Municipal Systems Act as of<br />
December 2009. The 2009 CAM SDF<br />
promotes development within the urban edge,<br />
of which Erf 848 is located. Regarding the title<br />
deed restrictions and the proponent‟s intention<br />
to apply for the removal of these restrictions<br />
please refer to Section 1.4, 2.6 and 2.7 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Development of this nature needs to be taken<br />
through certain procedures and processes<br />
which include, but are not limited to EIA<br />
regulations and LUPO.<br />
Regarding other alternative sites please refer<br />
to Section 3.1.51 of this Comment and<br />
Response Report.<br />
Please refer to Sections 2.6 and 2.7 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Disagree. Access to the harbour will not be<br />
restricted. Control of the harbour remains<br />
vested with MCM and the proposed<br />
development will not alter the harbor<br />
infrastructure. Please refer to Section 1.4.1 of<br />
this Comment and Response Report.<br />
Please refer to Section 1.4.1 of this Comment<br />
and Response Report. Access to the harbour<br />
will not be restricted.<br />
Planning<br />
Planning<br />
Planning<br />
Servitude<br />
Servitude<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 26 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
1.1.100<br />
1.1.101<br />
Louise Louw (22)<br />
Justine Sweet (97)<br />
There is no provision for a public open<br />
space on the property that would be<br />
suitable for a high density development as<br />
the one planned.<br />
Various title deed restrictions exist which<br />
were imposed in the public interest given<br />
the site's proximity to the harbour. These<br />
conditions, it is submitted, were imposed in<br />
order to ensure that the beneficial use of the<br />
harbour and concomitant public right of<br />
access to the harbour and other marine<br />
resources were retained.<br />
Erf 848 is private property, not public open<br />
space. The centre courtyard will however act<br />
as a communal area for all visitors to the<br />
proposed development.<br />
Please refer to Sections 2.6 and 2.7 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>. The public‟s right of access to the<br />
harbour would not be infringed by the<br />
proposed development in anyway.<br />
It is ultimately M&CM‟s responsibility to<br />
ensure that resources required by the<br />
fisherfolk are provided as is reasonable, not<br />
the adjacent private land owner. Please refer<br />
to Annexure O: Proponent‟s Vision regarding<br />
accommodating the public.<br />
Design<br />
Title deed<br />
restrictions<br />
1.2 Impact on municipal<br />
services<br />
1.2.1<br />
1.2.2<br />
1.2.3<br />
1.2.4<br />
Michelle Vermeulen<br />
(1)<br />
Werner Vermeulen<br />
(2)<br />
Jacobus J.R. Du<br />
Plessis (141)<br />
Jack Smith (60)<br />
Water and electricity is already not sufficient<br />
Water and electricity is already not sufficient<br />
during the holiday period<br />
There are a number of assumptions that is<br />
not doable, e.g. electricity supply, water<br />
shortages, sewerage costs.<br />
Throughout the report the impact on<br />
municipal services are referred to as<br />
medium, which I doubt is true.<br />
Your concern is noted. Please refer to Section<br />
5.2.1 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Your concern is noted. Please refer to Section<br />
5.2.1 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Please refer to Section 5.2.1 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Noted. Please refer Chapter 4 of the <strong>FEIR</strong><br />
regarding methodology used to determine<br />
rating.<br />
Municipal<br />
services<br />
Municipal<br />
services<br />
Municipal<br />
Services<br />
Municipal<br />
Services<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 27 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
1.2.5<br />
1.2.6<br />
1.2.7<br />
Justine Sweet (97)<br />
Justine Sweet (97)<br />
A.F. & J.H. Tooke<br />
(67)<br />
The draft EIR refers to significant<br />
infrastructure improvements [Incl. the drilling<br />
of boreholes, the upgrade of the town<br />
centre substation and the upgrade of the<br />
existing sewage oxidation ponds] being<br />
required in order for the proposed<br />
development to take place. At this stage,<br />
no service level or other agreement has<br />
been concluded with the municipality (or our<br />
clients have not been provided a copy) and<br />
once again, we submit that the<br />
environmental impact assessment process<br />
is premature and should be postponed<br />
pending further information and studies and<br />
the conclusion of an agreement in terms of<br />
which the impacts of the proposed<br />
development can accurately be considered.<br />
According to the economic specialist report<br />
[Ann. H] although developments such as<br />
the proposed development, can result in net<br />
increases in rates and other income, they<br />
can also place greater strain on services<br />
and lead to negative impacts on municipal<br />
finances. The report concludes that it is not<br />
possible to determine with a high degree of<br />
confidence whether this balance would be<br />
positive or negative for the proposed<br />
development.<br />
Bulk municipal services (water, electricity,<br />
sewage and stormwater) mitigation<br />
measures are inadequate. To suggest that<br />
staff and guests would be asked to use<br />
water sparingly is unrealistic. Likewise to<br />
ensure energy saving technology is used<br />
i.e. LED and CFL bulbs is optimistic as<br />
these will be privately owned residential<br />
units.<br />
The municipality is not willing to enter into a<br />
Service Level Agreement unless the proposed<br />
development is approved (NEMA/LUPO).<br />
Regarding the supply of water refer to<br />
Annexure A of the <strong>FEIR</strong> for a letter from CAM<br />
dated 23/09/2009. The process that CAM will<br />
need to undergo to achieve the drilling and<br />
delivery of water is independent of the EIA<br />
process being undertaken by the proponen.<br />
The Economic specialist report goes further to<br />
say that this burden will occur:” more likely for<br />
developments that occur outside urban<br />
edges” and “likely to be found in rapidly<br />
growing communities”. Neither of which<br />
applies in this case.<br />
It is recommended that the energy saving<br />
devices would need to be designed into the<br />
building during the construction phase and<br />
clients would be informed of minimum<br />
requirements rather than simply retrofitting<br />
normal fixtures. Although not as effective as<br />
one would like they are important to<br />
encourage and cannot be excluded. Any other<br />
feasible ideas would be welcomed.<br />
Muncipal<br />
Services<br />
Municipal<br />
services<br />
Municipal<br />
Services<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 28 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
1.2.8<br />
1.2.9<br />
1.2.10<br />
1.2.11<br />
1.2.12<br />
1.2.13<br />
1.2.14<br />
1.2.15<br />
A.F. & J.H. Tooke<br />
(67)<br />
Jannie Momberg (3)<br />
Mari Rabie (9)<br />
Mari Rabie (9)<br />
Jacobus J.D.<br />
Havenga (12)<br />
Jacobus J.D.<br />
Havenga (12)<br />
Jacobus J.D.<br />
Havenga (12)<br />
Paul De Kock (13)<br />
The mitigating measures of storm water<br />
management and solid waste are<br />
unrealistic as well, to recommend that keep<br />
outside surfaces clear of solid waste to<br />
prevent them blowing and/or washing into<br />
storm water systems is unrealistic, the<br />
beach and the surrounding areas are<br />
strewn with litter, why would behavior<br />
change?<br />
There isn‟t enough water available for an<br />
efficient sewerage system as required for<br />
this type of project.<br />
Where will more water be obtained?<br />
Rates and tax and electricity will be very<br />
high<br />
What guarantee do you have that the<br />
provincial government will provide the<br />
necessary infrastructure? If the pressure<br />
gets too much, then we have to pay the tax.<br />
Can you unconditionally assure me that the<br />
municipality and provincial administration<br />
will provide Struisbaai with necessary<br />
service infrastructure for future<br />
developments? I don't believe though if it<br />
would be their priority due to the current<br />
resident composition etc. It is already a<br />
major problem to get water and electricity<br />
during holiday seasons.<br />
What difference will the upgrading of one or<br />
two boreholes make in the long term?<br />
The proposed development will put a lot of<br />
pressure/ stress on water resources and<br />
sewage services. The mitigation measures<br />
proposed do not provide sufficient solutions<br />
with regards to the water and sewage<br />
issues.<br />
The proposed development would be<br />
controlled with a specific waste storage area,<br />
thus minimizing the potential for litter.<br />
Your concern is noted. Please refer to Section<br />
5.2.1 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Your concern is noted. Please refer to Section<br />
5.2.1 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Noted<br />
Please refer to Section 5.2.1 of the <strong>FEIR</strong> with<br />
regard to service agreements. Refer to CAM<br />
letter in Annexure A of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Please refer to Section 5.2.1 of the <strong>FEIR</strong> with<br />
regard to service agreements. The electricity<br />
supply is a national concern and would be<br />
unaffected directly by the proposed<br />
development as there is an existing 66kV<br />
power supply from the Bredasdorp substation<br />
which was assessed by the infrastructural<br />
engineers to be sufficient to provide for the<br />
proposed development. Please refer to the<br />
CAM letter in Annexure A of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
There would be adequate water to service the<br />
proposed development. The CAM letter in<br />
Annexure A of the <strong>FEIR</strong> states that a<br />
hydrological assessment was undertaken by<br />
the CAM and that sufficient water is available<br />
but the number of boreholes to access the<br />
water should be increased.<br />
Please refer to point 1.2.14 above of this<br />
comments and response report.<br />
Municipal<br />
Services<br />
Municipal<br />
services<br />
Municipal<br />
services<br />
Municipal<br />
services<br />
Municipal<br />
services<br />
Municipal<br />
services<br />
Municipal<br />
services<br />
Municipal<br />
services<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 29 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
1.2.16<br />
1.2.17<br />
1.2.18<br />
1.2.19<br />
1.2.20<br />
Anton Louw (17)<br />
B.J. Viljoen (18)<br />
Hendrik Andreas<br />
Kotze (19)<br />
Louise Louw (22)<br />
Louise Louw (22)<br />
No provisions have been made for any<br />
public ablution facilities that are already a<br />
problem in this area.<br />
Referring to Chapter 6 of the EIR, I have<br />
serious doubts about the outcome (with/<br />
without mitigation measures) of the impact<br />
of electricity supplied by the municipality.<br />
Did you consider the requirements of the<br />
National Regulator as stipulated in<br />
legislation regarding the reduction of<br />
electricity?<br />
Impacts on electricity, storm water and<br />
water supply can be discussed with relevant<br />
authorities as there are few residents,<br />
outsiders or other commentators whose<br />
contribution in this field can be based on<br />
sound knowledge and recent facts.<br />
There is no clear explanation about<br />
sewerage management. Currently the<br />
taxpayers have been paying for years to<br />
receive sewage services, but so far there<br />
has been no development from any<br />
municipal sewage system. What is the<br />
meaning of having a sewage pump on the<br />
property? If the property will have one large<br />
cellar, how do you plan to remove sewage<br />
seeing that Struisbaai‟s sewage is managed<br />
via septic tanks?<br />
The report mentions desalination of water<br />
from an existing borehole. Where is this<br />
borehole located? How big is the area<br />
required for the borehole<br />
equipment/infrastructure and where would it<br />
be installed? To my knowledge all<br />
boreholes and desalination plants need to<br />
have permits that require separate<br />
environmental impact assessments.<br />
Please refer to Section 2.4.8 of the <strong>FEIR</strong><br />
where public ablution facilities are noted as<br />
being provided. Furthermore the existing<br />
ablution facility on Erf 921 may be relocated to<br />
a more suitable location such as the MCM<br />
offices on Erf 1394.<br />
This issue is not clear, however a 66kV power<br />
supply is available from Bredasdorp which is<br />
sufficient to supply the proposed development<br />
as well as Struisbaai. The Struisbaai<br />
substation however requires upgrading to<br />
accommodate the proposed demand. Please<br />
refer to Section 5.2.1 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Applicants response: The design of the<br />
building ensures minimum electricity usage<br />
from the grid as well as to supplement the<br />
supply electricity with renewable energy<br />
resources.<br />
The CAM has been consulted by an<br />
independent specialist (Sutherland, Annexure<br />
F) to determine the supply of bulk services.<br />
Please refer to Section 5.2.1 and Annexure I<br />
of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Please refer to Section 5.2.1 and Annexure I<br />
of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
The CAM would decide on the infrastructure<br />
required for the requisite boreholes. The<br />
CAM would have to undergo any EIA and<br />
apply for any required Water Use Licence if it<br />
does not have existing authorisation to extract<br />
and treat the water appropriately.<br />
Municipal<br />
services<br />
Municipal<br />
services<br />
Municipal<br />
services<br />
Municipal<br />
services<br />
Municipal<br />
services<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 30 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
1.2.21<br />
1.2.22<br />
1.2.23<br />
1.2.24<br />
1.2.25<br />
Etienne Jay Van<br />
Wyk (33)<br />
Rhys R.M. Van Wyk<br />
(35)<br />
Gaston C. Van Wyk<br />
(36)<br />
Gerry Pienaar (38)<br />
Gerry Pienaar (38)<br />
I'm a Struisbaai property owner and a<br />
holiday maker for 32 years and we're<br />
constantly threatened with fines over the<br />
festive times by the Municipality who claim<br />
that the infrastructure is struggling to<br />
support the masses of people who spend<br />
time during the holidays. How can then the<br />
Municipality approves one development<br />
after another under these circumstances?<br />
There is lack of service delivery from the<br />
Municipality, yearly there are water<br />
restrictions in Struisbaai even before the<br />
peak times. How can the municipality<br />
approve one development after the other on<br />
such conditions? Perhaps if the residence<br />
can burn tyres to demonstrate their<br />
complaints, the municipality may be<br />
convinced.<br />
I'm a Struisbaai homeowner and every<br />
December, even before we went for our<br />
annual holiday, the municipality is<br />
constantly notifying us of water restrictions<br />
and threatening us with fines. How the<br />
municipality can approve one development<br />
after another without being able to provide<br />
their tax payers with basic services such<br />
water and electricity?<br />
Water is a huge problem in the Western<br />
Cape and Struisbaai is not different.<br />
Residents who arrive for their annual<br />
holiday in December are restricted in the<br />
use of water.<br />
The letter from Agulhas Municipality<br />
(Annexure A of DEIR) regarding the<br />
availability of Municipal Civil Engineering<br />
Services is misleading. What is the<br />
meaning of “sufficient water ground water<br />
exist but it's situated on the private land”,<br />
and what procedures need to be put in<br />
place before access to this could be<br />
obtained. Certainty of water supply can<br />
only be attained once the drilling process<br />
has been completed and the required<br />
pumps are installed.<br />
Please refer to Section 5.2.1 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Please refer to Section 5.2.1 of the <strong>FEIR</strong><br />
Please refer to Section 5.2.1 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Electricity supply is a national concern and<br />
although the current infrastructure suffices<br />
load shedding is out of the control of the CAM.<br />
Please refer to Section 5.2.1 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
The proposed development would not be able<br />
to proceed until service agreements have<br />
been reached between the CAM and the<br />
proponent regarding bulk services. Please<br />
refer to Section 1.2.20 of this Comment and<br />
Response Report.<br />
Municipal<br />
services<br />
Municipal<br />
services<br />
Municipal<br />
services<br />
Municipal<br />
services<br />
Municipal<br />
services<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 31 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
1.2.26<br />
1.2.27<br />
1.2.28<br />
1.2.29<br />
1.2.30<br />
1.2.31<br />
1.2.32<br />
1.2.33<br />
1.2.34<br />
1.2.35<br />
Gerry Pienaar (38)<br />
Gerry Pienaar (38)<br />
Rita Van der Walt<br />
(42)<br />
Chris Van der Walt<br />
(43)<br />
Julian G Williams<br />
(47)<br />
Andrea Buys (50)<br />
Paul Buys (51)<br />
Frances Pienaar<br />
(58)<br />
Frances Pienaar<br />
(58)<br />
Dirk de Jongh on<br />
behalf of Struisbaai<br />
Home Owners<br />
Association (72)<br />
How much is the developer going to<br />
contribute with regards to sourcing water<br />
and how much is expected of the tax payers<br />
to contribute?<br />
The Municipality had admitted that the<br />
sewer treatment works located very close to<br />
Struisbaai North and is not adequate and<br />
will need upgrading, when will the upgrade<br />
of the sewage works be undertaken? Who<br />
will be responsible for payment of additional<br />
expenses for the upgrade? Can the ordinary<br />
taxpayer in Struisbaai afford this?<br />
Certain vital needs such as provision of<br />
water during peak seasons and sewage<br />
services first needs to be addressed.<br />
We already have trouble with water<br />
provision and there is no sewage system.<br />
Water and electricity are under existing<br />
pressure and any further development will<br />
aggravate this situation for all those<br />
concerned.<br />
Struisbaai‟s infrastructure would not be able<br />
to support the proposed development,<br />
especially the sewage system.<br />
There's currently lack of infrastructure such<br />
as sufficient water and sewage<br />
management in Struisbaai.<br />
Water restrictions are already being<br />
imposed on residents during the hot<br />
summer season; this development will<br />
further aggravate the lack of municipal<br />
water<br />
The sewerage system is not adequate to<br />
absorb any additional flows<br />
Objections submitted by this Association<br />
regarding insufficient water and electricity<br />
infrastructure for the proposed<br />
development, as well as the absence of a<br />
sewage system, are still relevant<br />
The required development levy and other<br />
costs to the proponent will be determined in a<br />
service agreement by the CAM. Please refer<br />
to Section 5.2.1 and Annexure I of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Please refer to Section 1.2.26 of this<br />
Comment and Response Report.<br />
Please refer to Section 5.2.1 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Please refer to Section 5.2.1 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Please refer to Section 5.2.1 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Please refer to Section 5.2.1 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Please refer to Section 5.2.1 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Please refer to Section 5.2.1 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Please refer to Section 5.2.1 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Please refer to Section 5.2.1 of the <strong>FEIR</strong> and<br />
point 1.2.23 of this Comment and Response<br />
Report.<br />
Municipal<br />
services<br />
Municipal<br />
services<br />
Municipal<br />
services<br />
Municipal<br />
services<br />
Municipal<br />
services<br />
Municipal<br />
services<br />
Municipal<br />
services<br />
Municipal<br />
services<br />
Municipal<br />
services<br />
Municipal<br />
services<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 32 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
1.2.36<br />
1.2.37<br />
1.2.38<br />
1.2.39<br />
Dirk de Jongh on<br />
behalf of Struisbaai<br />
Home Owners<br />
Assosciation (72)<br />
Dirk de Jongh on<br />
behalf of Struisbaai<br />
Home Owners<br />
Assosciation (72)<br />
Louis Nell (74)<br />
Louis Nell (74)<br />
One of the most essential requirements for<br />
a community is the provision of sufficient<br />
water. The current situation cannot be<br />
rectified by using one or more additional<br />
boreholes. Expensive infrastructure (i.e.<br />
pipelines, electricity, reservoir, etc.) will be<br />
required to get water to households. There<br />
are not enough funds for the construction of<br />
electricity and water infrastructure for luxury<br />
developments when taking into account<br />
government‟s current shortage of money for<br />
social development and upliftment (housing<br />
developments, poverty alleviation, etc).<br />
We're concerned about the absence of<br />
infrastructure for the proposed<br />
development; and<br />
Regarding water supply, the geohydrological<br />
features of the aquifers feeding<br />
the Struisbaai/L‟Agulhas basin are under<br />
severe strain. Fear has been expressed by<br />
the Town Engineer that further exploitation<br />
of this resource may cause permanent and<br />
irreversible damage to the source. Further<br />
boreholes into the same resource can only<br />
exacerbate the situation. I cannot find any<br />
mitigation measures in your report<br />
regarding this.<br />
The holiday sewage loads of the towns of<br />
Struisbaai/L'Agulhas are already strained to<br />
the limit. So much so that tankers had to be<br />
borrowed from neighbouring towns to cope<br />
with the load. A pumped system from the<br />
harbour would alleviate the situation but it is<br />
not sufficiently covered in the report.<br />
The provision of services to the community is<br />
the CAM‟s responsibility and they have<br />
provided official comment with regard to the<br />
proposed development as per the letter in<br />
Annexure A of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Please refer to Section 5.2.1 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
This is a separate process that the CAM<br />
needs to undertake and may require a<br />
separate EIA process. According to the CAM<br />
letter in Annexure A of the <strong>FEIR</strong> a<br />
hydrological assessment was undertaken and<br />
it was determined that sufficient water exists<br />
to service Struisbaai.<br />
Please refer to Section 5.2.1 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Municipal<br />
services<br />
Municipal<br />
services<br />
Municipal<br />
services<br />
Municipal<br />
services<br />
1.2.40<br />
Louis Pisani (96)<br />
I'm having a serious doubt whether the<br />
existing municipal infrastructure can cope<br />
with the impact of the proposed<br />
development. The proposed road changes<br />
will directly affect residents in Kusweg Oos.<br />
Owners have invested to own a piece of<br />
land with certain attributes i.e. a quiet road.<br />
Please refer to Section 5.2.1 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Your concern is noted regarding quiet roads,<br />
please refer to Section 5.2.2 of the <strong>FEIR</strong> .<br />
Municipal<br />
services<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 33 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
1.2.41<br />
1.2.42<br />
1.2.43<br />
1.2.44<br />
1.2.45<br />
1.2.46<br />
1.2.47<br />
Johannes P.<br />
Albertyn (117)<br />
Johannes P.<br />
Albertyn (117)<br />
Gawie Bruwer (76)<br />
Dirk de Jongh (Jnr)<br />
(168)<br />
Gillian Vermaak<br />
(152)<br />
Gillian Vermaak<br />
(152)<br />
Jan Momberg (3)<br />
I'm concerned about the disposal of<br />
sewerage; there must be no bad odour and<br />
pipes leading to the sea.<br />
There should be adequate fresh water<br />
supply throughout winter and summer.<br />
General problems with a high-density<br />
developments like sewage, electricity and<br />
parking is not adequately addressed<br />
Bulk municipal impacts such as water<br />
sewage and storm water aren‟t dealt with<br />
sufficiently in your EIA. Struisbaai has had<br />
problems with especially water supply and<br />
storm water management. We know that<br />
the municipality does not have the funds to<br />
address these issues currently and will<br />
neither be in a position to do so with the<br />
proposed development and its demand on<br />
this resources and infrastructure.<br />
Because the influx of additional visitors will<br />
impact on the already strained municipal<br />
service systems, solar power must be<br />
considered and the cost of desalination of<br />
current boreholes must be borne by the<br />
developers<br />
Sewerage and solid waste management<br />
must be dealt with from the onset of the<br />
project, at the developers‟ cost. Not dumped<br />
into the sea.<br />
I own a holiday home in Struisbaai and I<br />
believe that the town's infrastructure such<br />
as water and sewage is not sufficient for<br />
such development.<br />
Agreed. Please refer to Section 5.2.1 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>. The only pipes that would lead towards<br />
the sea would be for natural storm water from<br />
the site.<br />
This is the CAM‟s responsibility and they have<br />
indicated that they are able to fulfill their<br />
obligation. Please refer to Section 5.2.1 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Disagree, all these issues have been<br />
assessed. Please refer to Section 5.2.1 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong> for sewage issues. Bulk services have<br />
been addressed in detail in Section 5.2.1 as<br />
well as Annexure I of the <strong>FEIR</strong>. Regarding<br />
parking please refer to Section 5.2.2 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Disagree, please refer to Section 5.2.1 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>. A independent specialist was appointed<br />
to determine the viability and availability of<br />
bulk services. The CAM has also committed<br />
to the supply of bulk services in terms of the<br />
CAM letter contained in Annexure A of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Regarding bulk services and solar power,<br />
please refer to Section 5.2.1 and 7.2.1 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>. The required development levy and<br />
other service costs to the proponent will be<br />
determined in a service agreement by the<br />
CAM.<br />
Strongly agreed. Please refer to Section 5.2.1<br />
of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Noted. Please refer to Section 5.2.1 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Municipal<br />
services<br />
Municipal<br />
services<br />
Municipal<br />
services<br />
Municipal<br />
services<br />
Municipal<br />
services<br />
Municipal<br />
services<br />
Municipal<br />
services<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 34 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
1.2.48<br />
1.2.49<br />
1.2.50<br />
1.2.51<br />
1.2.52<br />
1.2.53<br />
D.G. & J.L. Falck<br />
(64)<br />
D.G. & J.L. Falck<br />
(64)<br />
D.G. & J.L. Falck<br />
(64)<br />
Jeanette Bruwer<br />
(75)<br />
Jeanette Bruwer<br />
(75)<br />
Bertrus Hayward<br />
(172)<br />
We have been regular visitors to Struisbaai<br />
for the past 20 years, and have witnessed<br />
the deterioration of services over this period<br />
and we cannot see how can a new<br />
development of this magnitude be approved<br />
if the existing developed properties do not<br />
have enough water? Even the additional<br />
boreholes is in our opinion an easy way out,<br />
and not sustainable.<br />
The proposed development in Struisbaai<br />
will put further pressure on already<br />
stretched water resources, the resultant<br />
financial burden will far outweigh the initial<br />
financial benefits and this will only be to the<br />
detriment of existing and future property<br />
owners!<br />
Sewage management is also a problem in<br />
Struisbaai. At present, Struisbaai uses<br />
septic tanks. With the location of the<br />
property adjacent to the coast, and only<br />
about 5m above the natural water table, one<br />
can only imagine the effect the sewage<br />
system will have on the harbour, the<br />
seawater and the area in general. The<br />
consequences of poor planning and<br />
inadequate measures are too terrible to<br />
even contemplate.<br />
There is no system in place to handle the<br />
sewage from the proposed development.<br />
The tax payer cannot be accountable to<br />
fund this.<br />
Water availability is already rationed in high<br />
season<br />
Municipal services such as water, electricity,<br />
sewage and solid waste management are a<br />
concern.<br />
Please refer to Section 5.2.1 of the <strong>FEIR</strong> and<br />
Section 1.2.20 of this Comment and<br />
Response Report.<br />
Please refer to Section 5.2.1 and Annexure H<br />
of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Strongly agreed with regard to poor planning<br />
and associated environment impacts. A<br />
specialist was appointed to assessment the<br />
sewage delivery for the proposed<br />
development. Please refer to Section 5.2.1 of<br />
the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Please refer to Section 5.2.1 of the <strong>FEIR</strong> for<br />
more detail.<br />
Noted. Please refer to Section 5.2.1 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Please refer to Section 5.2.1 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Regarding electricity please refer to Section<br />
1.2.23 of this Comment and Response<br />
Report.<br />
Municipal<br />
services<br />
Municipal<br />
services<br />
Municipal<br />
services<br />
Municipal<br />
services<br />
Municipal<br />
services<br />
Municipal<br />
services<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 35 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
1.2.54<br />
1.2.55<br />
1.2.56<br />
Jack Smith (60)<br />
Jack Smith (60)<br />
Mr. and Mrs.<br />
Hendrik/ Helen<br />
Conradie (108)<br />
The impact on the provision of water should<br />
be indicated as “High Negative”. We have<br />
had water restrictions for the past few years<br />
during December/ January holidays. The<br />
proposed development will only put more<br />
pressure on water provision services.<br />
Proposed mitigation measures are very<br />
general. The report mentions that a<br />
contribution (“Contributing to costs…”) will<br />
be made, however neither the extent of the<br />
costs are indicated or the financial impact of<br />
the development on other tax payers.<br />
Numerous suggestions are made on how<br />
pressure on municipal services will be<br />
alleviated, however what guarantee do we<br />
have that these will be incorporated into<br />
plans. General opinion: “Reduce the<br />
demand for water by using various water<br />
demand management techniques and<br />
design.” General opinion: “Encourage staff<br />
and guests not to dispose of hazardous<br />
chemicals or solid waste into sewage<br />
system.” General opinion: “Avoid disposing<br />
of hazardous substances or solid waste into<br />
stormwater systems.”<br />
In your presentation you have numerous<br />
easy solutions to the water availability<br />
problem, the additional load on Struisbaai‟s<br />
already fragile electricity lines, as well as<br />
the problems associated with the sewerage<br />
system and removal and storage of solid<br />
waste. This will not be sustainable. It is<br />
impossible to constantly monitor and<br />
motivate obedience to your saving rules.<br />
Please refer to Section 5.2.1 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>. The<br />
municipality will enter into a service<br />
agreement with the proponent should the<br />
proposed development be approved. This<br />
agreement would detail the development levy<br />
and any specific tariffs levied to offset the<br />
requisite bulk services.<br />
This is an essential mitigation measure.<br />
Please refer to Section 5.2.1 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>. The<br />
proponent has agreed to certain essential<br />
mitigation measures please refer to Annexure<br />
T of the <strong>FEIR</strong>. Furthermore certain mitigation<br />
measures would be enforced by the<br />
<strong>Environmental</strong> Authorisation decision.<br />
Applicants response: Our commitment to<br />
the mitigation measures are clearly stated in<br />
Annexure T of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Your concern is noted. Bulk services were<br />
assessed as a medium negative impact which<br />
is significant and thus appropriate measures<br />
need to be taken to ensure delivery and<br />
sustainability. It is the obligation of the<br />
relevant authorities to ensure compliance to<br />
any conditions of authorisation or approvals<br />
granted and they have the power to take<br />
punitive steps should the conditions not be<br />
met. Please refer to Section 5.2.1 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Municipal<br />
services<br />
Municipal<br />
services<br />
Municipal<br />
services<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 36 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
1.2.57<br />
1.2.58<br />
1.2.59<br />
1.2.60<br />
1.2.61<br />
1.2.62<br />
Lois Albertyn (109)<br />
W. J. and S.N.<br />
Wilken (105)<br />
W. J. and S.N.<br />
Wilken (105)<br />
H du Plessis (68)<br />
Dawid & Christelle<br />
Kriel (70)<br />
Wentzel van Renen<br />
(134)<br />
Struisbaai‟s infrastructure is inaccessible<br />
during the holidays. How will sufficient<br />
services be provided? Considering the<br />
development‟s close proximity to the ocean,<br />
how do you plan to address sewage<br />
management, water- and electricity<br />
provision? There is no sewage treatment<br />
facility. How will you address this problem?<br />
Sewage Costs: Additional costs resulting<br />
from the project should be made available<br />
at this stage. Interested parties, including<br />
residents and tax payers, should also be<br />
made aware of these costs.<br />
The provision and availability of water is a<br />
very large, existing problem that will only<br />
get bigger should the project proceed.<br />
The negative impact of the development on<br />
municipal services, as well as the additional<br />
financial obligations to taxpayers has<br />
already been mentioned. Currently<br />
electricity and water provision are under<br />
very much pressure during the peak<br />
seasons. We ask that you please consider<br />
our arguments.<br />
The negative impact of the development on<br />
municipal services, as well as the additional<br />
financial obligations to taxpayers has<br />
already been mentioned. Currently<br />
electricity and water provision are under<br />
very much pressure during the peak<br />
seasons. It doesn‟t make sense not to<br />
consider these aspects.<br />
Not enough water (provision). We have had<br />
for the past two years water restrictions<br />
during the summer holidays.<br />
Your concern is noted. Bulk services were<br />
assessed as a medium negative impact which<br />
is significant and thus appropriate measures<br />
need to be taken to ensure delivery and<br />
sustainability. It is the obligation of the<br />
relevant authorities to ensure compliance to<br />
any conditions of authorisation or approvals<br />
granted and they have the power to take<br />
punitive steps should the conditions not be<br />
met. Please refer to Section 5.2.1 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Please refer to Section 1.2.54 of this<br />
Comment and Response Report.<br />
Please refer to Section 5.2.1 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
These concerns have been noted and<br />
addressed. Please refer to Section 5.2.1 of<br />
the <strong>FEIR</strong>. Regarding electricity supply Please<br />
refer to Section 1.2.23 of this Comment and<br />
Response Report.<br />
These concerns have been noted, considered<br />
and addressed. Please refer to Section 5.2.1<br />
of the <strong>FEIR</strong>. Regarding electricity supply<br />
Please refer to Section 1.2.23 of this<br />
Comment and Response Report<br />
Please refer to Section 5.2.1 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Municipal<br />
services<br />
Municipal<br />
services<br />
Municipal<br />
services<br />
Municipal<br />
services<br />
Municipal<br />
services<br />
Municipal<br />
services<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 37 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
1.2.63<br />
1.2.64<br />
1.2.65<br />
1.2.66<br />
A. J. Vlok (139)<br />
Justine Sweet (97)<br />
E. Ley Kempthorne<br />
(49)<br />
Johan Liebenberg,<br />
Dorel Van der<br />
Westhuizen, Kobus<br />
Viljoen, Abrie<br />
Bruwer, Chris Moll,<br />
Stuart Du Plessis,<br />
G. R. Youldon,<br />
Johan Venter (59,<br />
73, 69, 66, 65, 172,<br />
93, 78)<br />
Concerns with regards to infrastructure, the<br />
proposed mitigations measures regarding<br />
water restrictions is not workable.<br />
Furthermore, seen in the light of<br />
Struisbaai‟s existing water availability issue,<br />
the construction of high density<br />
accommodation should not be considered<br />
at all. In addition your mitigation measures<br />
regarding sewerage management is in<br />
reality not possible.<br />
We understand [from the Struisbaai<br />
Residents Association Chairman] that there<br />
are no final arrangements regarding the<br />
municipal upgrade of water supply services<br />
(including the drilling of additional<br />
boreholes). This will presumably entail its<br />
own feasibility study and will require, at<br />
least, the upgrade of water pipelines and<br />
the electricity supply system which feeds<br />
the pumps. It is not envisaged that this<br />
infrastructure will be in place until at least<br />
2011/2012.<br />
The basement parking proposed for the site<br />
is extremely expensive given the need for<br />
dewatering and waterproofing that would be<br />
required due to its the close location to the<br />
sea front and the risks due to possible rises<br />
in sea levels. Pumping might be required<br />
and that would greatly increase the need of<br />
electrical services on site and that would put<br />
a strain on already compromised municipal<br />
services.<br />
I suggest that the empty promises stated in<br />
the DEIR should be evicted i.e. Promise of<br />
financial aid to desalinate boreholes; and<br />
Promise of financial aid for sewerage pipe<br />
to Struisbaai Noord evaporation system.<br />
The mitigation measures are derived from an<br />
independent engineering consultant<br />
(Sutherland, Annexure F) as well as based on<br />
the commitments made by the CAM in the<br />
letter contained in Annexure A of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
According the the engineering assessment<br />
the mitigation measures proposed are feasible<br />
and applicable for the proposed development.<br />
Please refer to Section 5.2.1 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>. It is<br />
unlikely that the services would be required<br />
before 2012.<br />
Please refer to Section 5.2.1 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Your concern is noted however mitigation<br />
measures are frequently included into the<br />
environmental authority‟s decision making<br />
them legally binding.<br />
Municipal<br />
services<br />
Municipal<br />
services<br />
Municipal<br />
services<br />
Municipal<br />
services<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 38 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
1.2.67<br />
1.2.68<br />
Johan Liebenberg,<br />
Dorel Van der<br />
Westhuizen, Kobus<br />
Viljoen, Abrie<br />
Bruwer, Chris Moll,<br />
Stuart Du Plessis,<br />
G. R. Youldon,<br />
Johan Venter (59,<br />
73, 69, 66, 65, 172,<br />
93, 78)<br />
Johan Liebenberg,<br />
Dorel Van der<br />
Westhuizen, Kobus<br />
Viljoen, Abrie<br />
Bruwer, Chris Moll,<br />
Stuart Du Plessis,<br />
G. R. Youldon,<br />
Johan Venter (59,<br />
73, 69, 66, 65, 172,<br />
93, 78)<br />
I further object to the assessment of<br />
sewage as being medium, there is no<br />
system in place to handle the sewerage<br />
from the development. A line of +- 6km has<br />
to be installed at the significant cost to the<br />
tax payer, this will have a very high impact.<br />
Water supply is already rationed in high<br />
season without this development, and this<br />
should be rated as high impact, as do<br />
fishing and associated activities “(repair<br />
jetty closed)”. Bait and ice has to become<br />
MCM responsibility.<br />
Please refer to Section 5.2.1 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Please refer to Chapter 4 of the <strong>FEIR</strong> to<br />
determine how the ratings were achieved.<br />
Municipal<br />
Services<br />
Municipal<br />
Services<br />
1.3 Impact on traffic flow<br />
and parking<br />
1.3.1<br />
1.3.2<br />
1.3.3<br />
Petrus Jurgens<br />
Visser (4)<br />
Johan Van Zyl (15)<br />
Anton Louw (17)<br />
There won't be enough parking.<br />
The proposed development would attract<br />
more people, more businesses and a<br />
congested traffic, and therefore is not<br />
required.<br />
The parking allowed for on the adjacent erf<br />
will be insufficient or the design should<br />
allow parking of all the fishing trailers over<br />
the peak periods.<br />
Disagree, please refer to Section 5.2.2 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Development would attract more people and<br />
assist in providing a practical traffic solution to<br />
accommodate the current congestion as well<br />
as any future congestion caused by<br />
development in the harbour precinct. Please<br />
refer to Section 5.2.2 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Please refer to Section 5.2.2 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Public parking is the CAM‟s responsibility and<br />
traffic alternative 4, as a product of this EIA,<br />
was deemed by the traffic specialists to the<br />
most appropriate traffic solution for the<br />
area.Parking bays have been purposely<br />
angeled to accommodate boats with trailers.<br />
Traffic flow &<br />
Parking<br />
Traffic flow &<br />
Parking<br />
Traffic flow &<br />
Parking<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 39 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
1.3.4<br />
1.3.5<br />
1.3.6<br />
B.J. Viljoen (18)<br />
B.J. Viljoen (18)<br />
Hendrik Andreas<br />
Kotze (19)<br />
I'm also concerned about the Impact of<br />
parking and traffic in the harbour area<br />
during peak seasons. These two impacts<br />
(electricity and parking) need to be<br />
considered together due to their close<br />
relation from a planning perspective.<br />
According to your assessment the impact<br />
would be low to very low. The person who<br />
conducted the study definitely haven‟t<br />
visited Struisbaai over a weekend when the<br />
Geelstertfees takes place or even over a<br />
normal weekend when the geelstert/geelbek<br />
starts to bite.<br />
The report does not mention the congestion<br />
of vehicles in the harbour or in streets<br />
surrounding the harbour due to the parking<br />
shortage. Where will these vehicles be<br />
accommodated in the future? When these<br />
vehicles arrive or leave, traffic within the<br />
harbour area comes to a complete standstill<br />
up to the crossing at the existing shopping<br />
centre. This is due to the existing street<br />
design and width which did not originally<br />
take into consideration the current traffic<br />
requirements.<br />
Parking at the harbour area is little during<br />
the peak periods and should be restricted to<br />
pedestrians, except for boat launching<br />
vehicles and for those who are<br />
handicapped. There is sufficient public<br />
parking space close to the harbour directly<br />
south of it.<br />
Please refer to Section 5.2.2 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>. The<br />
assessment is based on the Traffic alternative<br />
4 which reduces the impact of traffic flow<br />
within the harbour and Erf 921.<br />
Congestion and lack of parking in the harbour<br />
area is an existing problem, which would only<br />
marginally be exacerbated by the proposed<br />
development should the proposed traffic<br />
mitigation occur. The municipality is<br />
responsible for dealing with the root causes<br />
outside of the harbor and the Department of<br />
Public Works within the harbor. Please refer<br />
to Section 5.2.2 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>. The proposed<br />
development does include a basement<br />
parking area that caters for 130 bays.<br />
Public parking and traffic outside of the harbor<br />
is the CAM‟s responsibility. Please refer to<br />
Section 5.2.2 of the <strong>FEIR</strong> which discusses the<br />
steps which the proposed development would<br />
need to take due to its effect on traffic and<br />
parking.<br />
Traffic flow &<br />
Parking<br />
Traffic flow &<br />
Parking<br />
Traffic flow &<br />
Parking<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 40 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
EAP response: Thank you for your<br />
suggestion. Please refer to Section 5.2.2 of<br />
the <strong>FEIR</strong> for the revised layout. Angeled<br />
parking bays have been allowed for with the<br />
intent to accommodate vehicles and trailers.<br />
1.3.7<br />
1.3.8<br />
1.3.9<br />
Louise Louw (22)<br />
Johan van der Walt<br />
(28)<br />
Evan Meirion<br />
Williams (31)<br />
During the holiday season, the parking area<br />
(that they are planning to upgrade) is mostly<br />
used for motorboat-trailers that take a lot<br />
more space than normal vehicles. The new<br />
layout does not provide enough parking for<br />
the high number of trailers and vehicles.<br />
Concerned about the provision of a area for<br />
parking of boats and trucks in the harbour<br />
as well as the open municipal parking area.<br />
Parking access is a problem<br />
Traffic specialist (iCE Group) comment:<br />
This is a valid point. Parking bays at other<br />
harbours (Gordon‟s Bay, Yzerfontein and<br />
existing Struisbaai parking) measures<br />
between 12,5 and 13 metres in length. It is<br />
recommended that parking on the harbour<br />
land should be reserved for boats and trailers,<br />
with the second access as shown on the<br />
drawings, but also that bays on at least one<br />
row of parking on Erf 921 should be enlarged<br />
to accommodate trailers. The turning circles<br />
are being checked and will be revised if<br />
necessary.<br />
Please refer to Section 1.3.6 and 1.3.7 of this<br />
Comment and Response Report.<br />
Please refer to Sections 1.3.6 and 1.3.7 of this<br />
Comment and Response Report.<br />
Traffic flow &<br />
Parking<br />
Traffic flow &<br />
Parking<br />
Traffic flow &<br />
Parking<br />
1.3.10<br />
1.3.11<br />
1.3.12<br />
Gerry Pienaar (38)<br />
Gerry Pienaar (38)<br />
Gerry Pienaar (38)<br />
The report is using outdated traffic<br />
information gathered in 2005 and an<br />
escalation rate of 3% per year to come to its<br />
conclusions. How can this be accurate?<br />
It is inaccurate to say that the Main Road/<br />
Malvern Drive intersection is already<br />
operating at an unacceptable service level<br />
during the holiday period<br />
Referring to Page 2 of TIA: I do not believe<br />
that statement on Struisbaai Harbour<br />
access is accurate<br />
Traffic specialists (iCE Group) comment:<br />
The traffic growth rate is the accepted<br />
standard for traffic engineers and was<br />
checked by comparing recent counts in<br />
Bredasdorp and Agulhas with the 2005<br />
counts.<br />
Traffic specialists (iCE Group) comment:<br />
We are confident that this information is<br />
sufficiently accurate for planning<br />
Traffic specialists (iCE Group) comment:<br />
We are confident that this information is<br />
sufficiently accurate for planning.<br />
Traffic flow &<br />
Parking<br />
Traffic flow &<br />
Parking<br />
Traffic flow &<br />
Parking<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 41 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
1.3.13<br />
Gerry Pienaar (38)<br />
The TIA is also mentioning that the traffic<br />
volume in the morning would be 465<br />
vehicles per hour and 470 vehicles per hour<br />
in the evening, we assume that this is not<br />
during a good fishing day.<br />
Traffic specialists (iCE Group) comment:<br />
Rural roads and intersections are designed for<br />
the 30th highest hour, which means that the<br />
capacity of the road will be exceeded for 30<br />
hours per year. This is a national standard<br />
and was determined based on economic<br />
evaluation of the cost of delay to vehicles and<br />
the cost op providing more capacity on roads<br />
and at intersections.<br />
Traffic flow &<br />
Parking<br />
1.3.14<br />
1.3.15<br />
1.3.16<br />
1.3.17<br />
Gerry Pienaar (38)<br />
Gerry Pienaar (38)<br />
Julian G Williams<br />
(47)<br />
E. Ley Kempthorne<br />
(49)<br />
It is also inaccurate to suggest that the road<br />
will still operate well below capacity, which<br />
was calculated at approximately 1100<br />
vehicles per hour, that relates to 18,3<br />
vehicles per minute, what standard was<br />
used to calculate the capacity? Is it London,<br />
Los Angeles, New York or Hong Kong?<br />
As a mitigation measure in the report, it is<br />
suggested that a road will be built across<br />
the parking area that will essentially link in<br />
Kusweg North and Kusweg East with a<br />
dangerous 3-way stop on a corner, may I<br />
remind you that the reason for making a<br />
substantial investment by the present<br />
residents and property owners of this area<br />
is to specifically to get away from traffic<br />
congestion and dangerous intersections.<br />
There is already an acute parking problem<br />
in summer and any new development will<br />
worsen the traffic effect.<br />
Nowhere has the expense risk been<br />
mitigated and there is the danger of the<br />
basement not being constructed after<br />
planning permission has been provided<br />
which would put a strain on limited parking<br />
resources and would increase the overflow<br />
to the existing municipal parking facility,<br />
which during peak season is already at<br />
capacity.<br />
Traffic specialists (iCE Group) comment:<br />
We used the United States Highway Capacity<br />
Manual, but the formulas have variables for<br />
road width, shoulder width, percentage<br />
passing zones, percentage heavy vehicles,<br />
percentage unfamiliar traffic (first time users),<br />
topography and more. The exact variables for<br />
Struisbaai roads were used in the calculations<br />
to ensure a true reflection of the local<br />
conditions. The service level standards are<br />
widely used in South Africa.<br />
Your concern is noted. The stop at this<br />
intersection was designed specifically to slow<br />
down vehicles that currently exceed optimal<br />
speed limits on Kusweg Oos and therefore<br />
this mitigation is designed to reduce the<br />
current hazard.<br />
Your concern is noted. Please refer to Section<br />
5.2.2 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Please refer to Annexure R of the <strong>FEIR</strong><br />
regarding expense risk. Please refer to<br />
Section 5.2.2 of the <strong>FEIR</strong> regarding parking.<br />
Traffic flow &<br />
Parking<br />
Traffic flow &<br />
Parking<br />
Traffic flow &<br />
Parking<br />
Traffic &<br />
parking<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 42 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
1.3.18<br />
1.3.19<br />
1.3.20<br />
1.3.21<br />
1.3.22<br />
Dirk de Jongh on<br />
behalf of Struisbaai<br />
Home Owners<br />
Assosciation (72)<br />
Dirk de Jongh on<br />
behalf of Struisbaai<br />
Home Owners<br />
Assosciation (72)<br />
Ken A. Hodge (111)<br />
Frances Pienaar<br />
(58)<br />
David McKinstry<br />
(21)<br />
The size of the proposed development is so<br />
large that it will not allow for parking on the<br />
site, except for in the basement. As a result<br />
it was necessary to investigate the option of<br />
providing parking at the adjoining public<br />
area. The developer is also proposing to<br />
use this property as the entrance to the<br />
proposed development.<br />
A public area that is very important for<br />
parking during the summer months when<br />
ski-boats arrive from elsewhere for fishing,<br />
as well as during the peak summer holiday<br />
season, have been targeted for the<br />
proposed development. According to the<br />
draft EIR this is seen as a benefit to the<br />
community!<br />
Another concern is the formal parking area<br />
as proposed on erf 921 where overflow boat<br />
trailers are presently parked that it will no<br />
longer be able to accommodate the trailers.<br />
Traffic in and around the harbour area is<br />
already under pressure during the holiday<br />
season. This development will exacerbate<br />
the traffic congestion<br />
It is unacceptable to have a vehicular<br />
entrance on Erf 921 from Kusweg Oos. It is<br />
already a dangerous corner and such<br />
access will in effect create a short cut<br />
between Kusweg Noord and Kusweg Oos.<br />
It will be a racetrack and Erf 921 is<br />
designated for parking, not for a roadway.<br />
Please refer to Section 5.2.2 of the <strong>FEIR</strong><br />
regarding the use of parking and the access<br />
road.<br />
Please refer to Section 5.2.2 of the <strong>FEIR</strong><br />
regarding the use of parking and the access<br />
road. The benefit to the community is a<br />
holistic solution to the bottle-neck effect<br />
experience during peak periods at the harbour<br />
entrance as well as the parking of vehicles on<br />
Harbour Road, Kusweg Noord and Kusweg<br />
Oos.<br />
Please refer to Section 5.2.2 of the <strong>FEIR</strong><br />
regarding accommodating trailers.<br />
Your concern is noted. Please refer to Section<br />
5.2.2 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Your concern is noted. The stop at this<br />
intersection should reduce the hazard. The<br />
traffic flow would only be from Kusweg Noord<br />
towards Kusweg Oos i.e. 1 – Way. Please<br />
refer to Section 5.2.2 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Traffic &<br />
parking<br />
Traffic &<br />
parking<br />
Traffic &<br />
parking<br />
Traffic flow &<br />
Parking<br />
Traffic flow &<br />
Parking<br />
1.3.23<br />
1.3.24<br />
John Butler (104)<br />
Johnny S Edwards<br />
(120)<br />
The development will cause extreme<br />
parking and traffic congestion. The<br />
proposed underground parking is totally<br />
unfeasible, a similar project on the site of<br />
the old hotel found water a few meters<br />
below the surface<br />
The proposal does not give enough<br />
attention to the parking problems that<br />
always arise in December.<br />
Please refer to Section 5.2.8 of the <strong>FEIR</strong><br />
regarding basement design.<br />
Disagreed, please refer to Section 1.3.6 of<br />
this Comment and Response Report.<br />
Traffic flow &<br />
Parking<br />
Traffic flow &<br />
Parking<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 43 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
1.3.25<br />
1.3.26<br />
1.3.27<br />
1.3.28<br />
1.3.29<br />
1.3.30<br />
1.3.31<br />
1.3.32<br />
1.3.33<br />
Dirk de Jongh (Jnr)<br />
(168)<br />
Katherine C. Drake<br />
(144)<br />
Verlasety A. Meiring<br />
(136)<br />
Henri R. Du Plessis<br />
(140)<br />
Gillian Vermaak<br />
(152)<br />
Pauli Bester (132)<br />
Yvonne M Burke<br />
(166)<br />
Yvonne M Burke<br />
(166)<br />
Yvonne M Burke<br />
(166)<br />
Parking is another concern as it would<br />
congest the harbour and surrounding roads.<br />
Parking access to Erf 921 for hotel<br />
residents and restaurant patrons would<br />
reduce access for other people as well.<br />
The proposed development would result in<br />
traffic congestion<br />
Parking in the harbour and the surrounds<br />
are not addressed satisfactory in the Draft<br />
EIA<br />
I'm concerned about traffic in and out of the<br />
harbour for boat owners as well as old<br />
residents via Kusweg Oos<br />
Traffic through and around the development<br />
must be planned and controlled from the<br />
outset<br />
The proposed development will cause<br />
further traffic congestion in the harbour<br />
area.<br />
I'm concerned about traffic congestion on<br />
tourist buses and also during the<br />
construction phase on Kusweg North as<br />
we're also experiencing difficulties in getting<br />
to and from our residences during the<br />
holiday season.<br />
Kusweg North Road is not suitable for the<br />
amount of heavy traffic and with many<br />
pedestrians and children using this road<br />
could be endangered.<br />
I suggest that buses and trucks to use the<br />
Main and Harbour Roads for access to the<br />
proposed development. This matter should<br />
be discussed with the Municipality and<br />
traffic departments.<br />
Please refer to Section 5.2.2 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Access would be increased as there would be<br />
a number of exits on Erf 921.<br />
Please refer to Section 5.2.2 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Extensive assessment was undertaken to<br />
ascertain the potential impact of the proposed<br />
development to traffic flow and parking within<br />
the harbor precinct. Please note that parking<br />
within the harbor boundary is managed by the<br />
Department of Public Works.<br />
Please refer to Section 1.3.6 and 1.3.7 of this<br />
Comment and Response Report.<br />
Agreed. Please refer to Section 5.2.2 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Please refer to Section 5.2.2 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Please refer to Section 5.2.2 of the <strong>FEIR</strong> and<br />
Section 1.3.6 and 1.3.7 of this Comment and<br />
Response Report. Please refer to the<br />
construction phase impacts in Section 5.3 and<br />
refer to the EMP in Annexure Q of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Please refer to Section 1.3.6 of this Comment<br />
and Response Report. It was stated in the<br />
EMP (Annexure Q) that the main access by<br />
construction vehicles would be Harbour Road.<br />
Your point has been noted and referred to the<br />
proponent for consideration. Please refer to<br />
Section 5.3.2 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Traffic flow &<br />
Parking<br />
Traffic flow &<br />
Parking<br />
Traffic flow &<br />
Parking<br />
Traffic flow &<br />
Parking<br />
Traffic flow &<br />
Parking<br />
Traffic flow &<br />
Parking<br />
Traffic flow &<br />
Parking<br />
Traffic flow &<br />
Parking<br />
Traffic flow &<br />
Parking<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 44 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
1.3.34<br />
Stephen Knobel<br />
(137)<br />
The impact of fishing activities focused on<br />
parking problems and the EIA does not<br />
address the conflict that is going to arise<br />
between the proposed development and the<br />
activities of fishermen<br />
Please refer to Section 1.3.5 of this Comment<br />
and Response Report.<br />
iCE Group comment:<br />
The Erf 848 entrance and Erf 921 parking<br />
area layout were specifically designed to<br />
relieve congestion at the harbour entrance<br />
and to provide additional parking for fisherfolk.<br />
Traffic flow &<br />
Parking<br />
1.3.35<br />
1.3.36<br />
Stephen Knobel<br />
(137)<br />
Jeanette Bruwer<br />
(75)<br />
Parking is an important issue and is<br />
covered in 20 pages of EIA. How can you<br />
iCE Group comment:<br />
even contemplate proposing less parking<br />
than the recommended national average of<br />
6 per 100 m 2<br />
Traffic flow rating reflected on the report is<br />
unreasonable. Traffic congestion is<br />
experienced everyday and with commercial<br />
and recreational fishing trailers occupying<br />
the parking space on good weather. Where<br />
would occupants and visitors of the<br />
proposed development park? Kusweg Oos<br />
and Harbour Road will change from a safe<br />
road for children and animals to a much<br />
busier road.<br />
The rate of 6 bays per 100 m 2 is used for<br />
shopping centres such as Somerset Mall or<br />
Tyger Valley. A rate of 4 bays per 100 m 2 is<br />
generally used for line shops.<br />
Please refer to Section 1.3.5 of this Comment<br />
and Response Report.<br />
Please refer to Section 1.3.5 of this Comment<br />
and Response Report.<br />
Traffic flow &<br />
Parking<br />
Traffic flow &<br />
Parking<br />
1.3.37<br />
Martoinette la<br />
Grange (86)<br />
The development will cause traffic<br />
congestion and disturb the tranquility of this<br />
holiday destination.<br />
iCE Group comment:<br />
The traffic analysis indicates that the only<br />
existing problem is at the Malvern Drive / Main<br />
Road intersection and measures were<br />
proposed (roundabout) to address this<br />
problem. The proposed Langezandt Quays<br />
development will add traffic, but intersections<br />
will continue to operate at satisfactory service<br />
levels<br />
Traffic flow &<br />
Parking<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 45 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
1.3.38<br />
1.3.39<br />
Grant McKinstry<br />
(80)<br />
Carel Schaap (165)<br />
Having an Entrance/Exit from the Kusweg<br />
Oos and Kusweg Noord sides of the parking<br />
lot will mean that people will use this as a<br />
shortcut, and create increased danger for<br />
pedestrians who are walking on ERF 921.<br />
The Entrance/Exit on the Kusweg Oos side<br />
of ERF 921 is also on a dangerous „blind‟<br />
corner. The actual road surface on Kusweg<br />
Oos is not designed to withstand any<br />
additional amount of traffic. This road used<br />
to be a dirt road and was simply covered by<br />
tar. This is just another example of how<br />
„shallow‟ the planning for this development<br />
has been<br />
The proposed use of Erf 921 for parking to<br />
support this development has significant<br />
implications regarding current use (overflow<br />
temporary storage of boat trailers,<br />
particularly large ones that cannot be<br />
maneuvered within the harbour confines) as<br />
well as future commercial expansion<br />
potential of the harbour and therefore its<br />
future commercial viability.<br />
Please refer to the revised Section 5.2.2 of<br />
the <strong>FEIR</strong>. Erf 921 would only have one exit to<br />
Kusweg Oos.Regarding the condition of<br />
Kusweg Oos it is the CAM‟s responsibility to<br />
ensure that roads are properly designed and<br />
maintained, however the proponent may<br />
initially construct the roads required as per<br />
traffic Alternative 4.<br />
iCE Group:<br />
a) It is recommended that a raised pedestrian<br />
crossing should be provided at both<br />
entrances, as a continuation of the sidewalks.<br />
This should discourage through traffic and will<br />
improve pedestrian safety.<br />
b) The sight distance problem will be<br />
addressed through the provision of a threeway<br />
stop as shown on the plans.<br />
c) If that is the case, the road may have to be<br />
reconstructed.<br />
The development is expected to have minimal<br />
impact on the parking area and is attempting<br />
to improve the efficiency of the parking area.<br />
Please refer to Section 1.3.5 of this Comment<br />
and Response Report.<br />
Traffic flow &<br />
Parking<br />
Traffic flow &<br />
Parking<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 46 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
1.3.40<br />
1.3.41<br />
A.F. & J.H. Tooke<br />
(67)<br />
A.F. & J.H. Tooke<br />
(67)<br />
Traffic Management Option 4 proposes<br />
using erf 921 for parking and buses, there<br />
are also intentions to open an additional<br />
access point to the existing erf 1394<br />
harbour parking and to extend this harbour<br />
parking on the north side along Kusweg<br />
Noord. During holiday period, the traffic flow<br />
along Kusweg Noord is exceptionally high,<br />
and this has created a very dangerous<br />
situation for young children living in the<br />
houses along Kusweg Noord. A solution<br />
would be to close off Kusweg Noord at the<br />
harbour end to force the traffic using the<br />
harbour to use Harbour Road access only.<br />
This will vastly improve the safety of young<br />
children who walk/ cycle/ play along the<br />
Kusweg Noord.<br />
The schematic diagram in the summary<br />
indicates enlargement of the parking area<br />
on erf 1394, into what is presently fynbosrich<br />
public open space. The proposed<br />
routing of traffic via this parking area will<br />
result into chaos during high season when<br />
recreational fishermen maximally use the<br />
parking area for vehicles and trailers whose<br />
combined length exceeds 12 meters. It is<br />
likely for a dangerous traffic congestion to<br />
occur at the harbour.<br />
Please refer to Section 1.3.5 of this Comment<br />
and Response Report.<br />
Disagree, the schematic does not indicate<br />
public open parking extending into fynbos.<br />
The schematic only shows the boundary of<br />
the erf not that actual parking size. Please<br />
refer to Section 1.3.5 of this Comment and<br />
Response Report.<br />
Traffic flow &<br />
Parking<br />
Traffic flow &<br />
Parking<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 47 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
Please refer to Section 5.2.2, and Annexure J<br />
of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
1.3.42<br />
1.3.43<br />
1.3.44<br />
1.3.45<br />
1.3.46<br />
Justine Sweet (97)<br />
A.F. & J.H. Tooke<br />
(67)<br />
GJ Pienaar (56)<br />
GJ Pienaar (56)<br />
GJ Pienaar (56)<br />
In respect of parking, we note that the<br />
calculation of the size of the bays is wholly<br />
inadequate given the fact that the parking<br />
bays will be required to accommodate boats<br />
and trailers as well. A rough calculation<br />
indicates that these bays should measure at<br />
least 14 m in length. Moreover, no<br />
provision is made for the large turning<br />
circles required in harbour areas where<br />
boats are being transported on trailers.<br />
The public also enjoy the use of public open<br />
space, and also as a playground for small<br />
children and more importantly access to the<br />
harbour by pedestrians occurs via this traffic<br />
area.<br />
Public parking is already available.<br />
Other businesses in the area would also<br />
benefit from this type of development.<br />
I, as the owner of erf 649 in Heidelaan, am<br />
not in favour of giving pardon to the owner<br />
of erf 572 of having to adhere to his duties<br />
for the following reasons:<br />
3. Erf 572 is too small to meet the parking<br />
requirements of a business property.<br />
The preferred traffic alternative 4 has been<br />
amended to make allowance for vehicle/boat<br />
trailers as this was highlighted at the Public<br />
Meeting (31 October 2009). Further<br />
amendments have been undertaken to<br />
accommodate a range of queries which were<br />
raised to contribute to a traffic alternative that<br />
meets the needs of the I&APs,<br />
Traffic consultants ( iCE Group) response:<br />
This is a valid point. Parking bays at other<br />
harbours (Gordon‟s Bay, Yzerfontein and<br />
existing Struisbaai parking) measures<br />
between 12,5 and 13 metres in length. It is<br />
recommended that parking on the harbour<br />
land should be reserved for boats and trailers,<br />
with the second access as shown on the<br />
drawings.<br />
It is assumed that reference is made to Erf<br />
921. This is public open space under the<br />
control of the CAM who are supportive of the<br />
concept to formalize Erf 921 into public<br />
parking. Please refer to the CAM letter in<br />
Annexure A of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Agreed, however not formalized which is<br />
required to curtail the congestion experienced<br />
during peak periods.<br />
Your comment is noted.<br />
Please note we are assessing Erf 848 not Erf<br />
572 for development and Erf 921 for public<br />
parking. Your concern is however noted in<br />
relation to Erf 848 and Erf 921. Refer to<br />
Section 5.2.2 * which deals with proposed<br />
parking provisions.<br />
Traffic &<br />
parking<br />
Traffic flow &<br />
Parking<br />
Traffic flow &<br />
Parking<br />
Traffic flow &<br />
Parking<br />
Traffic flow &<br />
Parking<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 48 of 193
1.3.47<br />
1.3.48<br />
1.3.49<br />
1.3.50<br />
1.3.51<br />
1.3.52<br />
1.3.53<br />
1.3.54<br />
1.3.55<br />
1.3.56<br />
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
GJ Pienaar (56)<br />
GJ Pienaar (56)<br />
GJ Pienaar (56)<br />
GJ Pienaar (56)<br />
GJ Pienaar (56)<br />
Lois Albertyn (109)<br />
W. J. and S.N.<br />
Wilken (105)<br />
4. The entrance to the erf is in Heidelaan. A<br />
restaurant or other businesses will result in<br />
unwanted additional parking in Heidelaan in<br />
front of my, as well as other people‟s<br />
property. No provision has been made for<br />
this.<br />
5. Even if the entranceway to erf 572 is<br />
moved to the parking area, there will still be<br />
a overflow of vehicles in the summer peak<br />
season that will park in the Heidelaan. This<br />
has happened in the past, as well as during<br />
the past week up untills 3 February 2008.<br />
This situation will only get worse should the<br />
parking conditions be removed.<br />
6. The institutions who gave their personal<br />
approval to the project will not be impacted<br />
directly, unlike Struisbaai and the involved<br />
homeowners.<br />
7. It can set precedent for guest houses,<br />
etc. to follow suit, should parking on the<br />
plain receive approval, be hired out or sold.<br />
8. By allowing the deviation of the parking<br />
conditions in the business sector on its own<br />
merits is understandable. However, other<br />
factors play a role in the harbour area.<br />
It will be necessary to construct<br />
underground parking that will have to be<br />
fitted with pumps to remove groundwater.<br />
How will you address oil leaks?<br />
Parking – Traffic – Access: We foresee<br />
many problems with regards to parking and<br />
traffic for local residents, fishermen and<br />
vacationers.<br />
Please refer to Section 5.2.2 of the <strong>FEIR</strong><br />
regarding parking.<br />
Please note we are assessing Erf 848 not Erf<br />
572 for development and Erf 921 for public<br />
parking. Your concern is however noted in<br />
relation to Erf 848 and Erf 921.Please refer to<br />
Section 5.2.2 of the <strong>FEIR</strong> for parking facilities.<br />
Your concern is noted. The application for<br />
environmental authorisation will only be<br />
submitted during 2010.<br />
Please refer to Section 5.2.2 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>. The<br />
development has proposed its own<br />
underground parking for a capacity of 130<br />
bays.<br />
Please refer to Section 5.2.2 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>. The<br />
development is proposed to have its own<br />
parking<br />
Please refer to Section 5.2.8 of the <strong>FEIR</strong><br />
regarding basement parking.<br />
Please refer to Section 5.2.2 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Erla Rabe (83) Traffic will only get worse. Please refer to Section 5.2.2 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Hans Swart (27)<br />
H du Plessis (68)<br />
Quality of life: (1) Increase in traffic volume<br />
toward the harbour; (2) Higher levels of<br />
traffic noise due to the proposed access<br />
point in Kusweg-Oos.<br />
The unavoidable impact on traffic and<br />
parking would also be enormous.<br />
Please refer to Section 5.2.2 of the <strong>FEIR</strong> and<br />
Section 1.3.5 of this Comment and Response<br />
Report.<br />
Please refer to Section 5.2.2 of the <strong>FEIR</strong> and<br />
Section 1.3.5 of this Comment and Response<br />
Report.<br />
Traffic flow &<br />
Parking<br />
Traffic flow &<br />
Parking<br />
Traffic flow &<br />
Parking<br />
Traffic flow &<br />
Parking<br />
Traffic flow &<br />
Parking<br />
Traffic flow &<br />
Parking<br />
Traffic flow &<br />
Parking<br />
Traffic flow &<br />
Parking<br />
Traffic flow &<br />
Parking<br />
Traffic flow &<br />
Parking<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 49 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
1.3.57<br />
1.3.58<br />
1.3.59<br />
1.3.60<br />
1.3.61<br />
GJ Pienaar (56)<br />
Louis Nell (74)<br />
A. J. Vlok (139)<br />
Karin I Van Niekerk<br />
(87)<br />
Johan Liebenberg,<br />
Dorel Van der<br />
Westhuizen, Kobus<br />
Viljoen, Abrie<br />
Bruwer, Chris Moll,<br />
Stuart Du Plessis,<br />
G. R. Youldon,<br />
Johan Venter (59,<br />
73, 69, 66, 65, 172,<br />
93, 78)<br />
The approval of the deviations in 1995 was<br />
done without the knowledge of the involved<br />
landowners.<br />
The statements about the congestion during<br />
peak periods which are rated "Low<br />
Probable" to "Very Low Probable" can only<br />
originate from a totally uninformed<br />
researcher. When the Geelstert "runs",<br />
factory trucks and all other conceivable<br />
vehicles and trailers jam-pack the harbour<br />
entrance all the way back to Main Street.<br />
Fights between truckers and boat owners<br />
who want to launch are commonplace are<br />
common. At peak times such as these,<br />
access to the hotel and all other facilities in<br />
the complex will come to a complete<br />
standstill for days on end.<br />
Parking – we are of the opinion that the<br />
suggestion to have parking underground<br />
would be foolish when considering the<br />
floods experienced on erf 848 from time to<br />
time. This is also why a decision hasn‟t<br />
been made yet regarding parking on nearby<br />
Municipal land and no public process has<br />
been undertaken for tenders or hiring to<br />
residents.<br />
Development at the harbour will cause<br />
major congestion in an area which is used<br />
for recreation during the season mostly by<br />
fisherman and parents with small children<br />
Formalizing the parking area in front of the<br />
harbour entrance will not ease the<br />
congestion to the harbour as there is one<br />
entrance to the harbour to service boat<br />
trailers, pedestrians, sightseers and now<br />
buses.<br />
Your point is noted but this pre-dates the<br />
applicants ownership of the property.<br />
Your point is noted. The traffic alternative 4<br />
however would allow for multiple entry/exit<br />
points and thus the proposed development<br />
would have adequate accessibility. Traffic<br />
alternative 4 also makes provision to improve<br />
the traffic flow within the harbour (Erf<br />
1394/854)<br />
Please refer to Section 5.2.8 of the <strong>FEIR</strong><br />
regarding basement parking. This is public<br />
open space under the control of the CAM who<br />
are supportive of the concept to formalize Erf<br />
921 into public parking. Please refer to the<br />
CAM letter in Annexure A of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
The problem of serious congestion in the<br />
harbour already exists, particularly when the<br />
holiday season co-incides with the fish runs,<br />
and may be marginally exacerbated by the<br />
development. It would be MCM‟s<br />
responsibility to control activities in the<br />
harbour if harbour activities are compromised.<br />
Please refer to Section 1.3.5 of this Comment<br />
and Response Report regarding congestion.<br />
This EIA has not addressed the formalization<br />
of the parking area to the north of Erf 848.<br />
The formalization of parking specifically<br />
relates to Erf 921, Erf 854 and Erf 1394.<br />
Traffic flow &<br />
Parking<br />
Traffic flow &<br />
Parking<br />
Traffic flow &<br />
Parking<br />
Traffic flow &<br />
Parking<br />
Traffic flow &<br />
Parking<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 50 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
1.3.62<br />
1.3.63<br />
Johan Liebenberg,<br />
Dorel Van der<br />
Westhuizen, Kobus<br />
Viljoen, Abrie<br />
Bruwer, Chris Moll,<br />
Stuart Du Plessis,<br />
G. R. Youldon,<br />
Johan Venter (59,<br />
73, 69, 66, 65, 172,<br />
93, 78)<br />
Johan Liebenberg,<br />
Dorel Van der<br />
Westhuizen, Kobus<br />
Viljoen, Abrie<br />
Bruwer, Chris Moll,<br />
Stuart Du Plessis,<br />
G. R. Youldon,<br />
Johan Venter (59,<br />
73, 69, 66, 65, 172,<br />
93, 78)<br />
Opening an entrance to the parking lot from<br />
Kusweg Oos does not address the problem<br />
of one entrance to the harbour<br />
Further the proposed Kusweg Oos<br />
intersection is on a blind corner to two sides<br />
and is dangerous. Kusweg Oos asphalt<br />
surface is crumbling as it is, for it was<br />
merely an asphalt screening on the existing<br />
gravel road. It was never designed for<br />
buses or high density traffic.<br />
Please refer to Section 1.3.5 of this Comment<br />
and Response Report regarding congestion.<br />
Regarding the blind corner Alternative 4 of the<br />
Traffic Report ( Section 5.2.2) two stop signs<br />
are proposed which will make this intersection<br />
safer.<br />
Regarding the poorly designed road, it is the<br />
CAMs responsibility to ensure that municipal<br />
roads are properly designed and maintained.<br />
Traffic specialists (iCE Group) comment:<br />
a) The sight distance problem will be<br />
addressed through the provision of a threeway<br />
stop as shown on the plans.<br />
b) If that is the case, the road may have to be<br />
reconstructed. The municipality may request<br />
the developer to do the construction in lieu of<br />
a portion of bulk service contributions.<br />
Traffic flow &<br />
Parking<br />
Traffic flow &<br />
Parking<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 51 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
Please refer to Section 1.3.5 of this Comment<br />
and Response Report and please refer to<br />
Section 5.2.2 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
1.3.64<br />
81, 79, 95, 85, 84,<br />
90, 160, 162, 164,<br />
154, 155, 156, 157,<br />
158, 153, 150, 151,<br />
116, 102, 103, 101,<br />
99, 100, 98, 92, 94,<br />
163, 174, 175, 176,<br />
177, 178, 33, 179,<br />
180, 181, 182<br />
The development will cause major traffic<br />
congestion entering and leaving the harbour<br />
and the planned new entrance via Kusweg<br />
Oos will disturb the peace the residents of<br />
that road have paid a high price for.<br />
Traffic specialists (iCE Group) comment:<br />
a) Entrance on Kusweg Oos: Erf 921 is<br />
undeveloped municipal land earmarked for<br />
parking and there was always the chance of it<br />
being formalised. The parking area has two<br />
entrances and two exits so that traffic volumes<br />
will be split and have less of an impact.<br />
b) Congestion: The traffic analysis indicates<br />
that the only existing problem is at the<br />
Malvern Drive / Main Road intersection and<br />
measures were proposed (roundabout) to<br />
address this problem. The proposed<br />
Langezandt Quays development will add<br />
traffic, but intersections will continue to<br />
operate at satisfactory service levels.<br />
Traffic flow &<br />
Parking<br />
1.4 Access to Harbour<br />
1.4.1<br />
1.4.2<br />
1.4.3<br />
Petrus Jurgens<br />
Visser (4)<br />
Dirk de Jongh (Jnr)<br />
(168)<br />
Gillian Vermaak<br />
(152)<br />
Access to the harbour for local people will<br />
be limited or not available<br />
The harbour is currently the lifeline for<br />
fishermen that are dependant on this<br />
access point to the sea. The local<br />
fisherman and the local people would be<br />
restricted to access the harbour, there<br />
would increased tourist activities and the<br />
proposed development would restrict the<br />
working harbour and there is no alternative<br />
harbour for use in the whole of<br />
Struisbaai/Agulhas area.<br />
The local residents and fishermen living in<br />
Struisbaai for most of the year must be well<br />
catered for, when planning access to the<br />
harbour area<br />
Access to the harbour would not be restricted.<br />
Please refer to Sections 1.4.1 and 1.5.8 of this<br />
Comment and Response Report.<br />
Applicants response: Disagree; we have no<br />
say in the operations regarding access to or<br />
from the harbor.<br />
Please refer to Section 5.2.2 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Harbour<br />
access<br />
Harbour<br />
access<br />
Access<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 52 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
1.4.4<br />
1.4.5<br />
1.4.6<br />
1.4.7<br />
1.4.8<br />
Hendrik Andreas<br />
Kotze (19)<br />
Hendrik Andreas<br />
Kotze (19)<br />
Carel Van der<br />
Merwe (20)<br />
Anneke Kloppers<br />
(26)<br />
Johan van der Walt<br />
(28)<br />
All ski boats and rubber ducks operating<br />
from Struisbaai slipways should be able to<br />
access the harbour and no other problems<br />
are foreseen with the development of the<br />
harbour area. The recently introduced and<br />
growing chartering business should benefit<br />
immensely from a nearby hotel and tourist<br />
centre.<br />
Access to the jetty for strolling and kiddy<br />
angling should not be compromised by the<br />
development as the developer has no<br />
jurisdiction associated with the jetty. The<br />
jetty is affecting young and old and is even<br />
accessible to the handicapped and often<br />
life-long memories result from this ideal<br />
training ground for the future anglers.<br />
Alternative routes and rules may be<br />
required to control access and activities and<br />
that is the responsibility of local authorities.<br />
No mention of any effect of the proposed<br />
development has been made regarding<br />
access to this existing quay. Unless this will<br />
be addressed in the EIA Report, very limited<br />
impact is made on the traditional access<br />
and not all impact areas have been<br />
addressed. Traditional access to the<br />
breakwater quay has been unrestricted with<br />
parking very close by. This is an extremely<br />
popular area over a holiday period with<br />
large numbers of people accessing the<br />
structure.<br />
Who will have right to access the harbour?<br />
Who will have preference? The fisherfolk<br />
who are trying to make a living or the<br />
holidaymakers?<br />
Access to harbour wall with large truck for<br />
fuel and chakkies repair area is also a<br />
concern<br />
Your point is noted. (Please refer to Section<br />
5.2.6 of <strong>FEIR</strong>)<br />
Please refer to Section 1.4.1 of this Comment<br />
and Response Report.<br />
No impact to the existing quay is envisaged.<br />
Please refer to Section 1.4.1 of this Comment<br />
and Response Report.<br />
Please refer to Section 1.4.1 of this Comment<br />
and Response Report. The harbour will<br />
continue to be controlled by Marine and<br />
Coastal Management and not the adjacent<br />
landowner.<br />
Please refer to Section 1.4.1 of this Comment<br />
and Response Report.<br />
Harbour<br />
access<br />
Harbour<br />
access<br />
Harbour<br />
access<br />
Harbour<br />
access<br />
Harbour<br />
access<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 53 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
1.4.9<br />
1.4.10<br />
1.4.11<br />
1.4.12<br />
1.4.13<br />
1.4.14<br />
1.4.15<br />
1.4.16<br />
Gerry Pienaar (38)<br />
Julian G Williams<br />
(47)<br />
Gwen S. Claasen<br />
(53)<br />
John Butler (104)<br />
Les C. Freese (91)<br />
Gawie Bruwer (76)<br />
Wayne D. Meiring<br />
(135)<br />
G.R. Youldon (93)<br />
The Draft EIA Report does not address the<br />
effect of the higher volume of seagoing craft<br />
that will be clogging up the harbour. The<br />
higher volume of people who will own a<br />
fractional title apartment and hotel guests<br />
that will need to be entertained will result in<br />
an influx of their own equipment to use on<br />
the water<br />
The proposed development will place<br />
adverse pressure on existing boats that until<br />
today have enjoyed their activities on<br />
harbour facilities without being disturbed.<br />
I'm concerned about the fishing activities at<br />
the harbour, harbour will not as accessible<br />
as it used to be, it will be restricted.<br />
It is totally unacceptable to have restricted<br />
access to the harbour and the small beach<br />
in the interest of paying guests of the hotel.<br />
It is historical fact that fishermen and their<br />
families currently living in Struisbaai Noord<br />
once lived in close proximity to the area<br />
surrounding the harbour. It is also a matter<br />
of historical fact that they were forcibly<br />
removed due to the dictates of the apartheid<br />
regime. Their heritage and livelihood is<br />
encapsulated in the various activities which<br />
take place in that harbour. The harbour is in<br />
fact their last remaining link with their lives<br />
pre forced removals.<br />
The most significant financial injection to the<br />
harbour is from sport-fisherman. The slipways<br />
and general congestion already cause<br />
severe restriction in the harbour. I see<br />
neither plans nor regulations to ensure<br />
adequate entry and control of this area.<br />
Fishermen will be excluded and will<br />
eventually not be able to gain access to the<br />
harbour<br />
Access to the harbour of the local<br />
community due to the proposed<br />
development would not be allowed though it<br />
should be enhanced.<br />
There may be a marginal increase in crafts as<br />
a result of the development. This is however<br />
likely to increase with increased tourism<br />
whether the development is approved or not.<br />
It is MCM‟s responsibility to control these<br />
activities.<br />
Please refer to Section 1.4.9 of this Comment<br />
and Response Report.<br />
Disagree. Please refer to Section 1.4.2 of this<br />
Comment and Response Report.<br />
Access will not be restricted. Please refer to<br />
Section 1.4.1 of this Comment and Response<br />
Report.<br />
Your concern is noted.<br />
Applicants response: The heritage and<br />
livelihood of fishermen will not be affected.<br />
Control of the harbour remains vested with<br />
MCM. Please refer to Section 1.3.60 of this<br />
Comment and Response Report.<br />
Disagree. Access to the harbour will not be<br />
restricted. Please refer to Section 1.4.1 of this<br />
Comment and Response Report.<br />
Access to the harbour will not be restricted.<br />
Please refer to Section 1.4.1 of this Comment<br />
and Response Report.<br />
Harbour<br />
access<br />
Harbour<br />
access<br />
Harbour<br />
access<br />
Harbour<br />
access<br />
Harbour<br />
access<br />
Harbour<br />
access<br />
Harbour<br />
access<br />
Harbour<br />
access<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 54 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
1.4.17<br />
1.4.18<br />
1.4.19<br />
1.4.20<br />
1.4.21<br />
Bertrus Hayward<br />
(172)<br />
Lindie Snyman (61)<br />
Lois Albertyn (109)<br />
John W. Newman<br />
(146)<br />
Justine Sweet (97)<br />
I'm concerned about access to the harbour.<br />
Leave the harbour untouched. There are<br />
very few places left where children can<br />
swim within the harbour. Our harbour is<br />
unique.<br />
Currently the site is occupied by a rustic<br />
tourism and fishing development. In what<br />
way will the development impact on<br />
accessibility to the harbour for informal and<br />
social fishermen and vacationers?<br />
The harbour development is an outrage and<br />
my access to it will be limited in the future.<br />
This has happened before in the Cape and<br />
at Gordon‟s Bay.<br />
These factors could lead to the<br />
disenfranchisement and alienation of the<br />
local fishermen which is contrary to the aims<br />
of the Fishing Harbours Transition Project,<br />
[www.deat.gov.Branches/MarineCoastal/pro<br />
ject] which requires proclaimed harbours to<br />
be maintained primarily for their core<br />
activity, namely fishing. According to Mr<br />
Marinus, the person in charge of this project<br />
at the Department of <strong>Environmental</strong> Affairs,<br />
developments within proclaimed harbours<br />
cannot be dominated by tourism or<br />
recreational activities. Access by local<br />
fishermen and particularly, any previously<br />
disadvantaged communities, to these<br />
proclaimed harbours is also critical to this<br />
Project. Despite the applicant's bald<br />
assertion that its proposed development is<br />
in line with the Fishing Harbours Transition<br />
Project, [p. 47 & 60 of dEIR] it is clear that<br />
the effects of the proposed development will<br />
in fact go against the key aims of that<br />
Project.<br />
Access to the harbour will not be restricted.<br />
Please refer to Section 1.4.1 of this Comment<br />
and Response Report.<br />
The proposed development will not alter the<br />
harbor infrastructure or swimming<br />
arangements. Erf 848 is within the harbour<br />
precinct, however private property adjacent to<br />
the existing harbour.<br />
Access to the harbour will not be restricted.<br />
Control of the harbour remains vested with<br />
MCM. Please refer to Section 1.4.1 of this<br />
Comment and Response Report.<br />
Disagree. Access to the harbour will not be<br />
restricted. Control of the harbour remains<br />
vested with MCM. Please refer to Section<br />
1.4.1 of this Comment and Response Report.<br />
Erf 848 is private property and not part of the<br />
proclaimed fishing harbour and is thus not<br />
required to contribute towards fishing<br />
activities. However due to its proximity to the<br />
harbour, the proposed development does<br />
contribute towards promoting and<br />
accommodating tourism which is part of the<br />
Transition Project. Please refer to Sections<br />
1.6.51 and 1.6.30 of this Comment and<br />
Response Report. A meeting was held at the<br />
MCM offices in Cape Town on the 26 May<br />
2009 to table the proposed development and<br />
it was stated at that meeting that the proposed<br />
development complies with the Harbour<br />
Transition Project. Please refer to Annexure A<br />
of the <strong>FEIR</strong> for a copy of the follow-up<br />
correspondence sent to MCM [post 26 May<br />
2009 meeting]<br />
Harbour<br />
access<br />
Harbour<br />
access<br />
Harbour<br />
access<br />
Harbour<br />
access<br />
Harbour<br />
access<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 55 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
1.4.22<br />
1.4.23<br />
1.4.24<br />
1.4.25<br />
Justine Sweet (97)<br />
Justine Sweet (97)<br />
D.G. & J.L. Falck<br />
(64)<br />
Adriaan Newman<br />
(148)<br />
It is clear that the proposed development,<br />
which envisages an upscale hotel, shops<br />
and residential units, could alienate the<br />
local fishermen and eliminate their<br />
livelihood as well as their convenient source<br />
of fishing-related services currently provided<br />
by Harbour Catch.<br />
The ICMA also stipulates requirements in<br />
respect of applications for environmental<br />
authorisation for coastal activities [Section<br />
63(1)]. A competent authority may not<br />
issue an environmental authorisation if the<br />
proposed development is situated within the<br />
coastal protection zone and is inconsistent<br />
with the purpose for which a coastal<br />
protection zone is established [Section<br />
63(2)(b)]. Although there are certain<br />
exceptions to this requirement, for example<br />
if the proposed development will provide<br />
important services to the public when using<br />
coastal public property [Section 63(3)(b)],<br />
this is clearly not applicable to the<br />
development proponent's proposed<br />
development which, as set out in detail<br />
below, will in fact hinder access to coastal<br />
public property.<br />
Struisbaai residents enjoy themselves in the<br />
harbour and it is one of the very few places<br />
(if not only) on the Southern Cape Coast<br />
where one can do so and is part of the<br />
ambience of the area. If the developer does<br />
not assure us that such activities will not<br />
change, who can allow sandy feet and wet<br />
bottoms on his restaurant. We do not want<br />
to loose the very important part of our<br />
holidaying.<br />
As a resident of Struisbaai and a fisherman,<br />
the development will prevent me from<br />
accessing the harbour.<br />
Please refer to Sections 1.6.51 and 1.6.30 of<br />
this Comment and Response Report<br />
regarding assistance for the fisherfolk.<br />
EAP response: Access to the coastal public<br />
property will not be hindered in any significant<br />
way, by the proposed development. The<br />
proposed design has not detailed any<br />
restriction to the public. The right of way<br />
servitude is under question as it has to date<br />
not been amended to reflect the current state<br />
in relation to the actual high water mark.<br />
As a matter of fact, the public access adjacent<br />
to the high-water mark is simply not impinged<br />
upon or otherwise limited, by the proposed<br />
development.<br />
Your concern is noted. The proponent‟s<br />
vision is to make provision on the ground floor<br />
for the public to be casually dressed (includes<br />
the sandy feet concept) on the ground floor as<br />
it is with Pelicans at present.<br />
Disagree. Access to the harbour will not be<br />
restricted. Control of the harbour remains<br />
vested with MCM. Please refer to Section<br />
1.4.1 of this Comment and Response Report.<br />
Harbour<br />
access<br />
Access<br />
Harbour<br />
access<br />
Harbour<br />
access<br />
1.5 Competition and<br />
Opportunities<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 56 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
1.5.1<br />
Marthinus Wiese<br />
(5)<br />
The existing businesses including the<br />
fishing and restaurants are already<br />
struggling and are closing.<br />
Please refer to Section 5.2.3 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Please refer to Section 5.2.3 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Competition<br />
1.5.2<br />
Johan Van Zyl (15)<br />
Many of the residents rent their homes for<br />
holiday accommodation and in order to<br />
generate income. As it is quiet during the<br />
off-peak season, the proposed development<br />
would take away clients that would have<br />
made use of private accommodation,<br />
causing residents‟ income to decrease and<br />
less job opportunities.<br />
Economic Specialist comment:<br />
The level of competition with those that rent<br />
out homes is likely to be somewhat less than<br />
in the case of B&Bs as what is being offered<br />
by those that let out homes is quite different to<br />
that which will be offered at Langezandt<br />
Quays. In both cases, however, the kind of<br />
accommodation on offer at Langezandt Quays<br />
would be relatively differentiated and should<br />
therefore not result in high levels of<br />
competition.<br />
The proponent‟s developments are not<br />
excluding other developments and can thus<br />
not be regarded as a monopoly.<br />
Competition<br />
1.5.3<br />
1.5.4<br />
Johan Van Zyl (15)<br />
Hendrik Andreas<br />
Kotze (19)<br />
The developer has so much control for this<br />
area based on what he owns and what he is<br />
proposing to do. This should not be about<br />
the developer as a person but about the<br />
impact that has been and will be made on<br />
the area by developer's activities. Any form<br />
of monopoly is unhealthy, even more so for<br />
a small town such as Struisbaai. Our<br />
request is that the town and its heritage stay<br />
in the hands of its people.<br />
Tourism can only benefit from the proposed<br />
development; it has replaced fishing,<br />
construction and the realty sector long time<br />
ago, as the only overwhelming contributor<br />
to the economy of Struisbaai.<br />
Economic Specialist comment:<br />
It would be correct to say that the proponent<br />
would have a relatively dominant position in<br />
the market but not a monopoly. Given the size<br />
of places like Struisbaai, this kind of situation<br />
happens more easily particularly when larger<br />
investors such as the proponent are willing to<br />
take the risks involved in investment. These<br />
larger investments can yield particularly large<br />
benefits. On the other hand, market<br />
dominance can entail risks of its own and its<br />
very hard to predict the balance of outcomes<br />
in the market. Nevertheless, relative<br />
dominance is certainly not grounds to withhold<br />
approval for the development.<br />
Your point is noted. Please refer to Section<br />
5.2.3 of <strong>FEIR</strong><br />
Competition<br />
Competition<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 57 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
1.5.5<br />
1.5.6<br />
1.5.7<br />
1.5.8<br />
1.5.9<br />
Hendrik Andreas<br />
Kotze (19)<br />
Evan Matthee (24)<br />
Chris & Ria<br />
Reynolds (34)<br />
E. Ley Kempthorne<br />
(49)<br />
Meg Cowper Lewis<br />
(SEA) (48)<br />
Commercial fishing is declining i.e. chakkie<br />
industry is technologically outdated and on<br />
the way out. Development of the harbour<br />
area will neither destroy nor sustain the<br />
chakkie industry. Four or three of modern<br />
diesel-driven commercial ski-boats who are<br />
operating in a seemingly financial viable<br />
way at present, may continue to be<br />
accommodated on an equal footing as<br />
dozens of recreational boats launched at<br />
the harbour slipways<br />
I'm definitely sure that the proposed<br />
development is competing with the present<br />
business and the resident's way of living.<br />
Your proposal might promise economic<br />
development, however it could result in the<br />
total and fatal destruction of the existing<br />
balance in Struisbaai.<br />
The socio-economic survey undertaken in<br />
2008 also notes that more than 20% of the<br />
people employed in Ward 5 are employed in<br />
the fishing industry. The current<br />
development could create a friction for the<br />
fishing sector, a fact that was acknowledged<br />
in the economic report. The fishing<br />
activities could create a threat to the<br />
proposed hotel and residential activities due<br />
to fishing smells, noise, times of noise and<br />
parking. The mitigations proposed do not<br />
adequately address how these frictions<br />
could be mitigated. The solution of double<br />
glazing seems naive especially given other<br />
associated impact such as air conditioning<br />
that might result due to its mitigation factor<br />
The disadvantaged will clearly be the<br />
indigenous fisher folk who run the risk of<br />
losing their historic and cultural harbour<br />
when being edged out by luxury yachts, jet<br />
skis and high-powered motor boats for the<br />
up market residents and their guests.<br />
Your point is noted. Please refer to Section<br />
5.2.3 of <strong>FEIR</strong><br />
Please refer to Sections 5.2.3 and 5.2.6 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Your concern is noted. Please refer to<br />
Sections 5.2.3 and 5.2.6 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
With increased tourism there would inevitably<br />
be an increase in competition for scarce<br />
resources whether the development goes<br />
ahead or not. It would be up to the CAM and<br />
MCM to manage this competition and ensure<br />
that resources are shared equitably as they<br />
relate to the harbour and the coast. Please<br />
note that air conditioning is likely to be<br />
provided irrespective of noise limiting<br />
suggestions. Regarding the responsibility of<br />
the proposed development please refer to<br />
Section 5.2.3 of the <strong>FEIR</strong> regarding the<br />
forming of a sub-committee.<br />
Please refer to Section 1.4.9 of this Comment<br />
and Response Report. Control of the harbour<br />
remains vested with MCM and the proposed<br />
development will not alter the harbor<br />
infrastructure.<br />
Competition<br />
Competition<br />
Competition<br />
Competition<br />
Competition<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 58 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
1.5.10<br />
1.5.11<br />
1.5.12<br />
Carel Schaap (165)<br />
Bertrus Hayward<br />
(172)<br />
Frederick Janse van<br />
Rensburg (169)<br />
Development of Erf 848 for anything other<br />
than a purpose directly related to harbour<br />
function precludes expansion of the harbour<br />
into the stretch of land to the east between<br />
Kusweg and the coast (the only responsible<br />
use for this land), and therefore threatens<br />
the self-sustaining commercial future of<br />
Struisbaai as it will not develop, i.e.<br />
becomes economically doomed. This<br />
economic and social risk to be established.<br />
Address the Local Economic Development<br />
Strategy.<br />
Only a small number of people in the<br />
harbour will benefit through the residential<br />
buildings where as the rest of the town will<br />
get no benefits out of it.<br />
As Erf 848 is private land, there can be no<br />
expansion of harbour activities into the erf.<br />
The erf was however privatized and the<br />
proponent is proposing to exercising their right<br />
to develop on Erf 848 should the necessary<br />
permissions be granted.<br />
Please refer to Section 1.5.8 of this Comment<br />
and Response Report and Annexure H of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Disagree. Please refer to Section 1.5.8 of this<br />
Comment and Response Report and<br />
Annexure H of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Economic<br />
Economic<br />
Economic<br />
1.6 Community upliftment<br />
1.6.1<br />
1.6.2<br />
1.6.3<br />
Jacobus J.D.<br />
Havenga (12)<br />
Justine Sweet (97)<br />
Johan Van Zyl (15)<br />
Your arguments with respect to economic<br />
growth, job creation, tourism, etc. are<br />
incorrect. Existing businesses already find it<br />
difficult to generate enough income. You will<br />
have to bring workers from outside<br />
Struisbaai.<br />
In addition, the nine permanent staff<br />
members will all lose their jobs and the nine<br />
casual employment opportunities created at<br />
Pelicans as well as the six permanent jobs<br />
and two to four casual at Harbour Catch<br />
jobs will all be lost. This important factor is<br />
not mentioned anywhere in the draft EIR<br />
despite the fact that Struisbaai is known to<br />
have a high unemployment rate [p. 107 of<br />
dEIR.]<br />
The existing developed Langezandt<br />
properties create the idea that developers<br />
are inclusive. It would be more appropriate<br />
to open the existing development for<br />
general business opportunities so that the<br />
developers have the opportunity to establish<br />
a positive disposition with the community.<br />
Please refer to Section 5.2.3 of the <strong>FEIR</strong><br />
regarding the employment figures. It is<br />
proposed that the type of development and<br />
the marketing would make the proposed<br />
development more sustainable and thus<br />
provide more employment than is currently<br />
experienced.<br />
These staff would have the option to apply for<br />
employment in the proposed development.<br />
Please refer to Section 5.2.3 and Annexure H<br />
of the <strong>FEIR</strong> regarding employment<br />
opportunities. Substantially more jobs would<br />
be offered in the proposed development than<br />
is currently offered.<br />
Applicants response: The proposed<br />
development allows for a number of retail<br />
opportunities where the community could get<br />
involved.<br />
Community<br />
upliftment<br />
Employment<br />
Community<br />
upliftment<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 59 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
1.6.4<br />
E. Ley Kempthorne<br />
(49)<br />
It is acknowledged that the area is severely<br />
depressed and that unemployment levels<br />
are unacceptably high, and this means that<br />
the development on site is seen as<br />
desirable, however how much of the current<br />
development would in fact benefit the<br />
community? It is unlikely for the local<br />
community to benefit from the development<br />
of this scale other than very unskilled<br />
opportunities, given that the skills levels in<br />
the area were extremely low and with only<br />
11.6% of the population having a Matric<br />
certificate of higher qualifications according<br />
to 2008 socio-economic survey of this ward.<br />
Please refer to Section 5.2.3 and 5.3.2 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong> for employment opportunities and<br />
Annexure H: Economic Assessment Report<br />
for employment figures.<br />
Applicants response: The contract would be<br />
awarded to a credible and capable company<br />
at the time of construction and it is premature<br />
at this stage to define which company would<br />
be the successful contractor.<br />
Community<br />
upliftment<br />
1.6.5<br />
E. Ley Kempthorne<br />
(49)<br />
A building project of this size is more likely<br />
to be awarded to a large Cape or National<br />
firm that has the capacity to build and<br />
therefore would employ only a fraction of<br />
locals during the construction phase.<br />
Economic Specialist comment:<br />
The possibility for not using local labour is<br />
certainly there, but I don‟t think anyone can<br />
really confidently say what the likelihood is of<br />
this happening. Mitigation measured aimed at<br />
maximizing benefits for locals have been<br />
outlined in section 6.5 of the economic<br />
specialist study. In order to be certain of the<br />
use of local labour to the optimal degree, clear<br />
provisions should be drawn up and included in<br />
the conditions of approval and management<br />
plan for the project. Bear in mind that it is not<br />
reasonable to force the proponent to use local<br />
labour under all circumstances. If, for<br />
example, a certain local labourer does not<br />
provide a good service and/or demands<br />
unreasonably high wages, his/her status as a<br />
local should not offer unfair protection from<br />
the normal consequences of actions.<br />
Community<br />
upliftment<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 60 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
1.6.6<br />
1.6.7<br />
1.6.8<br />
1.6.9<br />
Ignatius Petrus<br />
Lourens (82)<br />
Robert A.N. Nell<br />
(119)<br />
Stephen Knobel<br />
(137)<br />
Stephen Knobel<br />
(137)<br />
It is obvious that the proposed development<br />
would not be for the benefit of the greater<br />
population of Struisbaai but would only<br />
benefit only a small percentage of them.<br />
As a member of WESSA and a fisherman,<br />
the proposed development will have no<br />
benefit to the community or local fisherman<br />
Is it possible for the proponent to supply<br />
proof that he would supply jobs to<br />
Struisbaai North residents? A list of UIF,<br />
SARS registered employees, complete with<br />
addresses and ID numbers would suffice.<br />
This would enable I&APs to form a more<br />
informed opinion of the whole proposed<br />
development.<br />
The proponent promised 10% share of the<br />
development to be donated to a community<br />
trust fund still to be formed. Will this still<br />
take place as it‟s implied that this is<br />
dependent on their support?<br />
Disagree. Based on the findings of the<br />
economic specialist it is our finding that the<br />
community could benefit from such a<br />
development through employment and<br />
business opportunities as well as a new range<br />
of commodities and retail stores.<br />
Please refer to Section 5.2.3 of the <strong>FEIR</strong> and<br />
<strong>CRR</strong> response 1.6.6.<br />
This is not a reasonable request at this stage<br />
to provide of the project such a list as the<br />
development may not be approved. This list<br />
would only prove that there are people<br />
available for employment which is already<br />
confirmed by the unemployment numbers<br />
referenced in the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
The <strong>Environmental</strong> Authorisation decision<br />
may include such a trust as a condition of<br />
approval if it the proposed development is<br />
approved. It would then be a legal<br />
requirement and not fulfilling it would be a<br />
breach of the authorisation conditions.<br />
Applicants response: Our support of the<br />
community is not a payment for favours but a<br />
genuine contribution to growth and<br />
development.<br />
Community<br />
upliftment<br />
Community<br />
upliftment<br />
Community<br />
upliftment<br />
Community<br />
upliftment<br />
Please refer to Section 1.6.5 of this Comment<br />
and Response Report<br />
1.6.10<br />
1.6.11<br />
Grant McKinstry<br />
(80)<br />
Bertrus Hayward<br />
(172)<br />
The developer claims that local jobs will be<br />
created. This is what he promised when he<br />
built his existing development at<br />
„Langezandt‟, and then broke this promise,<br />
by bringing in people from outside of<br />
Struisbaai to do the work<br />
The social contribution of the proposed<br />
development to the local people is a<br />
concern<br />
Applicants response: We would offer<br />
employment opportunities to local labour.<br />
Local labour is defined as Struisbaai and<br />
surrounds, such as Elim, Napier and<br />
Bredasdorp. Should they not accept the offer<br />
or provide poor service then it is not the<br />
developer‟s responsibility to ensure<br />
employment.<br />
It is assumed that the concern is that the<br />
social contribution will not occur as the nature<br />
of the concern has not been outlined in the<br />
submission. Refer to <strong>CRR</strong> response 1.6.1<br />
Community<br />
upliftment<br />
Community<br />
upliftment<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 61 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
1.6.12<br />
1.6.13<br />
1.6.14<br />
1.6.15<br />
1.6.16<br />
Johan Liebenberg,<br />
Dorel Van der<br />
Westhuizen, Kobus<br />
Viljoen, Abrie<br />
Bruwer, Chris Moll,<br />
Stuart Du Plessis,<br />
G. R. Youldon,<br />
Johan Venter (59,<br />
73, 69, 66, 65, 172,<br />
93, 78)<br />
Eldalene Bruwer<br />
(16)<br />
Hendrik Andreas<br />
Kotze (19)<br />
Evan Meirion<br />
Williams (31)<br />
Johan Van der<br />
Westhuizen (39)<br />
It is unlikely that the developer would<br />
employ local workers and builders, as in his<br />
previous development of Langezandt, he<br />
made the same promise and then he only<br />
used foreign sub-contractors, and one local<br />
sub contractor was employed and who was<br />
later fired. The developer cannot claim that<br />
he will create work for local community.<br />
The proposed development would be<br />
detrimental to the fishermen‟s way of life<br />
It is necessary nor wise to provide fish<br />
buying facilities in the development to<br />
compensate for the demolition of the<br />
present facility. A white elephant may be<br />
created, as the largest amount of fish are<br />
bought at cold storage facilities or by means<br />
of fridge trucks which need not be at the<br />
harbour permanently. It may be a good idea<br />
to allow a small retail outlet where the public<br />
can buy fresh fish directly or soon after it<br />
comes from the sea, and a fish cleaning<br />
service may be included.<br />
I'm concerned about the historical use of the<br />
harbour, fishing, recreational use and<br />
boating.<br />
How can you state that higher prices will be<br />
paid for fisherfolk?<br />
Please refer to Section 1.6.5 of this Comment<br />
and Response Report.<br />
Applicants response: The development of<br />
the Langezandt Fishermens Village employed<br />
no foreigners, only South Africans (most<br />
local).<br />
Disagree. Please refer to Section 5.2.8 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
The proponent has identified a need for a<br />
fresh fish market and has indicated a wish to<br />
support the local fisherfolk in this way. Please<br />
refer to Section 2.4.8 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
The vast majority of the harbour activities<br />
would not be impacted by the development as<br />
the development is not part of the harbour,<br />
though it falls within the harbour precinct. The<br />
activities that may be impacted could be<br />
supported in other ways. It has been<br />
recommended that the proponent form a subcommittee<br />
to deal with concerns of conflict<br />
between the fisherfolk and the proposed<br />
development‟s clients. Please refer to Section<br />
5.2.3 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
We assume you are referring to the higher<br />
prices for the fish. Fish would be marketed<br />
and handled under hygienic conditions and<br />
thus be attractive to potential customers.<br />
Please refer to Section 2.4.8.<br />
Community<br />
upliftment<br />
Fisherfolk<br />
Fisherfolk<br />
Fisherfolk<br />
Fisherfolk<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 62 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
1.6.17<br />
1.6.18<br />
Justine Sweet (97)<br />
Justine Sweet (97)<br />
The current site forms a functional part of<br />
the working harbour area and is recognised<br />
by the local residents and tourists as being<br />
part of the harbour [p. 22 & 61 of dEIR].<br />
The development proponent alleges that the<br />
need for the services carried out on the site<br />
is not clear and that these services could be<br />
catered for by other businesses and<br />
premises [p. 61 of dEIR]. Thus, at least,<br />
the provision of ice, bait and fish handling<br />
services will not form part of the proposed<br />
development and the persons involved in<br />
the provision of these services will likely<br />
lose their only source of income.<br />
The development proponent also alludes to<br />
the fact that the leases for both Harbour<br />
Catch and Pelicans restaurant may not be<br />
renewed. It is specifically stated that<br />
Harbour Catch would likely be closed down<br />
as a going concern [p. 110-111 of dEIR].<br />
This is despite the fact that Harbour Catch<br />
provides a vital range of fishing-related<br />
services to the local fishing community. As<br />
noted by the development proponent itself,<br />
the location of Harbour Catch is crucial to its<br />
success due to its close proximity to the<br />
harbour. Yet the development proponent<br />
simply states that this issue is not its<br />
responsibility.<br />
Although Erf 848 is private property, the<br />
proponent has made provision for a fish<br />
market which will provide a facility for the<br />
selling of ice, bait, tackle and fresh fish.<br />
Please refer to section 2.4.8 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Provision has been made in the proposed<br />
design as per alternative 6. Although the<br />
exact services as provided by Harbour Catch<br />
would not be accommodated i.e. blast freezer,<br />
opportunity still applies for the sale of fish, bait<br />
and tackle. Pelicans could be accommodated<br />
as several shops would be ideally placed in<br />
the restaurant retail functionality. Please refer<br />
to section 2.5 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Applicants response: Some of the Harbor<br />
Catch services can be provided in the harbor.<br />
Harbour/<br />
Access<br />
Fisherfolk<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 63 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
1.6.19<br />
1.6.20<br />
1.6.21<br />
Justine Sweet (97)<br />
Johan Liebenberg,<br />
Dorel Van der<br />
Westhuizen, Kobus<br />
Viljoen, Abrie<br />
Bruwer, Chris Moll,<br />
Stuart Du Plessis,<br />
G. R. Youldon,<br />
Johan Venter (59,<br />
73, 69, 66, 65, 172,<br />
93, 78)<br />
Leon Lotter (40)<br />
A trend can be noted in many waterfront<br />
developments in the Western Cape,<br />
including those at Gordon's Bay, the Strand<br />
and Simons Town, which results in the<br />
alienation of fishermen and the sometimes<br />
complete cessation of fishing activities. It is<br />
for these reasons that if the development<br />
were to go ahead, the proposed mitigation<br />
measures must be imposed as essential<br />
mitigation measures in order to ensure that<br />
the attractiveness and appeal of the harbour<br />
as well as the livelihood of the fishermen<br />
are guaranteed. It is also noted that the<br />
proposed development may alienate the<br />
traditional fishermen from the use of fishing<br />
and recreational activities [p. 131 of dEIR].<br />
It is therefore surprising that the required<br />
mitigation measure in this regard, namely<br />
complimentary tourism opportunities<br />
including the use of fishermen to take<br />
guests and visitors for fishing trips or tours<br />
on chukkies, is listed as an optional<br />
mitigation measure [p. 132 of dEIR]. It is<br />
our clients' suggestion that this be imposed<br />
as an essential mitigation measure to<br />
ensure that the traditional fishermen would<br />
not be alienated.<br />
The local fishermen will be alienated by<br />
high rise timeshare/hotel and tourist bus<br />
terminals.<br />
Struisbaai has a fishing harbour, a place<br />
where fishermen do their work. It is<br />
therefore important that any development in<br />
or around the harbour should not interfere<br />
with these activities. Input from fishers<br />
should be obtained.<br />
The management of harbours and slipways is<br />
the responsibility of MCM. If fishing activities<br />
have been reduced it is due to MCMs<br />
management policy, and limitations on<br />
allowable catches (including bag limits and<br />
size restrictions). Please refer Annexure T of<br />
the <strong>FEIR</strong> regarding mitigation measure<br />
commitments.<br />
Applicants response: We cannot force<br />
fishermen to take tourists out if they choose<br />
not to, as an example. We will do our utmost<br />
to provide the opportunity for them to do so.<br />
Please refer to Section 1.6.15 of this<br />
Comment and Response Report.<br />
Please refer to Section 1.6.15 of this<br />
Comment and Response Report. The<br />
proposed development would not impact on<br />
the operations of the fisherfolk and provision<br />
has been made to accommodate the sale of<br />
bait, ice and tackle.<br />
Fisherfolk<br />
Fisherfolk<br />
Fisherfolk<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 64 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
1.6.22<br />
1.6.23<br />
1.6.24<br />
1.6.25<br />
1.6.26<br />
1.6.27<br />
1.6.28<br />
1.6.29<br />
Julian G Williams<br />
(47)<br />
Minnie P. Le Roux<br />
(52)<br />
Evan Meirion<br />
Williams (31)<br />
Evan Meirion<br />
Williams (31)<br />
Tiaan P. Lourens<br />
(110)<br />
Gideon A. Pitzer<br />
(121)<br />
Johnny S Edwards<br />
(120)<br />
Mid Loubser (130)<br />
The proposed development will not increase<br />
fish prices as claimed in the DEIR, on the<br />
contrary there will on less fish buying<br />
concern<br />
The proposed development might<br />
negatively influence the activities of the<br />
fishing community.<br />
The proposed development will have an<br />
immediate impact on the fishing community<br />
both commercial as well as recreational<br />
activities by imposing a development right in<br />
the centre of these activities.<br />
Boat trailer parking and the associated<br />
noise at all hours due to fishing activities<br />
etc. will cause friction between residents of<br />
the new development and the fishing<br />
community.<br />
At present, during fishing activities, the<br />
harbour cannot accommodate all the<br />
activities as it is not large enough.<br />
The proposed development would<br />
negatively influence the fishing community,<br />
currently the poorest community in<br />
Struisbaai.<br />
As a commercial fisherman, I will eventually<br />
be excluded from offloading my boat due to<br />
the proposed development.<br />
The proposed development could have a<br />
negative impact on the fishing of Struisbaai.<br />
Please refer to Section 1.6.16 of this<br />
Comment and Response Report. Sales can<br />
be improved through appropriate marketing<br />
and thus an opportunity exists to sell fresh fish<br />
to both the local community as well as<br />
tourists/visitors.<br />
Please refer to Section 1.6.15 of this<br />
Comment and Response Report.<br />
Please refer to Section 1.6.15 of this<br />
Comment and Response Report.<br />
Please refer to Section 1.6.15 of this<br />
Comment and Response Report.<br />
Please refer to Section 1.6.15 of this<br />
Comment and Response Report.<br />
Please refer to Section 1.6.15 of this<br />
Comment and Response Report.<br />
Access to the harbour will not be impacted in<br />
any way since the proposed building would be<br />
within the existing boundaries of Erf 848 with<br />
access via Erf 921 i.e. away from the current<br />
entrance to the harbor. Please refer to<br />
Section 1.6.15 of this Comment and<br />
Response Report.<br />
Please refer to Section 1.6.15 of this<br />
Comment and Response Report.<br />
Fisherfolk<br />
Fisherfolk<br />
Fisherfolk<br />
Fisherfolk<br />
Fisherfolk<br />
Fisherfolk<br />
Fisherfolk<br />
Fisherfolk<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 65 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
1.6.30<br />
1.6.31<br />
1.6.32<br />
1.6.33<br />
1.6.34<br />
Brian Knobel (142)<br />
Stephen Knobel<br />
(137)<br />
Stephen Knobel<br />
(137)<br />
Stephen Knobel<br />
(137)<br />
Stephen Knobel<br />
(137)<br />
Where will chakkies be maintained and<br />
repaired? The activities of using or<br />
generating the sawdust and glass fibre with<br />
restaurants and hotels in very close<br />
proximity do not mix well.<br />
The study of fishing was not thorough and<br />
wholly inaccurate as indicated on the draft<br />
EIA. Your assessment finds the conflict<br />
during the peak season between the<br />
development and fishermen to between 10<br />
to 15% per annum and thus reacted<br />
insignificant. This period though is when<br />
the fishermen earn most of their profits, and<br />
actually is of huge significance.<br />
You also refer to chakkies instead of chugchukkies,<br />
also quotas and cuts in the<br />
quotas. This is incorrect, there is no quota<br />
based fishing in Struisbaai. The Struisbaai<br />
fishermen are traditional hand-line<br />
fishermen.<br />
Development such as these always result in<br />
the alienation of fishermen, fishing activities<br />
are curbed, often seizing completely. This is<br />
in contrast to the claims that such<br />
developments improve the fishermen's<br />
livelihood. For example Gordon's Bay, the<br />
Strand, Simonstown Town, it is a struggle<br />
for the fishermen to secure the right of<br />
launching their boats at Oceana Powerboat<br />
Club, next to Cape Town V&A.<br />
The EIA does not provide a detailed study<br />
or a specialist investigation on this trend of<br />
fishing activities (seizing of fishing activities<br />
due to the developments such as the<br />
proposed), though Ninham Shand<br />
representative assured me that he would<br />
investigate the matter.<br />
MCM could provide space for such repairs<br />
within the harbour or an entrepreneur could<br />
start a business for boat repairs on adjacent<br />
land with the appropriate permissions. Erf<br />
848 is private land and therefore the<br />
proponent is exercising his right to apply for<br />
development of the site.<br />
Applicants response: We agree to assist the<br />
fishing community with negotiations with MCM<br />
to secure land for boat repair that would<br />
benefit all the fisherfolk.<br />
The competition for resources already exists<br />
and it is envisaged that it would only increase<br />
with time and would only marginally be<br />
increased by the proposed development. The<br />
CAM and MCM would need to resolve this<br />
issue as the responsible authorities for the<br />
harbour and surrounds.<br />
The DEIR refers to the loss of quotas that<br />
took place in 2000 and is therefore intended<br />
to be an indicator that the commercial fishing<br />
prospects are currently low. Please refer to<br />
Section 5.2.6 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Access to the harbour is not being reduced.<br />
Please refer to Section 1.6.15 of this<br />
Comment and Response Report.<br />
Applicants response: Fishermen of<br />
Struisbaai are viewed as an asset to the<br />
proposed development.<br />
Please refer to Section 1.6.15 of this<br />
Comment and Response Report and<br />
Annexure H: Economic Impact Assessment<br />
and Social Impact Assessments. The reports<br />
do present the current state.<br />
Fisherfolk<br />
Fisherfolk<br />
Fisherfolk<br />
Fisherfolk<br />
Fisherfolk<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 66 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
1.6.35<br />
1.6.36<br />
1.6.37<br />
Stephen Knobel<br />
(137)<br />
Abrie Bruwer (66)<br />
S. Du Plessis (171)<br />
Your survey finds a remarkable growth in<br />
fishing sector in terms of job opportunities<br />
however this is contrary to all your main<br />
reasons for the desirability of this<br />
development.<br />
The developer plans to destroy the fishing<br />
harbour and that would have a negative<br />
impact on the traditional fishermen.<br />
What is the livelihood and heritage of the<br />
fisher folk worth to the developer?<br />
Struisbaai Harbour is our last and only<br />
heritage still left. One needs to see what is<br />
going to happen to us, our future generation<br />
of fishermen, our culture and more<br />
importantly our past.<br />
The survey finds that adequate opportunities<br />
for the local fisherfolk are limited due to<br />
outdated boats and quota limitations.<br />
Therefore, the proposed development aims to<br />
contribute positively towards uplifting the<br />
current operations for the fisherfolk by means<br />
of a fish market concept.<br />
Access to the harbour will not be affected and<br />
the responsibility for the harbour remains<br />
vested with Marine and Coastal Management.<br />
Please refer to Section 1.6.15 of this<br />
Comment and Response Report.<br />
Access to the harbour will not be affected and<br />
the responsibility for the harbour remains<br />
vested with Marine and Coastal Management.<br />
Please refer to Section 5.2.4 and 5.2.6 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Fisherfolk<br />
Fisherfolk<br />
Fisherfolk<br />
1.6.38<br />
S. Du Plessis (171)<br />
We're still experiencing the effect of forced<br />
removals‟ during the apartheid era; where<br />
fishing families was taken away from their<br />
homes and place 3,2km away from their<br />
working site. We're also experiencing a foul<br />
weather and families lay awake at night<br />
praying that their boats are safe in the<br />
water. Today we have to stay wake or sleep<br />
in our vehicles at the harbour, mostly during<br />
winter and in the middle of the night, to<br />
ensure that we have a visual on our boats.<br />
We are constantly being challenged by<br />
many elements, which include bad weather,<br />
global warming and climate change that<br />
influence the arrival of our migrating fish,<br />
increases in harbour fees and so much<br />
more, yet none of these can equal the<br />
destruction of what the developer is about<br />
to do to the fishing community of Struisbaai<br />
Your concern is noted. Please refer to Section<br />
5.2 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>. Access to the harbour will not<br />
be affected and the responsibility for the<br />
harbour remains vested with Marine and<br />
Coastal Management.<br />
Fisherfolk<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 67 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
1.6.39<br />
1.6.40<br />
1.6.41<br />
1.6.42<br />
1.6.43<br />
1.6.44<br />
S. Du Plessis (171)<br />
Grant McKinstry<br />
(80)<br />
Lindie Snyman (61)<br />
Lois Albertyn (109)<br />
Lois Albertyn (109)<br />
Dirk Kleinschmidt<br />
(114)<br />
We're also faced with a challenge of<br />
whereby more and bigger boats are leaving<br />
their original harbours like Gordon‟s Bay,<br />
coming to moor their vessels in Struisbaai<br />
Harbour each December holiday. They are<br />
likely the cause the destruction of the<br />
„chukkies‟ and will insist on getting the best<br />
place in the harbour because their vessels<br />
is of greater financial value. This is<br />
happening already. As fishermen, our job is<br />
to fish and ensure that we can put food on<br />
our tables and cater for our families needs.<br />
We are not stupid, but we are fearless.<br />
It is unbelievable to state that this<br />
development will somehow benefit the local<br />
fisher folk and people of Struisbaai. The<br />
development does not provide any<br />
additional services or facilities for them, and<br />
in fact is likely to impede their ability to<br />
freely access, and enjoy their harbour.<br />
Will interfere and take over the fishing<br />
industry – “retail component”<br />
What about the fishermen who are<br />
depended on fishing for their livelihood?<br />
What will happen in the future to fishermen<br />
who are dependent on fishing for their<br />
livelihoods when considering the fact that<br />
only the rich will benefit from the<br />
development?<br />
Where will fishermen be able to repair their<br />
boats?<br />
The following issue that raises questions for<br />
me is the development‟s impact on<br />
commercial fishing, chukkies and the water<br />
traffic within the harbour. I am aware that<br />
you refer to it, but to me the reference<br />
seemed very causal. It cannot be allowed<br />
that the fishermen of Struisbaai‟s livelihoods<br />
are threatened.<br />
Your concern is noted. It would be advisable<br />
to raise this concern with MCM to ensure the<br />
protection of your rights within the harbor.<br />
Please refer to Section 5.2.3 of the <strong>FEIR</strong><br />
regarding employment opportunities as well<br />
as Annexure O: Proponents Vision. The<br />
proposed development would not impact on<br />
their access. Access is controlled by MCM<br />
only. It is however recognised that the<br />
fisherfolk may feel alienated.<br />
The proposed development would include a<br />
fish market and retail component. Please refer<br />
to Section 2.4.8 and 5.2.3 i of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Please refer to Section 5.2.3 of the <strong>FEIR</strong> and<br />
Section 1.6.15 of this Comment and<br />
Response Report.<br />
Please refer to Section 1.6.30 of this<br />
Comment and Response Report.<br />
Applicants response: Current status quo will<br />
remain.<br />
Please refer to Section 1.6.15 of this<br />
Comment and Response Report regarding<br />
impact on chakkies and Section 1.5.8<br />
regarding water traffic as well as section 5.2.2<br />
of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Fisherfolk<br />
Fisherfolk<br />
Fisherfolk<br />
Fisherfolk<br />
Fisherfolk<br />
Fisherfolk<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 68 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
1.6.45<br />
1.6.46<br />
1.6.47<br />
1.6.48<br />
1.6.49<br />
Erla Rabe (83)<br />
A. J. Vlok (139)<br />
Andre van der Berg<br />
(145)<br />
Adriaan Grandfield<br />
(147)<br />
G.G. Newman (149)<br />
I can‟t see how the fishing community will<br />
benefit from the development.<br />
Traditional fishing community – no workable<br />
representations to address this issue was<br />
made in the draft report.<br />
I‟ve had to rely on the sea from a very<br />
young age. My ancestors constructed the<br />
harbour.<br />
I live in Struisbaai. The development of<br />
such nature in the harbour would have a<br />
negative impact on my livelihood as a<br />
fisherman. The harbour is definitely too<br />
small and would not be able to cater for<br />
such development.<br />
I make my living of the sea.<br />
Please refer to Section 5.2.3 of the <strong>FEIR</strong> and<br />
Annexure O: Proponent‟s vision<br />
Please provide specific concerns that need to<br />
be addressed or suggestions to strengthen<br />
mitigation measures. Regarding employment<br />
please refer to Section 5.2.3 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Regarding impact please refer to Section<br />
1.6.15 of this Comment and Response<br />
Report.<br />
Your concern is noted. Access to the harbour<br />
will not be affected and the responsibility for<br />
the harbour remains vested with Marine and<br />
Coastal Management. Please refer to Section<br />
1.6.30 of this Comment and Response<br />
Report.<br />
As the development adjacent to the harbour<br />
and within the current boundaries limited<br />
impact to harbor functionality is envisaged.<br />
Regarding boat repair please refer to Section<br />
1.6.30 of this Comment and Response<br />
Report.<br />
We are of the opinion that will be able to<br />
continue to do so. Access to the harbour will<br />
not be affected and the responsibility for the<br />
harbour remains vested with Marine and<br />
Coastal Management.Please refer to Section<br />
1.6.30 of this Comment and Response<br />
Report.<br />
Fisherfolk<br />
Fisherfolk<br />
Fisherfolk<br />
Fisherfolk<br />
Fisherfolk<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 69 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
Your point is noted. Should the proponent not<br />
be able to alter the servitude delineation, the<br />
proposed development would need to be<br />
marginally redesigned.<br />
1.6.50<br />
Justine Sweet (97)<br />
A servitude right of way in favour of the<br />
public is also registered over the site [p.55<br />
of dEIR]. The development proponent is of<br />
the view that the High Water Mark ("HWM")<br />
has moved as has the boundary of the site.<br />
As a result, the development proponent has<br />
indicated that it intends to renegotiate the<br />
position of the servitude with the council [it<br />
is submitted that this is ultra vires], which<br />
would result in a new 40 feet wide servitude<br />
to be registered over the property to the<br />
north of the site, alternatively the<br />
development proponent will apply to have<br />
that condition removed [p.55 of dEIR]. Our<br />
clients note that this servitude right of way<br />
has at all relevant times been used, and<br />
continues to be used, by members of the<br />
public. The right of way significantly<br />
reduces that portion of the site which may<br />
be developed.<br />
Tommy Brummer: The servitude right of way<br />
is 12.19m wide and is measured landwards<br />
(i.e. inward of) the High Water Mark (HWM)<br />
which forms the northern boundary of the site<br />
as depicted on the existing approved 1961 SG<br />
Diagram for Erf 848. Construction work and<br />
changes to the harbour over the years<br />
however resulted in the HWM no longer being<br />
in the position as shown on the 1961 diagram<br />
for the property. This is because additional<br />
land has accreted on what used to be the<br />
seaward side of the right of way. The position<br />
of the HWM was surveyed by Tony Spronk<br />
land surveyor in September 2009 (refer<br />
topographical survey) with the HWM now<br />
following the rock wall leading to the pier. The<br />
re-alignment of the harbour wall has resulted<br />
in land (not forming part of Erf 848) being<br />
reclaimed from the sea, which land is now<br />
available to the public to obtain access to the<br />
harbour past the property. The only portion of<br />
the property being affected, is the northern<br />
portion. A new SG diagram is to be approved<br />
and the title deed amended to refer to the<br />
current situation.<br />
Fisherfolk<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 70 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
1.6.51<br />
1.6.52<br />
Justine Sweet (97)<br />
Justine Sweet (97)<br />
The development only envisages a fish<br />
handling facility [p. 47 of dEIR]. As a result,<br />
if the development is authorized and<br />
Harbour Catch is closed down permanently,<br />
numerous fishermen may be unable to<br />
obtain certain essential fishing goods and<br />
services necessary to carry on their<br />
livelihoods. This is likely to contribute<br />
towards the permanent elimination of the<br />
current tourist appeal and existing character<br />
of the harbour.<br />
The draft EIR finds that conflict between the<br />
fishers and visitors is estimated at 10% to<br />
15% per annum, during the peak period. A<br />
local Struisbaai fishing operator [S. Knobel]<br />
has noted that while the figure appears low,<br />
this conflict will occur particularly during<br />
peak fishing season which is likely to<br />
coincide with peak occupancy at the<br />
proposed hotel and residential units. This is<br />
the period in which the fishermen earn up to<br />
90% of their income. Thus the figure<br />
quoted in the draft EIR fails to take into<br />
account the potential consequences which<br />
these conflicts could have on the earning<br />
capacity of the local fishermen.<br />
The proposed development includes a fish<br />
market where bait, ice and tackle would be<br />
sold. Please refer to Section 2.4.8 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>. Furthermore the proponent is willing to<br />
assist the fisherfolk with negotiations with<br />
MCM to open and manage a kiosk in the<br />
harbour for bait, ice and tackle should it be<br />
required by the fisherfolk.<br />
Please refer to Section 1.6.31 of the<br />
Comments and Response Report.<br />
Economic Specialist comment:<br />
Potential risks to fishers are discussed and<br />
assessed in section 6.2 of the economic<br />
specialist study and in somewhat more detail<br />
in the social specialist study.<br />
Applicants response: The proposed<br />
development and parking would operate in a<br />
selfsufficient and independent fashion from<br />
the harbor.<br />
Refer to Annexure H of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Fisherfolk<br />
Fisherfolk<br />
1.7 Impact on character<br />
and culture of<br />
Struisbaai harbour<br />
1.7.1<br />
1.7.2<br />
Hendrik Andreas<br />
Kotze (19)<br />
Louise Louw (22)<br />
The present location of the harbour and<br />
infrastructure were decided upon thirty<br />
years ago, and it would be unreasonable for<br />
anyone to claim heritage rights or privileges.<br />
The only true typical Struisbaai icons left of<br />
the old village, is the church and harbour<br />
with a few boats, that still give you the<br />
feeling of a fishers village. Struisbaai is<br />
surely one of the last few fisher villages left<br />
in the Western Cape that haven‟t been<br />
defaced by coastal developments.<br />
An independent Heritage assessment was<br />
undertaken and no significant heritage was<br />
determined. Please refer to the Record of<br />
Decision issued by Heritage Western Cape<br />
(Annexure K of the <strong>FEIR</strong>).<br />
Your point is noted. Please refer to Section<br />
5.2.6 of <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Character /<br />
Culture<br />
Character /<br />
Culture<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 71 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
1.7.3<br />
1.7.4<br />
1.7.5<br />
1.7.6<br />
1.7.7<br />
1.7.8<br />
1.7.9<br />
1.7.10<br />
1.7.11<br />
1.7.12<br />
Marlene Ellis (29)<br />
Hennie Mostert (37)<br />
Johan Van der<br />
Westhuizen (39)<br />
Olive Knobel (62)<br />
Evan Meirion<br />
Williams (31)<br />
Ken A. Hodge (111)<br />
Dirk de Jongh on<br />
behalf of Struisbaai<br />
Home Owners<br />
Assosciation (72)<br />
Ignatius Petrus<br />
Lourens (82)<br />
John Butler (104)<br />
Les C. Freese (91)<br />
The harbour should be kept as intact as it<br />
is, it the only original harbour left<br />
Struisbaai must be left as intact as it is for<br />
the benefit of future generation<br />
Concerned about the impact that this<br />
development would pose on the heritage of<br />
the harbour<br />
I'm a resident of Struisbaai and the<br />
proposed development would spoil the<br />
natural beauty of the harbour.<br />
The proposed development violates the<br />
essential ambiance and historic heritage of<br />
Struisbaai which is unique on the South<br />
African coast<br />
The proposed development should not<br />
negatively impact the fishing character and<br />
convenience of the harbour.<br />
It is unacceptable to use the current public<br />
area for the benefits to the proposed<br />
development. Nevertheless, it would be<br />
necessary to follow a public participation<br />
process should the proposed development<br />
on erf 848 receive authorization.<br />
Struisbaai harbour is one of the only<br />
harbours on our coast where there is still<br />
access to traditional fishing and its related<br />
activities.<br />
The proposed development will negatively<br />
impact the unspoilt character of the harbour<br />
which is one of the last traditional hand-line<br />
fisher harbours, it will be destroyed and with<br />
it is an irreplaceable cultural asset.<br />
I think that the various shareholders in<br />
Golden Falls trading should apply their<br />
minds to “last remaining link” and come to<br />
the realisation that the inhabitants of<br />
Struisbaai Noord actually have no other<br />
tangible interaction of consequence with<br />
where they used to live. They should<br />
understand that all that is left of their<br />
generational history and interaction with the<br />
sea in Struisbaai proper is the harbour. The<br />
harbour is their heritage.<br />
Your point is noted. Your point is noted.<br />
Please refer to Section 5.2.6 of <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Your point is noted. Your point is noted.<br />
Please refer to Section 5.2.6 of <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Please refer to point 1.7.1 of this comments<br />
and response report.<br />
Noted. Please refer to Sections 5.2.5 and<br />
5.2.6 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Please refer to Sections 5.2.5 and 5.2.6 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Please refer to Sections 5.2.5 and 5.2.6 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong> and Sections 1.5.8 and 1.6.30 of this<br />
Comment and Response Report.<br />
Erf 848 is private property, not public land<br />
other than the existing right of way servitude.<br />
Please refer to Chapter 3 of the <strong>FEIR</strong><br />
regarding public participation. Erf 921 would<br />
be formalized into a communal parking area<br />
and would be maintained by the CAM.<br />
Struisbaai harbor is one of the remaining<br />
traditional harbours, however fishermen still<br />
operate in areas such as Gansbaai.<br />
Your concern is noted. Please refer to<br />
Sections 5.2.5 and 5.2.6 of the <strong>FEIR</strong> and<br />
please refer to Section 1.6.15 of this<br />
Comment and Response Report.<br />
Please refer to Sections 1.6.15 and 1.6.30 of<br />
this Comment and Response Report.<br />
Character /<br />
Culture<br />
Character /<br />
Culture<br />
Heritage of<br />
fishing<br />
harbour<br />
Heritage of<br />
fishing<br />
harbour<br />
Heritage of<br />
fishing<br />
harbour<br />
Heritage of<br />
fishing<br />
harbour<br />
Heritage of<br />
fishing<br />
harbour<br />
Heritage of<br />
fishing<br />
harbour<br />
Heritage of<br />
fishing<br />
harbour<br />
Heritage of<br />
fishing<br />
harbour<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 72 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
1.7.13<br />
1.7.14<br />
1.7.15<br />
1.7.16<br />
1.7.17<br />
1.7.18<br />
1.7.19<br />
1.7.20<br />
Dirk de Jongh (Jnr)<br />
(168)<br />
Bob P. De Groot<br />
(143)<br />
Marie-Lou Roux<br />
(159)<br />
Kyra Muenzenmaier<br />
(167)<br />
Abrie Bruwer (66)<br />
S. Du Plessis (171)<br />
S. Du Plessis (171)<br />
Andre Morgenthal<br />
(89)<br />
Struisbaai prides itself on the character of<br />
the town with its fishermen‟s cottages, the<br />
working harbour which is one of the oldest<br />
in the country) and even Langezandt, which<br />
is a perfect example of how development<br />
should take place in a controlled fashion<br />
with taking into account the town‟s<br />
character.<br />
The quality of life from Struisbaai and the<br />
Fisherman‟s community would be lost due<br />
to the proposed development.<br />
This unsophisticated historic harbour is not<br />
only the town‟s heritage, but we believe it to<br />
be of national cultural / historic importance<br />
therefore a cultural / historic Impact<br />
Assessment in terms of the SAHRA<br />
legislation should be fully reported.<br />
The harbour should be a National<br />
Monument and should not be destroyed by<br />
developers to make a profit.<br />
There are no more harbours like Struisbaai<br />
on the coast, all traditional fishing harbours<br />
have been transformed into waterfronts with<br />
extinction of heritage.<br />
Struisbaai Harbour is the only heritage we<br />
have left and changing nor destroying it<br />
means that it is the end of the traditional<br />
fisher folk of Struisbaai and also of Arniston.<br />
Nobody can put a price on a culture,<br />
heritage or human lives, but more and more<br />
developers are willing to do so.<br />
As a regular visitor to Struisbaai, I've got a<br />
keen interest in preserving the heritage and<br />
the environment of this pristine harbour<br />
village. It‟s unique character resonates not<br />
only with its permanent residents and other<br />
South Africans, but with Cape Agulhas<br />
being an international landmark and<br />
destination, attracts a steady flow of<br />
international tourists. A development like<br />
this will detract from the authenticity of the<br />
destination.<br />
Please refer to Sections 5.2.5 and 5.2.6 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>, specifically with regard to current<br />
architecture.<br />
Please refer to Sections 1.6.15 and 1.6.30 of<br />
this Comment and Response Report.<br />
An independent Heritage assessment was<br />
undertaken and no significant heritage was<br />
determined. Please refer to Section 5.2.4 and<br />
to the Record of Decision issued by Heritage<br />
Western Cape (Annexure K of the <strong>FEIR</strong>).<br />
Please refer to Section 5.2.4 and Annexure K<br />
of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Your concern is noted. Please refer to point<br />
1.7.16 of this comments and response report.<br />
Please refer to Section 1.6.15 of this<br />
Comment and Response Report.<br />
Heritage Western Cape has been legally<br />
mandated to make such decisions in the<br />
national and public interest. Please refer to<br />
Section 5.2.4 and Annexure K of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Your concern is noted. Please refer to<br />
Sections 5.2.5, 5.2.6 and Annexure K of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Heritage of<br />
fishing<br />
harbour<br />
Heritage of<br />
fishing<br />
harbour<br />
Heritage of<br />
fishing<br />
harbour<br />
Heritage of<br />
fishing<br />
harbour<br />
Heritage of<br />
fishing<br />
harbour<br />
Heritage of<br />
fishing<br />
harbour<br />
Heritage of<br />
fishing<br />
harbour<br />
Heritage of<br />
fishing<br />
harbour<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 73 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
1.7.21<br />
1.7.22<br />
1.7.23<br />
1.7.24<br />
1.7.25<br />
Nelda Basson (106)<br />
Lois Albertyn (109)<br />
E de Kock (88)<br />
E de Kock (88)<br />
Werner Vermeulen<br />
(2)<br />
Haven‟t we destroyed enough beautiful<br />
things in South Africa? What are left of<br />
cultures, heritage and all that goes with it?<br />
Ask yourself – for how long will you find it<br />
beautiful? For how long will you be<br />
satisfied?<br />
What about the historic facet?<br />
The harbour is important from a cultural and<br />
historic point of view for the Struisbaai<br />
community (a) shipwrecks, (b) fish ponds,<br />
(c) subsistence fishers.<br />
Under no circumstances should a second<br />
Strand shoreline be allowed – again<br />
because of the cultural-historic aspect.<br />
Should this development gets approved, it<br />
will set a precedent and everyone would<br />
want to build this type of buildings<br />
Your concern is noted. Please refer to<br />
Sections 5.2.5, 5.2.6 and Annexure K of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Regarding the historical heritage please refer<br />
to Sections 5.2.5, 5.2.6 and Annexure K of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>. Regarding historic fishing activities<br />
please refer to Section 1.6.15 of this<br />
Comment and Response Report.<br />
Your concern is noted. Your point is noted.<br />
Please refer to Section 5.2.4 of <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Your concern is noted. It is the CAM‟s and<br />
competent decision making authority‟s<br />
responsibility to ensure that development in<br />
Struisbaai complies with relevant legislative<br />
requirements.<br />
Your concern is noted. Please refer to Section<br />
1.7.24 of this Comment and Response<br />
Report.<br />
Heritage of<br />
fishing<br />
harbour<br />
Heritage of<br />
fishing<br />
harbour<br />
Heritage of<br />
fishing<br />
harbour<br />
Heritage of<br />
fishing<br />
harbour<br />
Sense of<br />
place<br />
1.7.26<br />
1.7.27<br />
1.7.28<br />
Frances Pienaar<br />
(58)<br />
Lois Albertyn (109)<br />
Petrus Jurgens<br />
Visser (4)<br />
This development has no possibility of<br />
making a positive contribution to the<br />
character and ethos of Struisbaai and<br />
should not be allowed to continue.<br />
Many residents who bought their property<br />
because of Struisbaai‟s simplistic charm,<br />
peacefulness and untouched natural beauty<br />
would be very happy should the<br />
development not take place (alternative 5).<br />
The beauty of the harbour and the peaceful<br />
atmosphere will be destroyed.<br />
Your concern is noted. Please refer to<br />
Sections 5.2.5 and 5.2.6 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Noted. Your point is noted. Please refer to<br />
Section 5.2.6 of <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Your concern is noted. Please refer to<br />
Sections 5.2.5 and 5.2.6 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Opinion<br />
Alternative or<br />
Sense of<br />
Place<br />
Sense of<br />
place<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 74 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
1.7.29<br />
1.7.30<br />
1.7.31<br />
1.7.32<br />
Carel Schaap (165)<br />
Louis Pisani (96)<br />
Marthinus J.H.<br />
Wiese (5)<br />
Justine Sweet (97)<br />
The proposed development will materially<br />
alter the use of the harbour area and<br />
impacts every permanent resident in terms<br />
of threatening the future of the harbour as a<br />
future-sustainable commercial venture, and<br />
every occasional resident in terms of<br />
changing forever the atmosphere of the<br />
town and thereby affecting enjoyment and<br />
property values.<br />
I am not against development/progress per<br />
se but I do think that there should be a<br />
balanced approach and all factors weighed<br />
up and not only to consider the potential<br />
short term gain for the developer and his<br />
backers. The development of this nature is<br />
an irreversible process and would result in a<br />
loss of something that was special to a lot of<br />
people as well as part of the innate<br />
feel/ambiance of Struisbaai.<br />
The peaceful atmosphere of the area will be<br />
destroyed due to the proposed<br />
development.<br />
The development proponent notes that<br />
unemployment is a major challenge in<br />
Struisbaai where the unemployment rate is<br />
23% [p. 106-107 of dEIR]. Tourism and<br />
fishing appear to be the main economic and<br />
cultural activities in Struisbaai according to<br />
the applicant and those impacts were<br />
assessed [p. 108 of dEIR]. By the<br />
development proponent's own admission,<br />
the development would detract from the<br />
existing tourist appeal of the harbour area<br />
and would alter the character of the harbour<br />
area [p. 109-110 of dEIR]. Our clients<br />
disagree with the impact summary's<br />
conclusion that the tourist and social<br />
opportunities outweigh the risk of sense of<br />
place.<br />
Please refer to Sections 5.2.5 & 5.2.6 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Applicants response: The harbor<br />
functionality is controlled by MCM. In similar<br />
developments, surrounding property values<br />
have increased substantially.<br />
Noted. Please refer to Sections 5.2.4 and<br />
5.2.6 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Your concern is noted. Please refer to<br />
Sections 5.2.5 and 5.2.6 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Your point is noted. Our findings were<br />
informed by the various specialist studies<br />
commissioned for the EIA process.This<br />
section in particular is a direct quote from the<br />
Economic Impact Assessment. Subsequently,<br />
post draft EIR review, a market sustainability<br />
assessment was undertaken to qualify the<br />
proposed impact and can be read in Annexure<br />
U of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Sense of<br />
Place<br />
Sense of<br />
Place<br />
Sense of<br />
place<br />
Sense of<br />
Place<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 75 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
1.7.33<br />
1.7.34<br />
1.7.35<br />
1.7.36<br />
1.7.37<br />
1.7.38<br />
1.7.39<br />
1.7.40<br />
1.7.41<br />
Valerie Wiese (6)<br />
Jeanette Bruwer<br />
(75)<br />
Mari Rabie (9)<br />
Stephen Knobel<br />
(137)<br />
Jacobus J.D.<br />
Havenga (12)<br />
Johan Van Zyl (15)<br />
Johan Van Zyl (15)<br />
Eldalene Bruwer<br />
(16)<br />
Anton Louw (17)<br />
People are visiting Struisbaai because of its<br />
tranquility and also for recreational fishing.<br />
It is not reasonable to state that the impact<br />
of heritage will be very low. The face of<br />
Struisbaai will change permanently.<br />
Peace and tranquility of the area will vanish.<br />
The uniqueness of erf 848 and its history<br />
has been underestimated by the proposed<br />
development.<br />
I bought my property in 1993, and I'm<br />
visiting it at least three times per year, it was<br />
due to the peaceful and unspoiled<br />
environment and council members informed<br />
then that Struisbaai will stay the same and<br />
not turn into a second Hermanus.<br />
An increase in traffic flow, businesses and<br />
people would violate established customs of<br />
residents who particularly wanted property<br />
here due to the peacefulness of the area.<br />
Struisbaai and Agulhas is a tourist diamond<br />
that provides jobs and generate income due<br />
to tourist visiting the area because of its<br />
unique location and development. Some of<br />
our best diamonds are showcased<br />
overseas. We cannot allow South Africa to<br />
loose another diamond.<br />
It would disturb the peace as the area there<br />
will be crowded by many people.<br />
The proposed development would have a<br />
negative impact on the heritage of the<br />
harbour, its surroundings and on Struisbaai<br />
as a small holiday town with an attractive<br />
fishing harbour<br />
Your concern is noted. Regarding the<br />
character of Struisbaai please refer to<br />
Sections 5.2.5 and 5.2.6 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Considering the hive of activity during the<br />
holiday season, the development should not<br />
impact on the tranquility significantly. There<br />
may be a significant increase in activity out of<br />
the holiday season (Please refer to Sections<br />
5.2.2 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>). Regarding recreational<br />
fishing please refer to Section 1.6.15 of this<br />
Comment and Response Report.<br />
Please refer to Chapter 4 of the <strong>FEIR</strong> and<br />
Sections 5.2.4 and 5.2.6 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Please refer to Section 1.7.33 of this<br />
Comment and Response Report.<br />
Please refer to Sections 5.2.5 and 5.2.6 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Please refer to Section 1.7.33 of this<br />
Comment and Response Report.<br />
Please refer to Section 1.7.33 of this<br />
Comment and Response Report.<br />
Please refer to point 1.7.1 of this comments<br />
and response report.<br />
Please refer to Section 1.7.33 of this<br />
Comment and Response Report.<br />
Please refer to point 1.7.1 of this comments<br />
and response report.<br />
Sense of<br />
place<br />
Sense of<br />
Place<br />
Sense of<br />
place<br />
Sense of<br />
Place<br />
Sense of<br />
place<br />
Sense of<br />
place<br />
Sense of<br />
place<br />
Sense of<br />
place<br />
Sense of<br />
place<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 76 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
1.7.42<br />
1.7.43<br />
1.7.44<br />
1.7.45<br />
1.7.46<br />
1.7.47<br />
1.7.48<br />
1.7.49<br />
1.7.50<br />
1.7.51<br />
Hendrik Andreas<br />
Kotze (19)<br />
Carel Van der<br />
Merwe (20)<br />
Evan Matthee (24)<br />
Jonine Mostert (25)<br />
Jonine Mostert (25)<br />
Jonine Mostert (25)<br />
Jonine Mostert (25)<br />
Emmerentia<br />
Hesseling (on<br />
behalf of 4 tax<br />
payers) (41)<br />
Rita Van der Walt<br />
(42)<br />
Chris Van der Walt<br />
(43)<br />
I'm a Struisbaai resident for twenty years<br />
and about 70% of enjoyment of vacations<br />
and of being a resident revolves visits to the<br />
harbour<br />
Many residents moved to Struisbaai<br />
(corrected from Langezandt Quays) from<br />
other areas due to the undeveloped nature<br />
of the harbour, it would therefore be unfair<br />
to impose developments on them.<br />
Besides financial unsustainability of the<br />
proposed project, it will definitely detract<br />
from the present peaceful environment<br />
I think people love to live in Struisbaai due<br />
to it low tourism industry.<br />
Struisbaai is also quiet, relatively remote<br />
from other big cities, clean, relatively safe<br />
and the "tourism" is normally resulting from<br />
people that own holidays homes and visit<br />
over weekends, long weekends and holiday<br />
season.<br />
The first concern is with regard to the<br />
environment. If you look at Europe's coast<br />
line there are numerous examples of lovely,<br />
functioning small fisher villages ruined<br />
beyond recognition due to economic<br />
development. (Look at the Costa de la Sol,<br />
or the French Mediterranean coastline.)<br />
Struisbaai is perfect as it is. It was never<br />
supposed to be a tourist hub of note. It's a<br />
peaceful, semi-retirement village. What is<br />
wrong with that?<br />
Struisbaai is not Seepunt. There is good<br />
reason why residents (permanent and<br />
visitors) stay here. They want to get away<br />
from the harmful living conditions with its<br />
“multi-level” structures<br />
Struisbaai is known for its earthiness and<br />
being unadorned. The proposed<br />
development will change all of this.<br />
The propose development would pose<br />
danger to harbour character<br />
Your point is noted. Please refer to Section<br />
5.2.6 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Your concern is noted. Please refer to Section<br />
1.7.33 of this Comment and Response<br />
Report.<br />
Regarding financial stability Please refer to<br />
Annexure R of the <strong>FEIR</strong>. Regarding<br />
tranquility Please refer to Section 1.7.33 of<br />
this Comment and Response Report.<br />
Your point is noted. Please refer to Section<br />
5.2.6 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Your point is noted. Please refer to Section<br />
1.7.33 of this Comment and Response<br />
Report.<br />
Please refer to Section 1.7.24 of this<br />
Comment and Response Report.<br />
The proximity of Struisbaai to the<br />
southernmost tip of Africa has a significant<br />
tourist appeal and therefore attracts<br />
developments of this nature.<br />
Please refer to Section 1.7.24 of this<br />
Comment and Response Report.<br />
Your concern is noted. Please refer to<br />
Sections 5.2.5 and 5.2.6 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Your concern is noted. Please refer to<br />
Sections 5.2.5 and 5.2.6 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Sense of<br />
place<br />
Sense of<br />
place<br />
Sense of<br />
place<br />
Sense of<br />
place<br />
Sense of<br />
place<br />
Sense of<br />
place<br />
Sense of<br />
place<br />
Sense of<br />
place<br />
Sense of<br />
place<br />
Sense of<br />
place<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 77 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
1.7.52<br />
1.7.53<br />
1.7.54<br />
1.7.55<br />
1.7.56<br />
1.7.57<br />
1.7.58<br />
1.7.59<br />
1.7.60<br />
Robin N Green (44)<br />
Julian G Williams<br />
(47)<br />
E. Ley Kempthorne<br />
(49)<br />
Meg Cowper Lewis<br />
(SEA) (48)<br />
Stephen Gerber<br />
(63)<br />
Frances Pienaar<br />
(58)<br />
Louise Knobel (115)<br />
Karin I Van Niekerk<br />
(87)<br />
Ignatius Petrus<br />
Lourens (82)<br />
As a concerned friend of residents of<br />
Struisbaai, the ambiance and charm of the<br />
village will be destroyed<br />
The proposed develop will result in a<br />
destruction of an unspoilt local environment<br />
of the harbour<br />
The proposed development would change<br />
the nature and the character of the harbour.<br />
It is unlikely for the proposed development<br />
in its current form to increase the<br />
attractiveness of the site.<br />
Page 6 state that the “no-go” option would<br />
entail maintaining the status quo.” This is<br />
what the majority of the residents of<br />
Struisbaai and the surrounding towns would<br />
prefer. The people want to keep their<br />
historic, cultural heritage – one of the few<br />
cultural fishing harbours left on our coastline<br />
catering for the indigenous and historic<br />
fishing population, and as yet unspoilt by<br />
developers with their upmarket schemes.<br />
What has happened to the democratic<br />
process in this country? We thought<br />
democracy meant that people were given a<br />
voice in situations such as this!<br />
The proposed development will destroy the<br />
tranquil and historic fishing harbour<br />
The proposed development will spoil the<br />
atmosphere of the harbour and Struisbaai.<br />
As a resident of Struisbaai, the proposed<br />
development would spoil the natural beauty<br />
of the harbour.<br />
The harbour is one of the area's main<br />
attractions, spoiling the harbour will change<br />
it forever.<br />
The proposed development will change the<br />
whole character of the place and would<br />
therefore change the type of tourists the<br />
town wishes to attract.<br />
Your concern is noted. Please refer to<br />
Sections 5.2.5 and 5.2.6 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Your concern is noted. Please refer to<br />
Sections 5.2.5 and 5.2.6 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Your concern is noted. Please refer to<br />
Sections 5.2.5 and 5.2.6 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Your concern is noted. Please refer to<br />
Sections 5.2.5 and 5.2.6 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Your concern is noted. Please refer to<br />
Sections 5.2.5 and 5.2.6 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Your concern is noted. Please refer to<br />
Sections 5.2.5 and 5.2.6 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Your concern is noted. Please refer to<br />
Sections 5.2.5 and 5.2.6 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Your concern is noted. Please refer to<br />
Sections 5.2.5 and 5.2.6 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Your concern is noted. Please refer to<br />
Sections 5.2.5 and 5.2.6 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>. The<br />
proposed development proposes to retain the<br />
tourists currently visiting Struisbaai.<br />
Sense of<br />
place<br />
Sense of<br />
place<br />
Sense of<br />
place<br />
Sense of<br />
place<br />
Sense of<br />
place<br />
Sense of<br />
place<br />
Sense of<br />
place<br />
Sense of<br />
place<br />
Sense of<br />
place<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 78 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
1.7.61<br />
1.7.62<br />
1.7.63<br />
1.7.64<br />
1.7.65<br />
1.7.66<br />
1.7.67<br />
1.7.68<br />
1.7.69<br />
1.7.70<br />
John Butler (104)<br />
Dirk de Jongh (Jnr)<br />
(168)<br />
Katherine C. Drake<br />
(144)<br />
Marie-Lou Roux<br />
(159)<br />
Gillian Vermaak<br />
(152)<br />
Gillian Vermaak<br />
(152)<br />
Andrea Theron<br />
(127)<br />
Ricardo Reichert<br />
(125)<br />
Mariska Brand<br />
(124)<br />
Mariana Swart (77)<br />
The proposed development is totally out of<br />
character with the harbour environment and<br />
the sense of place and character of<br />
Struisbaai and surrounds and under no<br />
circumstances should it be allowed to<br />
continue.<br />
The proposed 16 m high building would<br />
pave a way for private homeowners to build<br />
higher and therefore reduce the overall<br />
aesthetics and feel of Struisbaai whose very<br />
appeal lies in the fact that it is not<br />
commercialized such as places like<br />
Hermanus, Mosselbaai, etc. Furthermore<br />
allowing this development would also pave<br />
the way for further exploitation by<br />
developers.<br />
The proposed development would result in<br />
a change of the atmosphere of a harbour.<br />
Struisbaai is the last unspoilt commercial<br />
harbour in the country. Here traditional<br />
chukkies are moored without yacht marinas<br />
and constructions, as proposed in the<br />
application.<br />
The harbour is visually pleasing and is<br />
place where one can relax and enjoy.<br />
The harbour provides entertainment with<br />
local content, watch the fishing boats<br />
coming in with their catch of the day Take a<br />
walk along the boardwalk through the dunes<br />
and enjoy the simplicity of life<br />
The proposed development will change the<br />
scenery and the whole character of the<br />
Struisbaai harbour.<br />
The proposed development is too big, it will<br />
change the character of the harbour.<br />
The proposed development is too big, it will<br />
change the character of the harbour.<br />
The proposed development at the harbour<br />
will be absolutely detrimental to the<br />
character of Struisbaai<br />
Your concern is noted. Please refer to<br />
Sections 5.2.5 and 5.2.6 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Please refer to Section 1.7.24 of this<br />
Comment and Response Report.<br />
Your concern is noted. Please refer to<br />
Sections 5.2.5 and 5.2.6 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Please refer to Sections 5.2.5 and 5.2.6 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>. There are no marinas proposed.<br />
Please refer to Sections 5.2.5 and 5.2.6 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Your point is noted. Please refer to Sections<br />
5.2.4 and 5.2.6 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Please refer to Sections 5.2.5 and 5.2.6 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Please refer to Sections 5.2.5 and 5.2.6 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Please refer to Sections 5.2.5 and 5.2.6 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Please refer to Sections 5.2.5 and 5.2.6 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Sense of<br />
place<br />
Sense of<br />
place<br />
Sense of<br />
place<br />
Sense of<br />
place<br />
Sense of<br />
place<br />
Sense of<br />
place<br />
Sense of<br />
place<br />
Sense of<br />
place<br />
Sense of<br />
place<br />
Sense of<br />
place<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 79 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
1.7.71<br />
1.7.72<br />
1.7.73<br />
1.7.74<br />
1.7.75<br />
1.7.76<br />
1.7.77<br />
Kyra Muenzenmaier<br />
(167)<br />
Abrie Bruwer (66)<br />
Jeanette Bruwer<br />
(75)<br />
Jeanette Bruwer<br />
(75)<br />
G.R. Youldon (93)<br />
Grant McKinstry<br />
(80)<br />
Mr. and Mrs.<br />
Hendrik/ Helen<br />
Conradie (108)<br />
The harbour is peaceful and the nature of<br />
the sea should be kept as natural as it is,<br />
there are few places like this Harbour that<br />
still exists.<br />
The harbour should be undeveloped;<br />
everyone loves Struisbaai for its unique,<br />
undeveloped harbour.<br />
It is not reasonable to state that the<br />
development will have a positive impact on<br />
the harbour, the character of the harbour<br />
will change completely.<br />
Struisbaai harbour one of the last<br />
untouched, uncorrupted working fishing<br />
harbours, its uniqueness has attracted<br />
many visitors. It's precious character should<br />
not be changed.<br />
I bought a plot in Struisbaai because of the<br />
simplicity of the harbour and its character.<br />
The Struisbaai harbour was never intended<br />
to be a hotel or residential block. It was<br />
intended to be enjoyed by the local people<br />
and the visitors of Struisbaai especially the<br />
fisher-folk who depend on the harbour and<br />
the existing operations within the harbour<br />
for their livelihood. If the harbour is to be<br />
developed in any way at all, it should be<br />
done in such a way that it improves the<br />
facilities and services that are there today,<br />
such development must adhere to the<br />
current rules and regulations, and that the<br />
rules are not changed or „bent‟ to line the<br />
pocket‟s of greedy developers.<br />
It is unthinkable that the very popular<br />
gathering place and unique feature of<br />
Struisbaai will be replaced by a modern<br />
structure that would effectively restrict the<br />
view and access to the harbour to residents<br />
and visitors.<br />
Your concern is noted. Please refer to<br />
Sections 5.2.5 and 5.2.6 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Your point is noted. Please refer to Section<br />
5.2.6 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Certain tourists would appeal more to an up<br />
market development and thus view the<br />
proposed development as positive. The<br />
converse is also true.<br />
Your concern is noted. Please refer to<br />
Sections 5.2.5 and 5.2.6 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Your point is noted. Please refer to Section<br />
5.2.6 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Your point is noted. Regarding impact on<br />
fisherfolk please refer to Section 1.6.15 of this<br />
Comment and Response Report.<br />
Please refer to Sections 5.2.5 and 5.2.6 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Sense of<br />
place<br />
Sense of<br />
place<br />
Sense of<br />
place<br />
Sense of<br />
place<br />
Sense of<br />
place<br />
Sense of<br />
place<br />
Sense of<br />
place<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 80 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
1.7.78<br />
1.7.79<br />
1.7.80<br />
1.7.81<br />
1.7.82<br />
1.7.83<br />
1.7.84<br />
1.7.85<br />
1.7.86<br />
Lois Albertyn (109)<br />
Frederick Janse van<br />
Rensburg (169)<br />
Erla Rabe (83)<br />
Hans Swart (27)<br />
H du Plessis (68)<br />
Dawid & Christelle<br />
Kriel (70)<br />
Jacobus Johan<br />
Odendaal (123)<br />
Renate Reichert<br />
(129)<br />
Gert Groenewald,<br />
Anna-Marie<br />
Groenewald,<br />
Juliana Van der<br />
Merwe, Anneke<br />
Groenewald, Gerda<br />
Groenewald (138,<br />
138, 183, 184, 185,<br />
186)<br />
Should the development on erf 848<br />
proceed, where will there be a harbour left<br />
that has the same simplistic relationship<br />
with the fishermen and doesn‟t harm<br />
nature? Why develop erf 848 when it will<br />
only result in the defamation of a much<br />
loved fishing village.<br />
The harbour‟s uniqueness will be spoiled.<br />
I am disappointed that a developer from<br />
Langezandt, who kept in the back of his<br />
mind Struisbaai‟s history and character,<br />
came up with such a proposal. This<br />
development is the opposite of everything<br />
that lure visitors to Struisbaai.<br />
Quality of life: Negative impact on long-term<br />
aspirations of property owners: the owners<br />
of nearby properties specifically bought<br />
here for the peace and quietness of the<br />
area; not for the possibility of a high density<br />
residential and business development<br />
The complete change to Struisbaai<br />
harbour‟s character and nature brought on<br />
by this development would be entirely<br />
unavoidable.<br />
The existing appealing character of<br />
Struisbaai‟s harbour, as well as the very<br />
popular swimming place for families with<br />
you children, will be changed completely by<br />
a development of this nature.<br />
The aesthetic value of the harbour would be<br />
altered. This is not negotiable.<br />
It will change the ambience of the harbour<br />
for everyone.<br />
We all agree to the following objections.<br />
Negative impact on the tranquil rural<br />
atmosphere of the harbour. The proposed<br />
buildings are more suited for a city and will<br />
not contribute to the tranquility of the<br />
countryside.<br />
Your concern is noted. Please refer to<br />
Sections 5.2.5 and 5.2.6 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Your concern is noted. Please refer to<br />
Sections 5.2.5 and 5.2.6 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Please refer to Sections 5.2.3, 5.2.5 and 5.2.6<br />
of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Your concern is noted. Please refer to<br />
Sections 5.2.5 and 5.2.6 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Your point is noted. Please refer to Sections<br />
5.2.5 and 5.2.6 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Your point is noted. Please refer to Sections<br />
5.2.5 and 5.2.6 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Your point is noted. Please refer to Sections<br />
5.2.5 and 5.2.6 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Your point is noted. Please refer to Sections<br />
5.2.5 and 5.2.6 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Your point is noted. Please refer to Sections<br />
5.2.5 and 5.2.6 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Sense of<br />
place<br />
Sense of<br />
place<br />
Sense of<br />
place<br />
Sense of<br />
place<br />
Sense of<br />
place<br />
Sense of<br />
place<br />
Sense of<br />
place<br />
Sense of<br />
place<br />
Sense of<br />
place<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 81 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
1.7.87<br />
1.7.88<br />
1.7.89<br />
1.7.90<br />
1.7.91<br />
Gert Groenewald,<br />
Anna-Marie<br />
Groenewald,<br />
Juliana Van der<br />
Merwe, Anneke<br />
Groenewald, Gerda<br />
Groenewald (138,<br />
138, 183, 184, 185,<br />
186)<br />
Gert Groenewald,<br />
Anna-Marie<br />
Groenewald,<br />
Juliana Van der<br />
Merwe, Anneke<br />
Groenewald, Gerda<br />
Groenewald (138,<br />
138, 183, 184, 185,<br />
186)<br />
A. J. Vlok (139)<br />
Justine Sweet (97)<br />
Justine Sweet (97)<br />
Negative impact of the general architecture<br />
on Struisbaai‟s character.<br />
Tourists want to get away from cities to the<br />
uniqueness of the countryside with its<br />
unique architecture. This building is better<br />
suited for the Waterfront in Cape Town or<br />
any other city in the world. The design did<br />
not consider Struisbaai‟s architecture.<br />
The harbour as tourist attraction: We are<br />
still of the opinion that there should be no<br />
living and/ or high density developments in<br />
the harbour area as it is a jewel and unique<br />
to Struisbaai. Thus, buildings should stay in<br />
their current undeveloped state.<br />
The small coastal fishing village of<br />
Struisbaai is situated at the Southernmost<br />
tip of the African continent. For most of the<br />
year it is a tranquil little seaside village. At<br />
least 60 percent of homeowners are holiday<br />
residents and outside of season, the town is<br />
mostly home to local fishermen and retirees.<br />
The proposed development will irreversibly<br />
change the nature of the harbour. Currently<br />
the harbour is a key feature to Struisbaai's<br />
character and the proposed development<br />
will significantly impact upon that.<br />
Your point is noted. Please refer to Sections<br />
5.2.5 and 5.2.6 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Your point is noted. Please refer to Sections<br />
5.2.5 and 5.2.6 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Your point is noted. However, the landowner<br />
wishes to turn Erf 848 to account, and the fact<br />
that the buildings are, you put it “current<br />
undeveloped state” shows that the property is<br />
being underutilised. Furthermore, the<br />
CAMSDF (2009) allows densified<br />
development within the urban edge and<br />
therefore the proposed development is in line<br />
with current (and approved) planning<br />
strategies for Struisbaai.<br />
Your point is noted. Please refer to Section<br />
5.2.6 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Applicants response: As is the high<br />
unemployment brought by 60% of homes<br />
standing empty.<br />
Your point is noted. Please refer to Sections<br />
5.2.5 and 5.2.6 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Sense of<br />
place<br />
Sense of<br />
place<br />
Sense of<br />
place<br />
Sense of<br />
place<br />
Sense of<br />
place<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 82 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
1.7.92<br />
1.7.93<br />
1.7.94<br />
1.7.95<br />
1.7.96<br />
1.7.97<br />
Justine Sweet (97)<br />
Justine Sweet (97)<br />
Andrea Buys (50)<br />
Anneke Kloppers<br />
(26)<br />
Marlene Ellis (29)<br />
Johan Burger (170)<br />
The proposed development will have a<br />
medium, negative, definite impact on the<br />
character and sense of place of the harbour<br />
to those who prefer the status quo [p. 132 of<br />
dEIR.] The design of the proposed<br />
development attempts to mitigate this<br />
impact by incorporating architectural<br />
inspiration from the local fishermen's<br />
cottages [p.128 of dEIR]. However, the<br />
height of the proposed development will<br />
negatively impact upon the character of the<br />
harbour area and may also set a precedent<br />
for future developments. In this regard we<br />
reiterate our clients' objection to the<br />
excessive height of the proposed<br />
development which, in their view, would<br />
negatively impact upon the character of the<br />
harbour.<br />
Although the beauty and tourist attractions<br />
[such as the Agulhas lighthouse and the<br />
southernmost tip of Africa] of Struisbaai<br />
upon which the development proponent<br />
relies cannot be disputed (and it is for this<br />
reason that there is such extensive<br />
opposition to the proposed development), it<br />
is submitted that the proposed development<br />
is entirely incongruous with Struisbaai's<br />
existing built environment and, if it<br />
proceeds, will severely affect the very sense<br />
of place that gives Struisbaai its identity.<br />
The proposed development would result in<br />
the loss of a harbour character would<br />
disappear.<br />
Shouldn‟t the building‟s design fit in with the<br />
general architecture of Struisbaai?<br />
I'm a Struisbaai resident for 18 years and<br />
proposed building is inappropriate in the<br />
harbour area<br />
The environment does not allow for this<br />
type of development.<br />
Your point is noted. Please refer to Sections<br />
5.2.5 and 5.2.6 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Please refer to Sections 5.2.5 & 5.2.6 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Your concern is noted. Please refer to<br />
Sections 5.2.5 and 5.2.6 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Struisbaai does not have a distinctive<br />
architecture. Please refer to Section 5.2.5 of<br />
the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Please refer to Sections 5.2.5 and 5.2.6 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Your concern is noted. Please refer to<br />
Sections 5.2.5 and 5.2.6 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Sense of<br />
place<br />
Sense of<br />
Place<br />
Sense of<br />
Place<br />
Sense of<br />
Place<br />
Sense of<br />
Place<br />
Sense of<br />
place<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 83 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
1.7.98<br />
1.7.99<br />
1.7.100<br />
1.7.101<br />
1.7.102<br />
1.7.103<br />
1.7.104<br />
1.7.105<br />
Minnie P. Le Roux<br />
(52)<br />
Erla Rabe (83)<br />
Louise Louw (22)<br />
Louise Louw (22)<br />
A.S. Lourens &<br />
other 5 Struisbaai<br />
Property owners<br />
(23)<br />
A.S. Lourens &<br />
other 5 Struisbaai<br />
Property owners<br />
(23)<br />
A.S. Lourens (23)<br />
D.G. & J.L. Falck<br />
(64)<br />
As a resident of Struisbaai, the proposed<br />
development does not fit with the character<br />
of Struisbaai harbour.<br />
The harbour is synonymous with Struisbaai.<br />
This type of development will destroy its<br />
character.<br />
I've lived with my family in Struisbaai near<br />
the harbour for the past 35 years and have<br />
been visiting Struisbaai for 42 years. During<br />
this time I have seen how unplanned and<br />
not well thought architecture have damaged<br />
Struisbaai‟s character<br />
The last characteristic buildings that was<br />
truly part of the new village, was the old<br />
hotel that was also demolished for new<br />
developments.<br />
The development is completely<br />
inappropriate when looking at Struisbaai‟s<br />
character. There is currently no building<br />
higher than two stories<br />
Struisbaai is not Cape Town and our photos<br />
indicate that the status quo should be kept<br />
or allow limited development as explained in<br />
our previous correspondence.<br />
I'm a taxpayer, and owns a house in<br />
Struisbaai. The development does not fit in<br />
with Struisbaai‟s development character.<br />
Nowhere are there buildings higher than<br />
two storeys. I have already submitted<br />
numerous complaints.<br />
The approval of the proposed development<br />
on Erf 848 Struisbaai cannot be supported.<br />
Not only will it have a negative impact on<br />
the town‟s quaint and rural character, but its<br />
economic sustainability and benefits are<br />
questionable. Should the development be<br />
approved, it will smack of a lack of<br />
responsibility towards the local community<br />
and it‟s long term negative consequences<br />
will fall on current and future residents. We<br />
are therefore of the view that this proposal<br />
should not be approved.<br />
Your concern is noted. Refer to Section 5.2.6<br />
of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Please refer to Sections 5.2.5 and 5.2.6 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong> with regard to character. With regard to<br />
tranquility, please refer to point 1.7.33 of this<br />
Comment and Response Report.<br />
Your concern is noted. Architecture has been<br />
considered throughout the EIA and is further<br />
detailed in Section 5.2.5 and 5.2.6 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Your point is noted. Please refer to Section<br />
5.2.4 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Please refer to Section 5.2.5 and 5.2.6 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Your point is noted. Please refer to Section<br />
5.2.6 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Please refer to Section 5.2.5 and 5.2.6 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Please refer to Annexure P, R &U of the <strong>FEIR</strong><br />
regarding sustainability.<br />
Sense of<br />
Place<br />
Sense of<br />
Place<br />
Sense of<br />
place<br />
Sense of<br />
Place<br />
Sense of<br />
Place<br />
Sense of<br />
Place<br />
Sense of<br />
Place<br />
Sense of<br />
Place<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 84 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
1.7.106<br />
1.7.107<br />
1.7.108<br />
1.7.109<br />
Chris & Ria<br />
Reynolds (34)<br />
Valerie Wiese (6)<br />
Leonie De Luz (11)<br />
Meg Cowper Lewis<br />
(SEA) (48)<br />
Large future developments are not required<br />
in Struisbaai but rather Struisbaai must be<br />
preserved.<br />
High rise building will negatively affect the<br />
whole area.<br />
The proposed development will spoil the<br />
view of the area<br />
Page 3 of the Executive Summary,<br />
statement that the architecture would<br />
respond to the historic fishermen‟s cottage<br />
milieu. This must be a joke, since there is<br />
clearly no similarity whatsoever between the<br />
architecture of the proposed four-storey<br />
building and the tiny two-roomed homes of<br />
the indigenous fishers.<br />
Please refer to Section 2.8, and 7.4 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Please refer to Sections 5.2.5 and 5.2.6 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Please refer to Sections 5.2.5 and 5.2.6 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Please refer to Section 1.7.117 of this<br />
Comment and Response Report regarding<br />
alternative sites.<br />
Stauch Vorster: Some elements, not all, of<br />
the proposed building are based on the<br />
esthetics of the fishermans cottage, not the<br />
physical form. For instance the white washed<br />
walls, the chimneys and the pitched roofs with<br />
gable walls.<br />
Sense of<br />
Place<br />
Visual impact<br />
Visual impact<br />
Visual/ Sense<br />
of Place<br />
1.7.110<br />
1.7.111<br />
E. Ley Kempthorne<br />
(49)<br />
Johan Liebenberg,<br />
Dorel Van der<br />
Westhuizen, Kobus<br />
Viljoen, Abrie<br />
Bruwer, Chris Moll,<br />
Stuart Du Plessis,<br />
G. R. Youldon,<br />
Johan Venter (59,<br />
73, 69, 66, 65, 172,<br />
93, 78)<br />
The proposed design of a Fishermen‟s<br />
cottage is not accurate, even in terms of<br />
scale, materials and proposed styles. It is<br />
composed of a mix of different styles and<br />
bears no relation to the proposed<br />
development. The architectural report then<br />
contradicts itself, mentions the<br />
contemporary style with flat roofs and<br />
there's no consistency in the architectural<br />
design. There's however a good example<br />
of a fisherman's cottage style right adjacent<br />
to the site on the Langezandt Estate.<br />
This harbour is still the place that is being<br />
used by children and parents for<br />
recreational purposes, and everyone loves<br />
the harbour for its quaint and pretty<br />
tranquility and is shared by all. If this is not<br />
a town‟s heritage, what is it then?<br />
Please refer to Section 1.7.117 of this<br />
Comment and Response Report regarding<br />
alternative sites.<br />
Stauch Vorster: Some elements, not all, of<br />
the proposed building are based on the<br />
esthetics of the fishermans cottage, not the<br />
physical form. For instance the white washed<br />
walls, the chimneys and the pitched roofs with<br />
gable walls.<br />
Your point is noted. Please refer to Sections<br />
5.2.4 and 5.2.6 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Visual/ Sense<br />
of Place<br />
Sense of<br />
Place<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 85 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
1.7.112<br />
1.7.113<br />
1.7.114<br />
1.7.115<br />
Johan Liebenberg,<br />
Dorel Van der<br />
Westhuizen, Kobus<br />
Viljoen, Abrie<br />
Bruwer, Chris Moll,<br />
Stuart Du Plessis,<br />
G. R. Youldon,<br />
Johan Venter (59,<br />
73, 69, 66, 65, 172,<br />
93, 78)<br />
Johan Liebenberg,<br />
Dorel Van der<br />
Westhuizen, Kobus<br />
Viljoen, Abrie<br />
Bruwer, Chris Moll,<br />
Stuart Du Plessis,<br />
G. R. Youldon,<br />
Johan Venter (59,<br />
73, 69, 66, 65, 172,<br />
93, 78)<br />
Johan Liebenberg,<br />
Dorel Van der<br />
Westhuizen, Kobus<br />
Viljoen, Abrie<br />
Bruwer, Chris Moll,<br />
Stuart Du Plessis,<br />
G. R. Youldon,<br />
Johan Venter (59,<br />
73, 69, 66, 65, 172,<br />
93, 78)<br />
Johan Liebenberg,<br />
Dorel Van der<br />
Westhuizen, Kobus<br />
Viljoen, Abrie<br />
Bruwer, Chris Moll,<br />
Stuart Du Plessis,<br />
G. R. Youldon,<br />
Johan Venter (59,<br />
73, 69, 66, 65, 172,<br />
93, 78)<br />
Kusweg Oos is a tranquil street, where<br />
people walk their dogs and children play. It<br />
is therefore unacceptable for the<br />
development (illegal) to be undertaken on<br />
this tranquil area.<br />
Struisbaai harbour is a quaint untouched<br />
fishing harbour with a fish processing facility<br />
that caters for traditional fisherfolk and that<br />
cannot be taken away.<br />
The proposed development does not fit with<br />
the character of Struisbaai harbour area.<br />
The development of heritage activities is<br />
rated low, the traditional fisherman is<br />
endangered as it is, and your development<br />
will be the last straw.<br />
Please refer to Section 5.2.2 of the <strong>FEIR</strong> for<br />
the traffic assessment.<br />
Noted. Aspects of the existing activities are<br />
incorporated into the proposed design. The<br />
idea is not to disadvantage the fisherfolk, but<br />
rather to maximize the opportunities for them,<br />
in the context of the proposed development.<br />
Your concern is noted. Please refer to<br />
Sections 5.2.5 and 5.2.6 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Your concern is noted. Please refer to<br />
Sections 1.6.15 and 1.13.26 of this Comment<br />
and Response Report.<br />
Sense of<br />
place<br />
Sense of<br />
place<br />
Sense of<br />
place<br />
Sense of<br />
Place<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 86 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
1.7.116<br />
81, 79, 95, 85, 84,<br />
90, 160, 162, 164,<br />
154, 155, 156, 157,<br />
158, 153, 150, 151,<br />
116, 102, 103, 101,<br />
99, 100, 98, 92, 94,<br />
163, 174, 175, 176,<br />
177, 178, 33, 179,<br />
180, 181, 182<br />
This harbour is one of the few remaining<br />
unspoilt commercial harbours on our<br />
coastline, it should not be changed.<br />
Your concern is noted. Please refer to Section<br />
5.2.4 and 5.2.6 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Sense of<br />
place<br />
1.7.117<br />
1.7.118<br />
1.7.119<br />
A.F. & J.H. Tooke<br />
(67)<br />
Johan Van Zyl (15)<br />
Johan Van Zyl (15)<br />
Since when does a four storey building in<br />
any way resemble a fisherman's cottage?<br />
as stated on proposed design. The<br />
statement that these fisherman's cottages<br />
once existed is also incorrect, as they still<br />
exist in the vicinity and are a trademark of<br />
the Struisbaai area. Their attractiveness is<br />
directly linked to their simplicity,<br />
unobtrusiveness and the manner in which<br />
they blend into the environment with their<br />
single storeys, white washed walls and<br />
thatched roofs. They do not have negative<br />
visual impacts as the proposed<br />
development.<br />
Planning of the proposed building is poor<br />
and will have a negative effect on<br />
aesthetics. It would stick out like a sore<br />
thumb in an area that has been developed<br />
for many years as a unit. Even a two storey<br />
building will impact negatively on aesthetics<br />
– in our opinion this is very clear from the<br />
photos and plans provided.<br />
The proposed building would impact<br />
negatively on the view of existing<br />
properties. It might be wise to consult<br />
judicature regarding this issue as the<br />
Supreme High Court has shown to be<br />
sensitive about the rights of established<br />
residents, including rights associated with<br />
aesthetics.<br />
Please refer to Sections 5.2.5 and 5.2.6 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Stauch Vorster: Some elements of the<br />
proposed building are based on the esthetics<br />
of the fishermans cottage, not the physical<br />
form. For instance the white washed walls and<br />
the chimneys and the pitched roofs with gable<br />
walls<br />
Please refer to Sections 5.2.5 and 5.2.6 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Please refer to Sections 5.2.5 and 5.2.6 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Design/<br />
Visual<br />
Visual impact<br />
Visual impact<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 87 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
1.7.120<br />
1.7.121<br />
1.7.122<br />
1.7.123<br />
1.7.124<br />
1.7.125<br />
1.7.126<br />
Anton Louw (17)<br />
Hendrik Andreas<br />
Kotze (19)<br />
Hendrik Andreas<br />
Kotze (19)<br />
Hendrik Andreas<br />
Kotze (19)<br />
Hendrik Andreas<br />
Kotze (19)<br />
Louise Louw (22)<br />
Eric Consani (32)<br />
The proposed development would have<br />
negatively visual impact from the land to the<br />
sea and vice versa, thus would have a high<br />
negative impact on the area and<br />
surroundings. No paint or light design will<br />
be bale to hide or diminish this impact.<br />
The envisaged restaurants, hotel lounges,<br />
under cover retail outlets, asphalts or<br />
cobble stone surfaces will constitute major<br />
improvements in aesthetics, convenience<br />
and experience (spirit of place).<br />
The existing commercial fishing store,<br />
makeshift harbour restaurant and gravel<br />
surface on the waterfront have a negative<br />
visual impact, smelly and dusty.<br />
Visual impact and impact on the character<br />
of the harbour are very subjective criteria<br />
and is bound to be equally convincing for<br />
those in favour and those against the<br />
development.<br />
The residents who have a sea view at<br />
present and whose view may be affected<br />
have to complain, however the present<br />
building on the premises is aesthetically so<br />
unsightly and any new structure will be an<br />
improvement and beneficial to property<br />
value. The fact that the new structure will<br />
obstruct some part of the view of the ocean<br />
should be accepted as all residents must<br />
accept the right of any neighbour to affect<br />
view by legal construction, whether it be<br />
new buildings or alterations.<br />
The development would have very large<br />
detrimental impact on the visual aspect of<br />
the area and my feeling is that the position<br />
of the planned building is very awkward.<br />
I'm a tourist and a frequent visitor of<br />
Struisbaai and I think that the proposed<br />
development is too large and it will<br />
overshadow the current surroundings.<br />
Please refer to Sections 5.2.5 and 5.2.6 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Your suggestions are noted. Please refer to<br />
Section 5.2.5 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Your concern is noted. The proposed<br />
development would improve on these.<br />
Your point is noted. This point is further<br />
detailed in the impacts table in the <strong>FEIR</strong><br />
(Section 6.1.4, Table 6.4).<br />
Your point is noted. Please refer to Section<br />
5.2.5 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Please refer to Sections 5.2.5 and 5.2.6 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Please refer to Sections 5.2.5 and 5.2.6 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Visual impact<br />
Visual impact<br />
Visual impact<br />
Visual impact<br />
Visual impact<br />
Visual impact<br />
Visual impact<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 88 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
1.7.127<br />
1.7.128<br />
1.7.129<br />
1.7.130<br />
1.7.131<br />
1.7.132<br />
1.7.133<br />
1.7.134<br />
1.7.135<br />
Etienne Jay Van<br />
Wyk (33)<br />
Johan Van der<br />
Westhuizen (39)<br />
E. Ley Kempthorne<br />
(49)<br />
Meg Cowper Lewis<br />
(SEA) (48)<br />
Stephen Gerber<br />
(63)<br />
Ian W. Hurst (54)<br />
Minnie P. Le Roux<br />
(52)<br />
Frances Pienaar<br />
(58)<br />
David McKinstry<br />
(21)<br />
The location of the proposed development<br />
will have very negative visual impacts on<br />
the aesthetic beauty of this authentic small<br />
town harbour, of which very few still remain<br />
in South Africa.<br />
Concerned about the visual impact of the<br />
proposed development on the harbour<br />
The report states that there's no significant<br />
visual impact for the development which<br />
could be argued as untrue. The<br />
architectural pictures clearly show how the<br />
building stands out from the surrounding<br />
environment<br />
Page 7 (Needs and Desirability) it is stated<br />
that the visual impact remains one of the<br />
most challenging aspects and we agree that<br />
this four-storey proposed development will<br />
be visually unattractive and will spoil the<br />
atmosphere of this little fishing harbour<br />
forever.<br />
The proposed development will create an<br />
unsightly oversized building in the area.<br />
The proposed development should not be<br />
higher than 6m (2 stories) so as to minimize<br />
the visual impact.<br />
The proposed development is too huge, to<br />
high and will take away our sea view.<br />
Aesthetically this development will spoil the<br />
visual character; the attraction to the area is<br />
specifically because the Struisbaai harbour<br />
is unspoilt by modern development. This<br />
quaintness is the attraction and draws<br />
visitors to the area.<br />
The proposed development on Erf 848 is in<br />
front of all the properties of Struisbaai. It is<br />
the most prominent site on the whole<br />
Struisbaai coast and the DEIR suggests<br />
that the negative visual impact can be<br />
mitigated or negotiated away! Why have<br />
any regulations?<br />
Please refer to Sections 5.2.5 and 5.2.6 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Your concern is noted. Please refer to<br />
Sections 5.2.5 and 5.2.6 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Please refer to Sections 5.2.5 and 5.2.6 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>. The visual impact assessment<br />
concluded that the visual impact is High<br />
Negative or High Positive (please refer to<br />
section 6.1.4 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Please refer to Sections 5.2.5 and 5.2.6 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Please refer to Sections 5.2.5 and 5.2.6 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Your point is noted, however this option was<br />
assessed to be financially unviable. Please<br />
refer to Section 2.4.6 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Please refer to Sections 5.2.5 and 5.2.6 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Please refer to Sections 5.2.5 and 5.2.6 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Please refer to Sections 5.2.5 and 5.2.6 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Visual impact<br />
Visual impact<br />
Visual impact<br />
Visual impact<br />
Visual impact<br />
Visual impact<br />
Visual impact<br />
Visual impact<br />
Visual impact<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 89 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
1.7.136<br />
1.7.137<br />
1.7.138<br />
1.7.139<br />
1.7.140<br />
1.7.141<br />
1.7.142<br />
1.7.143<br />
1.7.144<br />
1.7.145<br />
John Butler (104)<br />
Dirk de Jongh (Jnr)<br />
(168)<br />
Anina Theron (133)<br />
Gillian Vermaak<br />
(152)<br />
Brian Knobel (142)<br />
Brian Knobel (142)<br />
Anelda Van Zyl<br />
(128)<br />
Michelle L Loubser<br />
(126)<br />
Mariana Swart (77)<br />
Stephen Knobel<br />
(137)<br />
The pictures indicating visual impact are<br />
misleading and the proposed height of the<br />
development will be visible from as far away<br />
as Arniston<br />
The four storey building would have a major<br />
negative impact on the area. Not only does<br />
the proposed development not contribute to<br />
the harbour character, it also looks out of<br />
place due to its size and architecture<br />
The proposed development is too huge, it<br />
will change the scenery of Struisbaai<br />
The planned development is not<br />
aesthetically pleasing and would be more at<br />
home on the Natal coast. The visual impact<br />
is overbearing and out of character with the<br />
Struisbaai coastline<br />
Property owners view of the harbour and<br />
surroundings will be totally restricted.<br />
I've also recommended that visual effect<br />
mitigation measures be implemented on<br />
50% of the poles to see the effect if any.<br />
The proposed development will spoil the<br />
view of the surrounding properties as well<br />
would have a negative visual impact on the<br />
whole harbour area<br />
The proposed development will have a<br />
negative visual impact on the surrounding<br />
area and will spoil the view of the properties<br />
behind it.<br />
The proposed development would have<br />
negative visual impact on the quaint and<br />
picturesque harbour<br />
The proposed development is always<br />
shown as a basement plus 4 storeys, why<br />
is it then compared to 3 stories buildings<br />
when they clearly consist of a basement<br />
and two storeys , this should be corrected<br />
The visual impact was undertaken by a visual<br />
specialist. Please refer to Sections 5.2.5 and<br />
5.2.6 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
The VIA specialist has endorsed these<br />
pictures as a reasonable depiction of the<br />
proposed development and thus deems them<br />
to be accurate enough to use for the VIA.<br />
Please refer to Sections 5.2.5 and 5.2.6 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Please refer to Sections 5.2.5 and 5.2.6 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Your point is noted. Please refer to Sections<br />
5.2.5 and 5.2.6 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Please refer to Sections 5.2.5 and 5.2.6 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Your point is noted. We assume you mean the<br />
street lights.<br />
Please refer to Sections 5.2.5 and 5.2.6 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Please refer to Sections 5.2.5 and 5.2.6 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Please refer to Sections 5.2.5 and 5.2.6 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
In the examples provided of other houses<br />
showing three levels, the basement is visible<br />
above ground and thus constitutes three<br />
visible levels, which can then be compared to<br />
the four visible levels of the proposed<br />
development i.e. the visual impression when<br />
standing in front of the buildings.<br />
Visual impact<br />
Visual impact<br />
Visual impact<br />
Visual impact<br />
Visual impact<br />
Visual impact<br />
Visual impact<br />
Visual impact<br />
Visual impact<br />
Visual impact<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 90 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
1.7.146<br />
1.7.147<br />
1.7.148<br />
1.7.149<br />
Grant McKinstry<br />
(80)<br />
Justine Sweet (97)<br />
Stephen Knobel<br />
(137)<br />
Stephen Knobel<br />
(137)<br />
Two cases used to attempt to justify this<br />
situation where these regulations have not<br />
been followed, are irrelevant, as the<br />
buildings are either on sloping ground, or<br />
are situated against a mountain, and in any<br />
event, do not interfere with any of the<br />
surrounding neighbor‟s views. If indeed<br />
these 2 cases were found to be<br />
circumventing of the existing regulations,<br />
then they should be dealt with by the<br />
authorities outside of this process, and do<br />
not set precedent for future building<br />
regulations.<br />
It is noteworthy that the development<br />
proponent has sought to include examples<br />
of the exceptions to the two storey limit<br />
which already exist in Struisbaai. Those<br />
exceptions are however, not three storeys<br />
as indicated. They represent two to two<br />
and half storey developments, the<br />
basement of which is excavated. The<br />
height of these buildings, including the<br />
Agulhas Guest House, does not exceed 8,5<br />
m compared with the 16 m height for the<br />
proposed development. Moreover, the<br />
setting of these alleged exceptions is also<br />
against the slope and not within the public<br />
harbour precinct. In our view these<br />
comparisons are inappropriate and<br />
disingenuous.<br />
The comparison between the heights and<br />
the depicting of the proposed development<br />
are definitely not true to scales the 7,5 m<br />
lamppost at the entrance of the harbour is<br />
not halfway up your 16m building. The<br />
middle image on page 131 shows a normal<br />
house in the forefront to be of almost equal<br />
size of the proposed development<br />
The no go option (images on pages 117 to<br />
120) should be placed alongside each other<br />
view to enable a more informed opinion and<br />
for better comparisons and because of the<br />
abovementioned, many I&APs do not trust,<br />
and questions the objectivity of this EIA.<br />
Please refer to Section 1.7.145 of this<br />
Comment and Response Report.<br />
A new CAM SDF dated 2009 has been<br />
passed in terms of the Municipal System Act<br />
and no longer makes reference to a two story<br />
height limitation.<br />
Stauch Vorster: If looking at the buildings as<br />
regards to visual impact from street level,<br />
these buildings are perceived as 3 storey<br />
buildings as you cannot interpret a full height<br />
garage door plus structure above as anything<br />
less than a storey.<br />
The lamppost you are referring to is in fact<br />
9.2m above ngl and therefore the scale of the<br />
proposed development has been determined<br />
by the architects as acceptable (assuming a<br />
reasonable degree of standard deviation).<br />
Please refer to Sections 5.2.5 and 5.2.6 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Your point is noted. We have accommodated<br />
your request. Please refer to section 2.4 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Visual<br />
Visual<br />
Visual impact<br />
Visual impact<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 91 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
1.7.150<br />
1.7.151<br />
1.7.152<br />
1.7.153<br />
1.7.154<br />
1.7.155<br />
1.7.156<br />
1.7.157<br />
1.7.158<br />
1.7.159<br />
Stephen Knobel<br />
(137)<br />
Stephen Knobel<br />
(137)<br />
Stephen Knobel<br />
(137)<br />
Jeanette Bruwer<br />
(75)<br />
Martoinette la<br />
Grange (86)<br />
Hannes and Erica<br />
Pienaar (163)<br />
Grant McKinstry<br />
(80)<br />
Grant McKinstry<br />
(80)<br />
Carel Schaap (165)<br />
Bertrus Hayward<br />
(172)<br />
Mitigation measures such as downward<br />
facing, low wattage light and matt paint can<br />
be implemented on half of the structure to<br />
test their effectiveness. This will then be<br />
viewed positively and would help to remove<br />
allegations of hidden agendas and clear up<br />
animosities between opposing sides.<br />
How can the high negative visual impact be<br />
omitted in your conclusions? Visual impacts<br />
both negative and positive are the highest<br />
rated issues.<br />
Please list the numbers of those who prefer<br />
the no-go option to those who prefer the<br />
development. The visual impact is<br />
irreversible therefore needs to be<br />
addressed very carefully<br />
A 4 storey building of 16metres in height<br />
would have a huge negative impact on the<br />
area in terms height restriction, change of<br />
land use and would negatively influence the<br />
character of the area.<br />
A four storey building will spoil the character<br />
of this harbour.<br />
The proposed development would result on<br />
the loss of the sea view<br />
The proposed development will restrict the<br />
view of all people living in the surrounding<br />
area.<br />
To state that the proposed development is<br />
an „eye sore‟ would be an understatement.<br />
There is no amount of architectural finesse<br />
that could do a building of the proposed size<br />
any justice.<br />
The proposed building will have very<br />
negative visual impacts to residents of<br />
Kusweg.<br />
Visual impact of the proposed development<br />
is a concern<br />
It is recognised that these mitigation<br />
measures will not be nearly as effective as<br />
reducing the height of the proposed<br />
development to two storeys. but reducing the<br />
height is not a viable option as the proponent<br />
would not consider building such a<br />
development as viable. Please refer to<br />
Section 2.4.6 and Annexure R of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Please refer to Section 6.1.1 and Table 6.4 of<br />
the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
The quantum of negative responses received<br />
are viewed as an indicator, however<br />
experience has shown that I&APs who view<br />
the impact(s) of a proposed activity as positive<br />
generally do not submit comment, therefore<br />
the production of numbers in this regard is<br />
viewed as a ineffective process.<br />
Your point is noted. Please refer to Sections<br />
5.2.5 and 5.2.6 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>. The competent<br />
authority and the municipality would need to<br />
consider the height restriction in the Spatial<br />
Development Framework when making a<br />
decision.<br />
Please refer to Sections 5.2.5 and 5.2.6 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Please refer to Sections 5.2.5 and 5.2.6 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Please refer to Sections 5.2.5 and 5.2.6 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Please refer to Sections 5.2.5 and 5.2.6 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Please refer to Sections 5.2.5 and 5.2.6 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Please refer to Sections 5.2.5 and 5.2.6 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Visual impact<br />
Visual impact<br />
Visual impact<br />
Visual impact<br />
Visual impact<br />
Visual impact<br />
Visual impact<br />
Visual impact<br />
Visual impact<br />
Visual impact<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 92 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
1.7.160<br />
1.7.161<br />
1.7.162<br />
1.7.163<br />
Hans Swart (27)<br />
Wentzel van Renen<br />
(134)<br />
Andre van der Berg<br />
(145)<br />
Justine Sweet (97)<br />
Quality of life: Questionable aesthetic value<br />
of the proposed buildings and view of the<br />
landscape (not the same as visual impact).<br />
The proposed buildings would take away<br />
my view.<br />
Houses close to the development will loose<br />
their view.<br />
The proposed building will have negative<br />
visual impact.<br />
Importantly, the development proponent<br />
refused to consider a two storey alternative<br />
as it is allegedly not financially sustainable<br />
[p. 48 of dEIR]. The development<br />
proponent therefore proposes a mix of two<br />
to four storey buildings notwithstanding the<br />
SDF two storey limit for buildings within the<br />
secondary business node. In fact, the<br />
development proponent seeks to justify this<br />
proposed contravention by pointing out<br />
other contraventions within Struisbaai. This<br />
proposal also ignores the Western Cape's<br />
DEADP. suggestion in this regard as well<br />
as the interested and affected parties'<br />
comments receiving during the Scoping<br />
Phase which revealed that there would be<br />
less public resistance to a two storey<br />
development [p.48 of dEIR].<br />
Please refer to Sections 5.2.5 and 5.2.6 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Please refer to Sections 5.2.5 and 5.2.6 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Please refer to Sections 5.2.5 and 5.2.6 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
This point was raised at the public meeting<br />
that took place on the 31 October 2009 and<br />
as a consequence an independent review of<br />
the Feasibility Statement compiled by the<br />
proponent was undertaken. Turner &<br />
Townsend were appointed to assess the<br />
financial viability and this can be read in detail<br />
in Section 2.4.6 and Annexure P of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Visual impact<br />
Visual impact<br />
Visual impact<br />
Visual impact<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 93 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
1.7.164<br />
1.7.165<br />
1.7.166<br />
Justine Sweet (97)<br />
Justine Sweet (97)<br />
Justine Sweet (97)<br />
It is our clients' submission that multi storey<br />
buildings are inappropriate for Struisbaai<br />
and in particular a multi storey building on<br />
the site would be inappropriate within the<br />
existing landscape. The harbour and its<br />
surrounds have frequently been used as<br />
photographic subjects by photographers,<br />
both professional and others, and are<br />
frequently found in “coffee table” type<br />
books. The proposed development would<br />
eliminate the existing, picturesque<br />
landscape. In addition, it will destroy the<br />
charm and ambiance which is presently<br />
found in this area. This loss will be<br />
irreversible. The visual impact of the<br />
development has been rated as having a<br />
high, negative, probable impact for those<br />
who prefer the status quo [p. 124 of dEIR].<br />
Four of the five vantage points illustrated in<br />
the figures attached to the draft EIR make it<br />
clear that the development is highly visible<br />
and represents an intrusion in the existing<br />
landscape [p. 117-119 of dEIR].<br />
It is our clients' view that if a height<br />
restriction is imposed as an essential<br />
mitigation measure, the visual impact on the<br />
harbour area for those who prefer the status<br />
quo will be vastly reduced.<br />
Please refer to Sections 5.2.5 and 5.2.6 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Your point is noted. Please refer to Section<br />
5.2.5 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Your point is noted, however it is viewed by<br />
the proponent as an unviable option for the<br />
reasons set out in the <strong>FEIR</strong>. Please refer to<br />
Section 2.4.6 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Visual impact<br />
Visual impact<br />
Visual impact<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 94 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
1.7.167<br />
1.7.168<br />
1.7.169<br />
E. Ley Kempthorne<br />
(49)<br />
Johan Liebenberg,<br />
Dorel Van der<br />
Westhuizen, Kobus<br />
Viljoen, Abrie<br />
Bruwer, Chris Moll,<br />
Stuart Du Plessis,<br />
G. R. Youldon,<br />
Johan Venter (59,<br />
73, 69, 66, 65, 172,<br />
93, 78)<br />
Johan Liebenberg,<br />
Dorel Van der<br />
Westhuizen, Kobus<br />
Viljoen, Abrie<br />
Bruwer, Chris Moll,<br />
Stuart Du Plessis,<br />
G. R. Youldon,<br />
Johan Venter (59,<br />
73, 69, 66, 65, 172,<br />
93, 78)<br />
The architectural report also uses other<br />
existing buildings to illustrate the possible<br />
visual impact, however these have been<br />
taken out of context. An example is the<br />
development of Hoof Weg Erf 673, which is<br />
located against the mountain thus allowing<br />
it to blend more easily into the surrounding<br />
environment, it is also not located on the<br />
water front and therefore using it for a<br />
positive argument against negative visual<br />
impacts is misleading. The existing<br />
character of sea front properties along the<br />
Struisbaai and Agulhas coastline are not<br />
more than 2/3 stories and many of the<br />
examples given in the document are not on<br />
the coastline.<br />
The proponent further has provided pictures<br />
that in his view are more than 2 storeys and<br />
are legal, i.e. garages that were excavated,<br />
with the first storey starts 1,2m above<br />
ground level, and with the whole building<br />
not transgressing 8m from the ground.<br />
Golden Falls then justify their proposed 16m<br />
and all this inaccurate information is<br />
included in the report. This is not<br />
acceptable. The pictures that I have<br />
provided show the real image and they<br />
must be included in the report.<br />
Referring to Page 116(b) of the Visual<br />
Impact Assessment, the proposed project is<br />
in breach of 5 points namely high intensity,<br />
change in land use, a significant change to<br />
the fabric and character of the area, a<br />
significant change in townscape and<br />
streetscape and a possible vision intrusion<br />
in the landscape.<br />
The comparative assessment undertaken by<br />
the architect and reviewed by the visual<br />
specialist was aimed at stating that certain<br />
buildings with Struisbaai and its surrounds<br />
exceed 2 storeys based on the natural ground<br />
level i.e. road level. Please refer to Sections<br />
5.2.5 and Annexure O of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Please refer to Section 1.7.145 of this<br />
Comment and Response Report regarding<br />
height comparison.<br />
Stauch Vorster utilised these pictures for<br />
comparative purposes only, as calculated<br />
from the road level.<br />
Noted. Please refer to Section 5.2.5 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Visual impact<br />
Visual<br />
Visual<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 95 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
1.7.170<br />
1.7.171<br />
Johan Liebenberg,<br />
Dorel Van der<br />
Westhuizen, Kobus<br />
Viljoen, Abrie<br />
Bruwer, Chris Moll,<br />
Stuart Du Plessis,<br />
G. R. Youldon,<br />
Johan Venter (59,<br />
73, 69, 66, 65, 172,<br />
93, 78)<br />
Johan Liebenberg,<br />
Dorel Van der<br />
Westhuizen, Kobus<br />
Viljoen, Abrie<br />
Bruwer, Chris Moll,<br />
Stuart Du Plessis,<br />
G. R. Youldon,<br />
Johan Venter (59,<br />
73, 69, 66, 65, 172,<br />
93, 78)<br />
The proposed development will block our<br />
sea view.<br />
It is unacceptable to state that the use of<br />
matt paint (P132 c of EIR) and downward<br />
directed outdoor lights will mitigate the<br />
impact of a special character and a sense of<br />
place. In some places there is a suggestion<br />
reverence that the development might even<br />
have a positive impact. With the five points<br />
above in mind, this statement is beyond<br />
absurd.<br />
Please refer to Sections 5.2.5 and 5.2.6 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Your point is noted. Please refer to Section<br />
5.2.5 and 5.2.6 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Visual impact<br />
Visual<br />
1.8 Pollution of the<br />
Environment<br />
1.8.1<br />
1.8.2<br />
1.8.3<br />
1.8.4<br />
1.8.5<br />
Andrea Buys (50)<br />
Paul Buys (51)<br />
Stephen Gerber<br />
(63)<br />
Erla Rabe (83)<br />
A. J. Vlok (139)<br />
The proposed development would result in<br />
major pollution due to large number of<br />
people staying there.<br />
There is likely to be a danger of<br />
overcrowding in that part of town for the<br />
proposed development during holidays and<br />
could cause pollution.<br />
The proposed development will damage the<br />
environment<br />
This type of development will contribute to<br />
pollution and noise. Except for during<br />
construction, how would the proposed<br />
development contribute to noise?<br />
The suggestions w.r.t. to the impact of noise<br />
on residents is inappropriate.<br />
Please explain what pollution you are referring<br />
to. Please refer to Section 5.2.1 of the <strong>FEIR</strong><br />
which deals with solid waste and sewage.<br />
Your point is noted, however the proposed<br />
development has taken measures to ensure<br />
all reasonable steps are factored into the<br />
design to ensure pollution is controlled.<br />
Please refer to Annexure Q of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
No reference was provided to the damage<br />
concern raised; however reference to Section<br />
7.5 of the <strong>FEIR</strong> applies.<br />
With regard to tranquility, please refer to point<br />
1.7.33 of this Comment and Response<br />
Report. With regard to Pollution, please refer<br />
to Section 5.2.1.of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Your comment is noted. Please refer to<br />
Section 5.2.6 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Environment<br />
effect<br />
Environment<br />
effect<br />
Environment<br />
effect<br />
Pollution<br />
Pollution<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 96 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
1.9 Impact of Climate<br />
Change and natural<br />
forces on<br />
development<br />
1.9.1<br />
1.9.2<br />
1.9.3<br />
1.9.4<br />
Carel Van der<br />
Merwe (20)<br />
Meg Cowper Lewis<br />
(SEA) (48)<br />
Neville Van der<br />
Westhuizen (71)<br />
Justine Sweet (97)<br />
The EIA Report needs to consider the<br />
problems that the proposed development<br />
next to Nostras Restaurant has identified<br />
with the water table for the proposed<br />
basement parking area below ground level.<br />
It is highly likely that similar conditions exist<br />
and that it may not be possible to have<br />
parking below the development. If this is the<br />
case, then the impact will be definite high<br />
negative red with respect to the water table.<br />
Page 11: “… design the basement level<br />
adequately to keep water out should the<br />
water table rise.” Is it possible it is to<br />
“mitigate” the effects of rising sea levels and<br />
water tables. This must be yet another<br />
joke!<br />
Pumps in the basement will not be able to<br />
cope with a surge of seawater down the<br />
ramps into the basement.<br />
It is not clear whether the specified<br />
mitigation measures which refer to a water<br />
extraction system [p. 142 of dEIR] include<br />
the measures recommended by the<br />
geologist. In addition, given the potential for<br />
flooding in the basement, it is not clear why<br />
the optional measures were not also<br />
included as essential mitigation measures,<br />
particularly the implementation of an<br />
appropriate drainage at the basement exit<br />
[p. 142 of dEIR] Clarification on these<br />
issues is requested.<br />
Please refer to Section 5.2.1, 5.2.8 and<br />
Annexures L & I of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Basements can be and frequently are<br />
engineered to keep water from entering<br />
through the walls. Please refer to Section<br />
5.2.8 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Please refer to Section 5.2.8 of the <strong>FEIR</strong><br />
regarding the probability and severity of such<br />
a surge.<br />
The water extraction system would be<br />
adequately designed to ensure safety for the<br />
proposed development as well as its<br />
occupants. The Geotechnical assessment did<br />
not make any recommendations in this<br />
regard. Please refer to Section 5.2.8 of <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Water Table<br />
Rise in Sea<br />
Level<br />
Water Table<br />
Water Table<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 97 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
1.9.5<br />
1.9.6<br />
1.9.7<br />
Justine Sweet (97)<br />
Chris & Ria<br />
Reynolds (34)<br />
Meg Cowper Lewis<br />
(SEA) (48)<br />
A geologist has recommended that the<br />
basement be designed above the water<br />
table and that a pump be installed to<br />
remove any overflow that may occur as a<br />
result of a rise in the water table. We are<br />
advised that the proposed development is<br />
above the current water table [p. 141 of<br />
dEIR].<br />
The jetty is proof of the actual impact<br />
human development has had on the<br />
harbour and by lengthening the jetty, the<br />
sea level and natural sand movement on<br />
the ocean floor has been disturbed on a<br />
massive scale. As a result, the swimming<br />
beach in front of the Nostra and Bella Luna<br />
was destroyed – with the rising sea levels –<br />
this has caused great concern among<br />
business owners with property that is<br />
located at sea level.<br />
Page 11: The report mentions building a<br />
wall to keep the sea out and devising<br />
emergency evacuation plans during<br />
significant storm surges. A storm surge two<br />
years ago already flooded the proposed<br />
building site (see accompanying image/s).<br />
Who would be paying for all these<br />
measures to be put into place and<br />
exercised when the sea comes in to claim<br />
its new high-water mark? The Cape<br />
Agulhas Municipal ratepayers? We have<br />
already baled out Nostra - just imagine the<br />
cost to ratepayers when the seas flood out<br />
the entire Langezandt Quays?<br />
According to Stauch Vorster the current<br />
proposed design would in all likelihood not be<br />
impacted by the watertable, however a risk<br />
does apply and therefore appropriate<br />
engineering initiatives need to be considered.<br />
Please refer to Section 5.2.8 and Annexure L<br />
of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Your point is noted. Please refer to Section<br />
5.2.8 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
The proponent would be responsible for<br />
building the re-curve wall around the<br />
development on the seaward side of the<br />
development and other site specific mitigation<br />
measures. Maintenance of harbour<br />
infrastructure in the event of climate change<br />
impacts however would be the responsibility<br />
of government.<br />
Environment<br />
effect<br />
Rise in Sea<br />
Level<br />
Rise in Sea<br />
Level<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 98 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
1.9.8<br />
1.9.9<br />
1.9.10<br />
1.9.11<br />
D.G. & J.L. Falck<br />
(64)<br />
E de Kock (88)<br />
Louise Louw (22)<br />
Evan Meirion<br />
Williams (31)<br />
The EIA notes that the proposed<br />
development takes into account rising sea<br />
levels in that a wall will be built around the<br />
development to reduce the effect of waves.<br />
The effect of the sea cannot be forecast,<br />
and this is evident with the Nostra<br />
development on the main beach. What was<br />
supposed to be a huge economic injection<br />
to Struisbaai, has now become an eyesore,<br />
with pollution from the sandbags used to<br />
keep the sea back being a major<br />
contributing factor. It is very difficult to say<br />
how the sea and coastline in the vicinity of<br />
Erf 848 will change in the next 100 years. In<br />
only the last 20 years, a new beach was<br />
formed next to the harbour wall, where sea<br />
water was prevalent until the harbour wall<br />
was constructed in 1989. One of the<br />
measures mooted to prevent the loss of the<br />
beach at Nostra is to remove the harbour<br />
wall (even if only temporarily), so that the<br />
sand build-up adjacent to it can be<br />
deposited on the main beach area. How will<br />
this impact on the development of Erf 848?<br />
It does not consider climate change (I‟ve<br />
lived for three years in L‟Aghulas and the<br />
changes that have taken place to the<br />
shoreline is concerning). Struisbaai will<br />
have a second Nostra should this<br />
development continue,<br />
The Nostra restaurant is another good<br />
example of a building that was allowed<br />
without considering the impacts on the<br />
environment and character of Struisbaai<br />
The draft EIA is as much of a farce.<br />
Anyone doubting this should to look at the<br />
development of “Nostra” and the pathetic<br />
design of electrical, water and sewage<br />
systems. To say nothing of the recent<br />
flooding of the exact area where the<br />
proposed development is supposed to be<br />
built, with underground parking no less.<br />
Your point is noted. The harbour wall<br />
provides protection to Erf 848 and the harbour<br />
facilities such as the MCM offices and<br />
mooring for the chakkies. If the harbour wall<br />
is removed, these facilities will all be at a<br />
substantially greater risk. This does not<br />
appear to be a realistic proposal as the cost<br />
would be exorbitant and the resultant impacts<br />
on the harbour and fishing difficult to mitigate.<br />
Please refer to Section 5.2.8 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
The EIA process has been undertaken to<br />
allow the impacts to be debated and<br />
considered in relevant decisions. Please refer<br />
to Sections 5.2.5, 5.2.6 and 5.2.7 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
It is understood that the Nostra development<br />
has its challenges, however please refer to<br />
the <strong>FEIR</strong> for the assessment of the<br />
Langezandt Quays Development.<br />
Rise in Sea<br />
Level<br />
Rise in Sea<br />
Level<br />
Rise in Sea<br />
Level<br />
Rise in Sea<br />
Level<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 99 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
1.9.12<br />
1.9.13<br />
1.9.14<br />
1.9.15<br />
Meg Cowper Lewis<br />
(SEA) (48)<br />
Johan van der Walt<br />
(28)<br />
D.G. & J.L. Falck<br />
(64)<br />
Carel Schaap (165)<br />
Page 2 of the DEIR Executive Summary, It<br />
is quite incorrect to state that the buildings<br />
are approximately 9m above mean sea<br />
level (amsl.), which equates to +5m above<br />
natural ground level (ngl.).” Two years ago<br />
the day before the first public meeting for<br />
the proposed development was held in the<br />
Dutch Reformed Church in Struisbaai on 27<br />
September 2007, the sea flooded the car<br />
park at the Struisbaai Harbour including the<br />
exact position of the proposed<br />
development. Since climate change with its<br />
dramatic rise of sea levels is now a reality, it<br />
is unreasonable to even consider building<br />
any type of structure below the high-water<br />
mark.<br />
I'm a resident and also involved in deep sea<br />
fishing and concerned about noise in<br />
harbour during the fishing activities<br />
The proposed development is likely to result<br />
in a breakdown in relations between the<br />
property owners in the development and the<br />
fishing community because of the<br />
substantial noise due to fishing activities at<br />
night. Taking into consideration the profile<br />
of different groups, it has a potential to<br />
escalate into a bitter racial tension that will<br />
not bode well for the wider community and<br />
area. That might eventually lead to the<br />
closing down of the proposed hotel.<br />
Any development other than something<br />
directly related to the function of the harbour<br />
itself will set a precedent for development of<br />
land on the coastal side of Kusweg for<br />
alternative purposes - this has significant<br />
impact in terms of maintenance of coastal<br />
vegetation, coast erosion (a significant<br />
problem in Struisbaai by the way) and the<br />
existing residents' enjoyment of this<br />
pristine stretch of coast in general.<br />
Your concern is noted however mean sea<br />
level is an average of the sea level and<br />
includes the full range not just the height<br />
during storm surges. The statement in the<br />
Executive summary is therefore correct.<br />
Please refer to Section 5.2.8 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Your point is noted. Please refer to Section<br />
5.2.8 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Your concern is noted. Please refer to Section<br />
5.2.8 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
With regard to setting a precedent please<br />
refer to section 5.2.6 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>. With regard<br />
to environmental effect, please refer to<br />
Section 5.2.8 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Rise in Sea<br />
Level<br />
Noise<br />
Noise<br />
Environment<br />
effect<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 100 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
1.9.16<br />
1.9.17<br />
1.9.18<br />
1.9.19<br />
1.9.20<br />
1.9.21<br />
1.9.22<br />
Lois Albertyn (109)<br />
Erla Rabe (83)<br />
Evan Meirion<br />
Williams (31)<br />
Meg Cowper Lewis<br />
(SEA) (48)<br />
Stephen Knobel<br />
(137)<br />
D.G. & J.L. Falck<br />
(64)<br />
D.G. & J.L. Falck<br />
(64)<br />
Rather develop someplace else where it will<br />
not cause so much damage.<br />
Struisbaai‟s harbour and coastline do not<br />
need any more disturbances. The<br />
swimming beach has already been washed<br />
away due to developments directly on the<br />
coast.<br />
Sea level and global warming is a concern<br />
How is it possible that a development of this<br />
size is attempting to overcome the<br />
restriction from building within 100m from<br />
the high-water mark?<br />
Although the proposed new legislation of<br />
Coastal Management Act is not enforced<br />
yet, and with global warming taking place, I<br />
cannot see how can you rate rising of sea<br />
levels as a low negative impact<br />
Sea levels is a further concern. The City of<br />
Cape Town has adopted a policy where no<br />
development will be allowed between the<br />
coast and Baden Powell Drive, near<br />
Muizenberg, for fear of the effect of rising<br />
sea levels, however here in Struisbaai a<br />
development is planned within 5m of the<br />
water table.<br />
What would happen to the proposed<br />
development during the event of a natural<br />
disaster?<br />
In terms of environmental damage the<br />
outcome of this EIA is that the proposed<br />
development would not cause significant<br />
biophysical environmental damage. Please<br />
refer to Section 7.5 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Please refer to Section 5.2.8 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>. Erf<br />
848 is on the hardened inland area and does<br />
not have a marine or coastal component and<br />
therefore no marine disturbance is<br />
anticipated.<br />
Agreed which is why a specialist comment<br />
was included in the reporting. Please refer to<br />
Section 5.2.8 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Development within 100 m of the high water<br />
mark is what triggered the assessment<br />
amongst other triggers, hence the<br />
requirement to undertake an EIA.<br />
Please refer to the revised Section 1.3.5 of<br />
the <strong>FEIR</strong> with regard to Integrated Coastal<br />
Management Act (ICMA). The ICMA was<br />
enacted on 1 December 2009 and thus now<br />
applies. It is rated low more because of its<br />
localised impact with regard to the<br />
development. Please refer to Section 4.2 of<br />
the <strong>FEIR</strong> which details the assessment<br />
methodology utilized. Section 5.2.8 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong> explains how this assessment was<br />
concluded as the services of WSP<br />
<strong>Environmental</strong> was used to determine the<br />
potential impact of sea level rise.<br />
Your point is noted. There is a degree of risk<br />
attached to this development, however the<br />
potential environmental impacts have been<br />
assessed as being acceptable.<br />
The proposed development like all other<br />
development will be at risk. Please refer to<br />
Section 5.2.8 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Environment<br />
effect<br />
Environment<br />
effect<br />
Rise in Sea<br />
Level<br />
Rise in Sea<br />
Level<br />
Rise in Sea<br />
Level<br />
Rise in Sea<br />
Level<br />
Rise in Sea<br />
Level<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 101 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
1.9.23<br />
1.9.24<br />
1.9.25<br />
Johan Burger (170)<br />
Gert Groenewald,<br />
Anna-Marie<br />
Groenewald,<br />
Juliana Van der<br />
Merwe, Anneke<br />
Groenewald, Gerda<br />
Groenewald (138,<br />
138, 183, 184, 185,<br />
186)<br />
Justine Sweet (97)<br />
The sea is reclaiming the beach (high water<br />
mark). The water level of the waterfront will<br />
be influenced.<br />
<strong>Environmental</strong>ly unfriendly – lower than the<br />
high water mark and should thus not be<br />
developed.<br />
The proposed development would be<br />
situated within 100m of the high water mark.<br />
It is noted that the predicted sea level rise<br />
values, which cannot be accurately<br />
predicted, need to be fully considered<br />
during the design phase of the proposed<br />
development [p. 140 of dEIR]. There is the<br />
possibility of sea water flooding the<br />
basement and ground floor if the sea level<br />
rises beyond that predicted by WSP Africa<br />
Coastal Engineers which would, among<br />
other things, raise significant safety<br />
concerns [p. 141 of dEIR]. It is<br />
unacceptable that the development<br />
proponent attempts to transfer this<br />
enormous responsibility to MCM and Cape<br />
Agulhas Municipality rather than<br />
undertaking to implement necessary<br />
mitigation measures itself, such as the<br />
construction of a "re-curve wall."[p. 141 of<br />
dEIR].<br />
Noted. Please refer to Section 5.2.8 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Your point is noted. Please refer to Section<br />
5.2.8 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Agreed. The proponent would be responsible<br />
for building the re-curve wall. The proponent<br />
has applied for Activity 2 of GNR 386 viz.<br />
Construction within 100m of the HWM (g)<br />
infrastructure. The CAM and MCM would<br />
however have a role to play in maintaining the<br />
functionality of the actual harbour<br />
infrastructure. Please refer to Section 5.2.8 of<br />
the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Rise in Sea<br />
Level<br />
Rise in Sea<br />
Level<br />
Rise in Sea<br />
Level<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 102 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
1.9.26<br />
Justine Sweet (97)<br />
It is clear that the potential risks involved in<br />
a rise in sea level will be far more severe<br />
with respect to the proposed development<br />
in comparison with the existing three single<br />
storey buildings currently on the site. It is for<br />
this reason that our clients are of the view<br />
that the onus to implement the necessary<br />
infrastructure lies with the development<br />
proponent. It is not clear whether the<br />
development proponent intends that the<br />
essential mitigation measures specified be<br />
undertaken by MCM and the Cape Agulhas<br />
Municipality. We seek clarification on this<br />
point.<br />
The essential mitigation measures would be<br />
implemented by the proponent in most cases,<br />
subject to Annexure T of the <strong>FEIR</strong>. A copy of<br />
a letter from the proponent committing to<br />
essential mitigation measures. The<br />
<strong>Environmental</strong> Authorisation decision may<br />
have further requirements to which the<br />
proponent must adhere should the proposed<br />
development be approved.<br />
Rise in Sea<br />
Level<br />
1.10 Impact on fauna, flora<br />
and natural processes<br />
1.10.1<br />
1.10.2<br />
1.10.3<br />
1.10.4<br />
1.10.5<br />
1.10.6<br />
Evan Meirion<br />
Williams (31)<br />
Amaria Erasmus<br />
(107)<br />
Eldalene Bruwer<br />
(16)<br />
Louise Louw (22)<br />
Chris & Ria<br />
Reynolds (34)<br />
Chris & Ria<br />
Reynolds (34)<br />
The proposed development will result into a<br />
destruction of dunes and the coast with the<br />
backdrop of the Bredasdorp and the<br />
Riviersonderend mountains is all the skyline<br />
the people want, not an unsightly, not well<br />
planned development as it is proposed.<br />
The main beach has already been disturbed<br />
due to changes to the dune system. People<br />
cannot walk, etc. along the beach during<br />
high tide.<br />
The proposed development would disturb<br />
the functioning of the coastal environment.<br />
The impact that the building would have on<br />
wind patterns on the area is also not clear.<br />
If one look at the aerial photo in the<br />
document, the impact the small harbour wall<br />
had on the neighbouring bay is very clear.<br />
Our main concern is the destruction of<br />
existing marine ecological systems in<br />
Struisbaai.<br />
History has shown that it is human nature to<br />
destroy the environment – in other words,<br />
more people would deplete Struisbaai‟s<br />
natural resources and ecology much<br />
quicker<br />
The development is to take place within the<br />
boundaries of Erf 848 and if construction and<br />
patrons are properly managed should not<br />
impact on the surrounding vegetation. Please<br />
refer to Annexure Q of the <strong>FEIR</strong> with regard to<br />
construction phase mitigation measures.<br />
Your concern is noted. This due to the<br />
harbour wall not the proposed development. A<br />
dune impact assessment was undertaken and<br />
can be viewed in Section 5.2.7 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Please refer to Section 5.2.7 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Please refer to Section 5.2.7 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Please refer to Section 5.2.7 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>. No<br />
marine ecology is envisaged to be impacted.<br />
Your concern is noted. Please refer to Section<br />
5.2.7 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Dune<br />
processes<br />
Dune<br />
processes<br />
Fauna and<br />
flora<br />
Fauna and<br />
flora<br />
Fauna and<br />
flora<br />
Fauna and<br />
flora<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 103 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
1.10.7<br />
1.10.8<br />
1.10.9<br />
1.10.10<br />
Chris & Ria<br />
Reynolds (34)<br />
Lois Albertyn (109)<br />
Andrea Buys (50)<br />
Lois Albertyn (109)<br />
Currently all findings of specialist are on<br />
paper and these findings are only based on<br />
human knowledge and NOT on the<br />
environmental impacts of a development of<br />
this nature<br />
What will become of the stingrays under<br />
these circumstances?<br />
The proposed development would result in<br />
the disappearance of the stingrays!<br />
The golf course already destroyed a lot of<br />
fauna and flora – not even mentioning costs<br />
such as water usage to maintain the<br />
development. To my opinion progress is a<br />
hoax. The most valuable heritage we have<br />
to give to future generations is the natural<br />
environment.<br />
Please refer to Section 4.2, 5.2.7 and Section<br />
6.1.3 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
No impact to marine ecology and marine life is<br />
envisaged as a consequence of the proposed<br />
development.<br />
No impact to marine life is envisaged for the<br />
proposed development.<br />
Your concern is noted. Please refer to Section<br />
5.2.4 and 5.2.7 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Fauna and<br />
flora<br />
Fauna and<br />
flora<br />
Fauna and<br />
Flora<br />
Fauna and<br />
flora<br />
1.11 Impact on view and<br />
property value<br />
1.11.1<br />
1.11.2<br />
1.11.3<br />
1.11.4<br />
Michelle Vermeulen<br />
(1)<br />
Johan Van Zyl (15)<br />
B.J. Viljoen (18)<br />
Evan Meirion<br />
Williams (31)<br />
The value of houses has already<br />
decreased.<br />
Property value in the immediate area of the<br />
proposed development would fall<br />
dramatically and most likely result in further<br />
rezoning applications for businesses.<br />
The municipality will be held accountable for<br />
any approvals in terms of the Land Use<br />
Planning Ordinance and the possible<br />
negative impact it could have on the value<br />
of private owned property/ guest houses.<br />
I'm concerned about investment in property<br />
which is directly related to angling and<br />
boating interest<br />
Please refer to Section 5.2.6 of the <strong>FEIR</strong> and<br />
Annexure H: Economic Assessment. The<br />
current decrease in property value cannot be<br />
attributed to the proposed development as<br />
there has been an international slump in the<br />
property market.<br />
. Please refer to Section 5.2.6 of the <strong>FEIR</strong> and<br />
Annexure H: Economic Assessment.<br />
Noted. A LUPO process will need to be<br />
followed for the proposed development.<br />
Please refer to Section 5.2.6 of the <strong>FEIR</strong> and<br />
Annexure H: Economic Assessment.<br />
Property<br />
values<br />
Property<br />
values<br />
Property<br />
values<br />
Property<br />
values<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 104 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
1.11.5<br />
1.11.6<br />
1.11.7<br />
1.11.8<br />
1.11.9<br />
1.11.10<br />
1.11.11<br />
1.11.12<br />
Mike P Loubser (45)<br />
Minnie P. Le Roux<br />
(52)<br />
Evan Meirion<br />
Williams (31)<br />
Dirk de Jongh (Jnr)<br />
(168)<br />
Brian Knobel (142)<br />
Brian Knobel (142)<br />
Hannes and Erica<br />
Pienaar (163)<br />
GJ Pienaar (56)<br />
As the owner of Erf 572 that form part of the<br />
proposed parking area, I would appreciate<br />
your guarantee that I would be involved in<br />
any development from the start. This would<br />
provide protection against possible<br />
reduction of my property‟s value. I would<br />
appreciate if you can provide me with the<br />
written confirmation with regard to this.<br />
The proposed development might have a<br />
negative influence on the value of our<br />
property<br />
The proposed development will have a<br />
negative impact on both holiday and<br />
residential homes which have been<br />
invested in by those respecting the<br />
municipal bylaws and building restrictions<br />
as they stand.<br />
A 16m high building will result in a loss of a<br />
sea view by homeowners who invested<br />
substantially in their respective properties<br />
and their property value would be lowered.<br />
The proposed development would result to<br />
a decrease to the value of surrounding<br />
properties<br />
What guarantee does the developer put<br />
forward so that the value of the surrounding<br />
plots will not be adversely affected?<br />
The proposed development would result on<br />
the loss of property values behind this<br />
building.<br />
2. The parking area is surrounded by<br />
residential property with a high market<br />
value. My house is 36 years old and the<br />
building on erf 650 is even older. The<br />
construction of a business facility or<br />
restaurants will cause a decrease in the<br />
market value of my property as well as erf<br />
648 and other surrounding properties.<br />
Applicants response: We undertake to<br />
consult with you at the start of the<br />
development should it be approved.<br />
Please refer to Section 5.2.6 of the <strong>FEIR</strong> and<br />
Annexure H: Economic Assessment.<br />
Please refer to Section 5.2.6 of the <strong>FEIR</strong> and<br />
Annexure H: Economic Assessment.<br />
Please refer to Section 5.2.6 of the <strong>FEIR</strong> and<br />
Annexure H: Economic Assessment.<br />
Please refer to Section 5.2.6 of the <strong>FEIR</strong> and<br />
Annexure H: Economic Assessment.<br />
Please refer to Section 5.2.6 of the <strong>FEIR</strong> and<br />
Annexure H: Economic Assessment.<br />
Please refer to Section 5.2.6 of the <strong>FEIR</strong> and<br />
Annexure H: Economic Assessment.<br />
Please refer to Section 5.2.6 of the <strong>FEIR</strong> and<br />
Annexure H: Economic Assessment.<br />
Property<br />
values<br />
Property<br />
values<br />
Property<br />
values<br />
Property<br />
values<br />
Property<br />
values<br />
Property<br />
values<br />
Property<br />
values<br />
Property<br />
value<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 105 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
1.11.13<br />
1.11.14<br />
1.11.15<br />
Hans Swart (27)<br />
Hans Swart (27)<br />
Johan Liebenberg,<br />
Dorel Van der<br />
Westhuizen, Kobus<br />
Viljoen, Abrie<br />
Bruwer, Chris Moll,<br />
Stuart Du Plessis,<br />
G. R. Youldon,<br />
Johan Venter (59,<br />
73, 69, 66, 65, 172,<br />
93, 78)<br />
Secondly, a concise summary of my most<br />
important objections. My permanent home<br />
is located approximately 150 m away from<br />
erf 848. Therefore, the proposed<br />
development would have a continuing<br />
negative impact on my residency, as well as<br />
the following two important aspects: quality<br />
of life and property value.<br />
Property in a good location with a view of<br />
the ocean/ harbour would instantly be<br />
negatively impacted. Construction of a high<br />
density development would result in the<br />
deterioration and fall of surrounding<br />
property values. Most of the surrounding<br />
properties are part of testaments and will be<br />
negatively impacted by the developer‟s<br />
avarice. The preservation and improvement<br />
of cultural historic attractions increase the<br />
value of surrounding properties, whereas<br />
the destruction of cultural historic focal<br />
points reduces property value.<br />
The proposed development will have a<br />
negative impact on the value of our<br />
property.<br />
Please refer to Sections 5.2.5 and 5.2.6 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong> regarding impact on quality of life.<br />
Please refer to Annexure H: Economic<br />
Assessment.<br />
Please refer to Sections 5.2.5 and 5.2.6 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong> regarding impact on quality of life.<br />
Please refer to Annexure H: Economic<br />
Assessment.<br />
Please refer to Section 1.11.1 of this<br />
Comment and Response Report.<br />
Property<br />
values<br />
Property<br />
values<br />
Property<br />
values<br />
1.12 Cumulative impact<br />
1.12.1<br />
Jacobus J.D.<br />
Havenga (12)<br />
You provide no written guarantees how<br />
mitigation measures will be complied with.<br />
The summary sounds very good, but there<br />
are no written agreements that can be used<br />
in legal processes should mitigation<br />
measures not be complied with.<br />
Please refer to Annexure T of the <strong>FEIR</strong> for a<br />
letter from the proponent as to what they<br />
commit to implementing. Secondly the<br />
proponent would have to comply with the<br />
mitigation measures legally stipulated in the<br />
<strong>Environmental</strong> Authorisation decision should<br />
the development be approved and built.<br />
Cumulative<br />
impact<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 106 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
1.12.2<br />
1.12.3<br />
1.12.4<br />
1.12.5<br />
1.12.6<br />
1.12.7<br />
Carel Van der<br />
Merwe (20)<br />
Carel Van der<br />
Merwe (20)<br />
Leon Lotter (40)<br />
E. Ley Kempthorne<br />
(49)<br />
Neville Van der<br />
Westhuizen (71)<br />
Hans Swart (27)<br />
The costs of establishing the effective and<br />
efficient access road to erf 848 or 921 are<br />
not addressed in the DEIR. Such costs<br />
should be exclusively for the developers as<br />
they will be the beneficiary of this access<br />
road, it would be unfair to impose any costs<br />
on the residents through increased rates as<br />
not all of us are in favour of this<br />
development.<br />
Costs for the facilities for buses to drop off<br />
tourists should similarly be exclusively for<br />
the developer.<br />
There is no opportunity for further<br />
development within the existing harbour due<br />
to its limited size. Should erf 848 be<br />
developed to accommodate a hotel and<br />
timeshare units, there will be no space to<br />
extend the harbour should the need arise.<br />
The possible negative impact for<br />
demand/market share of existing retail<br />
facilities in the study area has not been<br />
adequately addressed. Currently the area<br />
is very seasonal which limits the economic<br />
feasibility of too much retail. Whilst the<br />
developer has stated that the nature of his<br />
proposal are to mitigate this, it is not clear<br />
how a 60 room hotel and 27 apartments<br />
would create the estimated demand, even if<br />
100% occupancy is achieved, which is by<br />
the way debatable, and for which no<br />
indication of how this could be achieved has<br />
been provided.<br />
All along our coastline there are examples<br />
of damage to properties that encroach onto<br />
the Coastal Zone.<br />
Quality of life: Increasing numbers of nonresidents,<br />
as well as noise and disturbance<br />
due to high density accommodation<br />
CAM would be responsible for the<br />
construction of a formalized parking area with<br />
associated road and entry/exit points. The<br />
proponent would however contribute towards<br />
this infrastructure through a service<br />
agreement and agreed development levy and<br />
relevant tariffs that would apply solely to the<br />
proposed development.<br />
Please refer to point 1.12.2 of this comments<br />
and response report.<br />
Erf 848 is private land and does not form part<br />
of the harbour (in a legal context). Erf 848 is<br />
acknowledged to be within the harbour<br />
precinct and in the event that harbour<br />
expansion is required MCM would not be able<br />
to develop on Erf 848 as it is private land.<br />
Please refer to Section 2.4.6, Annexure P and<br />
Annexure U of the <strong>FEIR</strong>. This information has<br />
been produced upon request by I&APs during<br />
the public meeting conducted on the 31<br />
October 2009. Therefore, this information is<br />
new and was not originally included in the<br />
DEIR.<br />
Your concern is noted. Please refer to Section<br />
5.2.8 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Please refer to Section 1.7.99 of this<br />
Comment and Response Report.<br />
Cumulative<br />
impact<br />
Cumulative<br />
impact<br />
Cumulative<br />
impact<br />
Cumulative<br />
impact<br />
Cumulative<br />
impact<br />
Cumulative<br />
impact<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 107 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
1.12.8<br />
1.12.9<br />
1.12.10<br />
Hans Swart (27)<br />
Neville Van der<br />
Westhuizen (71)<br />
Gert Groenewald,<br />
Anna-Marie<br />
Groenewald,<br />
Juliana Van der<br />
Merwe, Anneke<br />
Groenewald, Gerda<br />
Groenewald (138,<br />
138, 183, 184, 185,<br />
186)<br />
Even if I was an irregular holidaymaker, I<br />
would still object to the proposed<br />
development for many more reasons than<br />
already mentioned by other parties to<br />
Aurecon, e.g. the impact on fishing activities<br />
and Struisbaai‟s continues functioning of a<br />
fishing harbour, preservation of the harbour<br />
area as a tourist attraction, the harbour‟s<br />
authentic character of and associated<br />
cultural historic importance, etc.<br />
The true facts are conveniently omitted: i.e.<br />
that the property is situated on the high<br />
water mark and will be prone to periodic<br />
flooding. With climate change causing more<br />
severe weather patterns, storm surges<br />
would become a major concern.<br />
Negative impact with regards to pollution,<br />
natural sand dune migration, water<br />
pollution. Existing developments on the<br />
coast are causing a lot of problems and will<br />
only get worse.<br />
With regard to impact on harbour activities<br />
Please refer to Section 1.6.21 of this<br />
comments and response report. With regard<br />
to tourist attraction and character of the areas<br />
please refer to Section 5.2.3, 5.2.6 and 5.2.7<br />
of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
The water and sea levels are critical and has<br />
not been omitted. It was considered so<br />
important that specialist comment was<br />
included in the reporting on these issues.<br />
Please refer to Section 5.2.8 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
With regard to impact on the natural<br />
environment, please refer to Section 5.2.7 of<br />
the <strong>FEIR</strong>. With regard to pollution, please<br />
refer to Section 5.2.1 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Cumulative<br />
impact<br />
Cumulative<br />
impact<br />
Cumulative<br />
impact<br />
1.13 Needs and desirability<br />
1.13.1<br />
1.13.2<br />
1.13.3<br />
1.13.4<br />
Marthinus Wiese<br />
(5)<br />
Carel Schaap (165)<br />
M.J Edwards (7)<br />
M.J Edwards (7)<br />
This area has no potential for more<br />
businesses.<br />
The DEIR does not adequately address the<br />
real economic impact assessment over the<br />
medium to long term. This development will<br />
stifle the harbour as a going concern for<br />
commercial fishing purposes. The impact of<br />
a dwindling fishing industry over the next<br />
couple of decades is concerning and not<br />
addressed at all.<br />
The proposed development would be an<br />
asset to Struisbaai<br />
The proposed development is protecting<br />
everybody‟s interest.<br />
Please refer to Section 5.2.3 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
The proponent cannot take responsibility for<br />
the status of the fishing industry. Please refer<br />
to Section 1.13.26 of this Comment and<br />
Response Report regarding assisting the<br />
fisherfolk for the longer term.<br />
Your point is noted. Please refer to Section<br />
2.8 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Your point is noted. Please refer to Section<br />
2.8 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Needs &<br />
Desirability<br />
Needs and<br />
desirability<br />
Needs &<br />
Desirability<br />
Needs &<br />
Desirability<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 108 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
1.13.5<br />
1.13.6<br />
1.13.7<br />
1.13.8<br />
1.13.9<br />
Mnr Edwards (8)<br />
Justine Sweet (97)<br />
Jan Rabie (10)<br />
Jacobus J.D.<br />
Havenga (12)<br />
Johan Van Zyl (15)<br />
The proposed development would be an<br />
asset to Struisbaai.<br />
The possible negative impact for<br />
demand/market share of existing retail<br />
facilities in the study area has not been<br />
adequately addressed, if at all. The area<br />
relies on a seasonal trade. For example,<br />
the well known Pelicans Restaurant closes<br />
down for a lengthy period in the winter<br />
months. Whilst the development proponent<br />
has apparently considered this in its design,<br />
this does not appear to be the case. This, it<br />
is submitted, goes directly to the heart of<br />
the proposed development's sustainability.<br />
Development in this area has already<br />
reached capacity, people who are residing<br />
in this area have various occupational<br />
backgrounds and have done their part in<br />
building and maintaining our country. They<br />
have earned some peace and quietness<br />
and don‟t want any more developments.<br />
This type of development is often not about<br />
the residents‟ needs, but depends on the<br />
availability of capital from<br />
developers/investors and the return on their<br />
investment.<br />
It is obvious that the proposed development<br />
is not required, questions have to be asked<br />
regarding the argument that the<br />
development is necessary.<br />
Your point is noted. Please refer to Section<br />
2.8 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Please refer to Section 5.2.3 and Annexure H:<br />
Economic Assessment regarding impact on<br />
markets and Annexures R, T & U of the <strong>FEIR</strong><br />
regarding sustainability. Please refer to<br />
Annexure O: Proponent‟s Vision which alludes<br />
to the proponents marketing campaign to<br />
attract people all year round.<br />
Economic Specialist comment:<br />
The potential financial viability of the<br />
development has been addressed in section 4<br />
of the economic specialist study to the extent<br />
deemed appropriate. It is pointed out that the<br />
financial viability of the overall development or<br />
of its components is by no means assured as<br />
there are risks in any business venture. The<br />
proponent is, however, well aware of these<br />
and they are not assessed to be<br />
unmanageable or so great that they could be<br />
used to justify the scaling back or rejection of<br />
the development.<br />
Your concern is noted. Please refer to Section<br />
5.2.3 of the <strong>FEIR</strong> with regard to development<br />
capacity.<br />
Your point is noted. It is in this view that<br />
alternative 6 (the applicants preferred<br />
alternative) has been added and assessed in<br />
terms of the the EIA process.<br />
Your point is noted. With regard to the need<br />
for the development please refer to Sections<br />
2.4.2, 2.4.3, 2.8, 7.4 and 7.5 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Needs &<br />
Desirability<br />
Need &<br />
desirability<br />
Needs &<br />
Desirability<br />
Needs &<br />
Desirability<br />
Needs &<br />
Desirability<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 109 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
1.13.10<br />
1.13.11<br />
1.13.12<br />
Hendrik Andreas<br />
Kotze (19)<br />
Carel Van der<br />
Merwe (20)<br />
A.S. Lourens &<br />
other 5 Struisbaai<br />
Property owners<br />
(23)<br />
The development of Langezandt<br />
Fisherman's Village faced similar<br />
objections, however the project turned to be<br />
a success that Langezandt was regarded as<br />
one of the Seven Wonders of the South<br />
according to an article in a local paper. I<br />
expect that the present development will<br />
have similar positive results<br />
If a referendum of ratepayers was held , it<br />
would give a clear indication by the owners<br />
of the town whether this development is<br />
really wanted or not and whether those who<br />
prefer more upmarket developments are in<br />
the majority<br />
Everyone is against the proposed<br />
development even the fishing community<br />
who have used the harbour for many years.<br />
You mentioned there are “those who<br />
prefer more upmarket developments”. Is<br />
this possibly the developer? In order to<br />
prove this claim (you are purposefully<br />
creating the impression that there are a<br />
lot more residents who approve the<br />
development), please provide feedback on<br />
how many correspondence you have<br />
received for and against the development.<br />
According to my knowledge, all the<br />
fishermen signed a petition against the<br />
development – do you agree with this or<br />
have you other information? Please also<br />
provide feedback on this with evidence.<br />
Your point is noted. Please refer to Section<br />
2.8 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
The quantum of I&APs opposed to a particular<br />
development is generally easy to account for,<br />
however in the case of I&APs that support the<br />
development, generally they do not register as<br />
an I&AP or voice their opinion on the matter<br />
as it is viewed as a benefit and thus do not<br />
require to support the initiative via formal<br />
means i.e. submission of a comments and<br />
response form or other media such as public<br />
meetings.<br />
Copies of all comments received are included<br />
in the EIA documentation for review by the<br />
authorities. All submissions are transparent to<br />
the public. The text did not only make<br />
reference to people in Struisbaai but those<br />
who may visit such a facility as well.<br />
Needs &<br />
Desirability<br />
Needs &<br />
Desirability<br />
Needs &<br />
Desirability<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 110 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
1.13.13<br />
1.13.14<br />
1.13.15<br />
1.13.16<br />
1.13.17<br />
1.13.18<br />
1.13.19<br />
1.13.20<br />
A.S. Lourens &<br />
other 5 Struisbaai<br />
Property owners<br />
(23)<br />
Marlene Ellis (29)<br />
Chris & Ria<br />
Reynolds (34)<br />
Gerry Pienaar (38)<br />
Meg Cowper Lewis<br />
(SEA) (48)<br />
Evan Meirion<br />
Williams (31)<br />
Evan Meirion<br />
Williams (31)<br />
Louis Pisani (96)<br />
Your claim that there‟s a need for a hotel is<br />
untrue. The facts are against you. Years<br />
back the Agulhas Hotel was converted to<br />
flats and recently the Struisbaai Hotel was<br />
demolished. How can you claim there is a<br />
need for a hotel?<br />
A four storeys building is not required.<br />
There is more than enough accommodation<br />
in Struisbaai and Struisbaai is not<br />
Mosselbaai, Stilbaai or the Strand<br />
At least two thirds of property owners within<br />
Struisbaai and L'Agulhas are not permanent<br />
residence and these individuals have<br />
invested a large amount of money to<br />
acquire property in a place of their choice<br />
A quaint and perfectly good harbour<br />
restaurant, and a fish handling facility with<br />
fish market for the benefit of visitors to the<br />
area and to the fisher folk, already exists,<br />
the proposed development is not required.<br />
The proposed development of a hotel in<br />
Struisbaai is not needed, there can be no<br />
reason for the development.<br />
I have great difficulty in the reason<br />
/rationale for this development<br />
This development is not really necessary<br />
and definitely not in the interest of<br />
all/majority permanent residents of<br />
Struisbaai (including Struisbaai Noord and<br />
any other settlements), the seasonal/holiday<br />
residents and the tourist trade per se.<br />
The developments that you are referring to<br />
were hotels, whereas the proposed<br />
development would be multi-functional with<br />
the hotel comprising a portion of the total<br />
development. The proposed development has<br />
purposefully been designed to cater for times<br />
when the hotel trade is low by means of retail,<br />
fractional title units and the option to cater for<br />
conferences and weddings in the hotel portion<br />
of the proposed development. Please refer to<br />
Annexure U of the <strong>FEIR</strong> which was added in<br />
response to the potential market being<br />
questioned.<br />
Your point is noted. With regard to the need<br />
for the development please refer to Sections<br />
2.4.2, 2.4.3, 2.8, 7.4 and 7.5 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
The proposed development is targeting a<br />
different market to what Struisbaai currently<br />
offers. Please refer to Annexure U of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Your concern is noted. Please refer to Section<br />
2.8 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Your point is noted. With regard to the need<br />
for the development please refer to Sections<br />
2.4.2, 2.4.3, 2.8, 7.4 and 7.5 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Your point is noted. With regard to the need<br />
for the development please refer to Sections<br />
2.4.2, 2.4.3, 2.8, 7.4 and 7.5 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Your point is noted. With regard to the need<br />
for the development please refer to Sections<br />
Needs &<br />
Desirability<br />
Needs &<br />
Desirability<br />
Needs &<br />
Desirability<br />
Needs &<br />
Desirability<br />
Needs &<br />
Desirability<br />
Needs &<br />
Desirability<br />
Needs &<br />
Desirability<br />
2.4.2, 2.4.3, 2.8, 7.4 and 7.5 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Your point is noted. With regard to the need<br />
for the development please refer to Sections<br />
2.4.2 Needs &<br />
Desirability<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 111 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
1.13.21<br />
1.13.22<br />
1.13.23<br />
1.13.24<br />
1.13.25<br />
1.13.26<br />
1.13.27<br />
Katherine C. Drake<br />
(144)<br />
Verlasety A. Meiring<br />
(136)<br />
Wayne D. Meiring<br />
(135)<br />
Mariana Swart (77)<br />
Carel Schaap (165)<br />
Carel Schaap (165)<br />
Carel Schaap (165)<br />
The propose development is not in the<br />
interest of permanent and seasonal<br />
residents of Struisbaai and Agulhas.<br />
The harbour area cannot be developed, it is<br />
a small working fishing harbour which is<br />
accessible to everyone.<br />
The proposed development is not in the<br />
best interests of Struisbaai residents<br />
The harbour area cannot be developed, as<br />
it is not in the best interests of the<br />
permanent residents nor the tourists<br />
This harbour, although is small, is of vital<br />
commercial importance to Struisbaai. It is<br />
the source of livelihood for other permanent<br />
residence and the only self-sustaining<br />
industry that can flourish here. Any<br />
development which may impact on viability<br />
and future expansion must be seen as very<br />
undesirable, and socially very irresponsible.<br />
The report does not mention the importance<br />
to the local community<br />
The purpose of the existing zoning of erf<br />
848 is the support of the harbour facilities,<br />
i.e. commercial fishing industry and marine<br />
support services. Deviation from this<br />
purpose will adversely affect these<br />
functions, i.e. may render the harbour<br />
useless.<br />
The DEIR does not state why Struisbaai<br />
needs this type of development exactly on<br />
Erf 848. There's plenty accommodation and<br />
we could do with a decent restaurant to<br />
uplift the Mall. It's nice to eat at the harbour,<br />
but not vitally important?<br />
Your point is noted. With regard to the need<br />
for the development please refer to Sections<br />
2.4.2, 2.4.3, 2.8, 7.4 and 7.5 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
The harbour will remain accessible to<br />
everyone.<br />
The proponent is the owner of erf 848 which is<br />
private land adjacent to the harbour. He is<br />
lawfully excercising his right to develop erf<br />
848.<br />
The proponent is the owner of erf 848 which is<br />
private land adjacent to the harbour. He is<br />
lawfully excercising his right to develop erf<br />
848.<br />
Please refer to Section 1.6.15 of this<br />
Comment and Response Report.<br />
Furthermore Erf 848 is private property.<br />
Please refer to Section 5.2.3 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Erf 848 is private property. Harbour functions<br />
are the responsibility of MCM. The proposed<br />
development will however be catering for<br />
some of the activities such as the supply of<br />
bait, ice and fishing tackle as well as a fish<br />
market. The proponent has indicated that<br />
they are willing to assist with negotiations<br />
between the fisherfolk and MCM to provide<br />
improved facilities.<br />
The proponent is the owner of Erf 848 and<br />
they are exercising their right to apply for<br />
development ofthe property.<br />
Needs &<br />
Desirability<br />
Access to<br />
Harbour<br />
Needs &<br />
Desirability<br />
Needs &<br />
Desirability<br />
Needs &<br />
Desirability<br />
Needs &<br />
Desirability<br />
Needs &<br />
Desirability<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 112 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
1.13.28<br />
A.F. & J.H. Tooke<br />
(67)<br />
Referring to the Needs and Desirability, it is<br />
inaccurate to state that there is a lack of<br />
adequate hotel accommodation though<br />
there are numerous bed and breakfast<br />
facilities in Struisbaai, the hotel did exist<br />
before and was later closed down. The<br />
spatial development framework plan<br />
commissioned by the Agulhas Municipality<br />
makes provision for a hotel only at the<br />
present site adjacent to the campsite.<br />
The Bed & Breakfasts are not catering for<br />
large bus groups as they are having to stay in<br />
other nearby towns as far as Swellendam.<br />
The proposed development is more diversified<br />
than the other hotels and is thus more<br />
sustainable.<br />
The financial sustainability inputs for<br />
Langezandt Quays indicate that the calculated<br />
risk that the proponent is willing to take is not<br />
misplaced. Financial sustainability cannot be<br />
guaranteed. However, the available evidence<br />
provides no reason to suspect financial failure<br />
and, as such, provides no clear basis to argue<br />
against the desirability of the development.<br />
Needs &<br />
Desirability<br />
1.13.29<br />
1.13.30<br />
1.13.31<br />
A.F. & J.H. Tooke<br />
(67)<br />
A.F. & J.H. Tooke<br />
(67)<br />
H du Plessis (68)<br />
The needs and desirability have not been<br />
argued convincingly, it seems that the only<br />
party in favour of this development is the<br />
developer himself. How can the needs and<br />
desirability result in medium to very low<br />
environmental impacts, the statement is<br />
misleading. Needs and desirability cannot<br />
counteract negative environmental impact.<br />
The proposed development is not needed<br />
nor desirable as it will significantly and<br />
negatively affect the character and sense of<br />
fisherman's village that is currently enjoyed<br />
by all residents and holidaymakers of<br />
Struisbaai.<br />
With the available information, I cannot<br />
follow how the development would be<br />
beneficial to the local fishing community<br />
(read as previously disadvantaged). The<br />
argument to support this seems like the<br />
developer is trying to rationalise the project<br />
to his personal benefit.<br />
Please refer to Annexure U of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Please refer to Section 2.8, 7.4 and 7.5 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Please refer to Section 1.6.15 of this<br />
Comment and Response Report as well as<br />
Sections 2.8, 5.2.5, 5.2.6, 7.4 and 7.5 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
The proposed development has been<br />
designed with the proposed benefits as set<br />
out in the Vision document (Annexure O) of<br />
the <strong>FEIR</strong>. Please refer to Section 1.13.26 of<br />
this Comment and Response Report and<br />
Section 5.2.3 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Needs &<br />
Desirability<br />
Needs &<br />
Desirability<br />
Needs &<br />
Desirability<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 113 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
1.13.32<br />
Johan Van Zyl (15)<br />
The small business centre of Struisbaai was<br />
developed as per the requirements of local<br />
councils. The proposed development would<br />
financially have a negative impact on these<br />
businesses. It is proposed that the local<br />
councils continue with the development of<br />
the business centre that everyone supports.<br />
Please refer to Section 5.2.3 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Need and<br />
desirability<br />
1.13.33<br />
Dawid & Christelle<br />
Kriel (70)<br />
With the available information, I cannot<br />
follow how the development would be<br />
beneficial to the local community.<br />
Please refer to point 1.13.31 of this comments<br />
and response report. Please refer to section<br />
7.4 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Needs &<br />
Desirability<br />
1.13.34<br />
1.13.35<br />
Johan Liebenberg,<br />
Dorel Van der<br />
Westhuizen, Kobus<br />
Viljoen, Abrie<br />
Bruwer, Chris Moll,<br />
Stuart Du Plessis,<br />
G. R. Youldon,<br />
Johan Venter (59,<br />
73, 69, 66, 65, 172,<br />
93, 78)<br />
Johan Liebenberg,<br />
Dorel Van der<br />
Westhuizen, Kobus<br />
Viljoen, Abrie<br />
Bruwer, Chris Moll,<br />
Stuart Du Plessis,<br />
G. R. Youldon,<br />
Johan Venter (59,<br />
73, 69, 66, 65, 172,<br />
93, 78)<br />
Furthermore a bus tourist has never stayed<br />
in a sea view room in this country as there<br />
is no Seal Island at Struisbaai, the weather<br />
is too deciduous, and the sea is too rough.<br />
Struisbaai is not like Hout Bay where the<br />
tourists come for the Seal Island rides and<br />
leave. Mariners Wharf or The Lookout Deck<br />
does not get one bus tripper as a customer.<br />
As a Struisbaai home owner, the proposed<br />
development would not be interest of the<br />
local resident and fishing community.<br />
Noted. Please refer to Annexure U of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong> regarding the marketing potential and<br />
please refer to Section 1.16.6 of this<br />
Comment and Response Report.<br />
The financial sustainability inputs for<br />
Langezandt Quays indicate that the calculated<br />
risk that the proponent is willing to take is not<br />
misplaced. Financial sustainability cannot be<br />
guaranteed. However, the available evidence<br />
provides no reason to suspect financial failure<br />
and, as such, provides no clear basis to argue<br />
against the desirability of the development.<br />
Your concern is noted. The development<br />
would however offer long and short term<br />
employment to both the local residents as well<br />
as the fisherfolk, which is needed.<br />
Need and<br />
Desirability<br />
Needs &<br />
Desirability<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 114 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
1.13.36<br />
81, 79, 95, 85, 84,<br />
90, 160, 162, 164,<br />
154, 155, 156, 157,<br />
158, 153, 150, 151,<br />
116, 102, 103, 101,<br />
99, 100, 98, 92, 94,<br />
163, 174, 175, 176,<br />
177, 178, 33, 179,<br />
180, 181, 182<br />
Most importantly, this development is not in<br />
the best interests of the permanent<br />
residents of Struisbaai or its seasonal<br />
residents and definitely not in the interests<br />
of the indigent fishermen earning their living<br />
from this harbour.<br />
It is clear from the responses that there are a<br />
large proportion of those who commented that<br />
they are opposed to the proposed<br />
development. Please refer to Annexure D<br />
and Volume 2 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Needs &<br />
Desirability<br />
1.14 Impact on safety and<br />
security<br />
1.14.1<br />
1.14.2<br />
1.14.3<br />
1.14.4<br />
1.14.5<br />
Johan Van Zyl (15)<br />
Eldalene Bruwer<br />
(16)<br />
Gerry Pienaar (38)<br />
Carel Schaap (165)<br />
Gerry Pienaar (38)<br />
Local residents can experience the<br />
unpleasant times during the holiday season<br />
when they prefer to stay away from certain<br />
areas of the beach during specific periods<br />
of time. The proposed development would<br />
worsen the problem of alcohol abuse,<br />
drunken youths, immorality and broken<br />
glass bottles over festive seasons. It is not<br />
our duty to protect moral values; however<br />
the comment has to be seen in the light that<br />
we have to protect our heritage.<br />
The proposed development would attract<br />
criminals and increase theft.<br />
Additional traffic on the water created by jetskis<br />
and canoes will interfere with the<br />
chukkies and fishing boats and will seriously<br />
compromise the safety of the harbour area.<br />
This harbour is of importance from maritime<br />
perspective as it is the only significant sea<br />
shelter between the harbours of Gansbaai<br />
and Stilbaai, along a notoriously<br />
treacherous coast - this aspect is not<br />
addressed in your report.<br />
The proposed development is a threat to<br />
Struisbaai property owners and I cannot see<br />
how it can be allowed to continue.<br />
Your concern is noted. Development and the<br />
potential concomitant crime is inevitable. The<br />
proponent cannot be held responsible for<br />
crime in the area. The security of the<br />
development may however be better than that<br />
of large homes that are left empty for most of<br />
the year as it would be occupied year round<br />
and the vehicles will be more secure in the<br />
basement if properly monitored. Security<br />
Guards are likely to be employed by the<br />
development which will add a degree of<br />
surveillance for the surrounding property.<br />
Please refer to Section 1.14.1 of this<br />
Comment and Response Report.<br />
Harbor control remains a function of MCM.<br />
Please refer to Sections 1.4.9 and 1.3.60 of<br />
this Comment and Response Report.<br />
Could you please explain the relevance of this<br />
to the proposed development which has no<br />
maritime component per se? Please refer to<br />
Section 1.6.15 of this Comment and<br />
Response Report.<br />
Your comment is noted. Please refer to<br />
Section 5.2.3 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Safety and<br />
Security<br />
Safety and<br />
Security<br />
Safety and<br />
Security<br />
Harbour<br />
Safety and<br />
Security<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 115 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
1.14.6<br />
1.14.7<br />
Meg Cowper Lewis<br />
(SEA) (48)<br />
Hans Swart (27)<br />
As we are aware, the huge gap between<br />
rich and poor in this country is one of the<br />
major contributors towards crime. It can<br />
therefore be expected that crime will<br />
escalate exponentially should the proposed<br />
development be approved.<br />
Quality of life: Higher density<br />
accommodation would be targeted by crime<br />
activities<br />
Please refer to Section 1.14.1 of this<br />
Comment and Response Report.<br />
Please refer to Section 1.14.1 of this<br />
Comment and Response Report.<br />
Safety and<br />
Security<br />
Safety and<br />
security<br />
1.15 Sustainability<br />
1.15.1<br />
1.15.2<br />
1.15.3<br />
1.15.4<br />
1.15.5<br />
Leonie De Luz (11)<br />
Jonine Mostert (25)<br />
Chris & Ria<br />
Reynolds (34)<br />
Chris & Ria<br />
Reynolds (34)<br />
Gaston C. Van Wyk<br />
(36)<br />
The proposed development will not make<br />
enough business<br />
Is this economic development and<br />
temporary job-creation worth the high risk of<br />
permanent social problems afterwards?<br />
Struisbaai would get the tourists at the<br />
detriment of the safety of the permanent<br />
residents as well as the tourists this<br />
development so desperately seek?<br />
Who will be responsible for the ecological<br />
and marine disturbances once everyone<br />
has made their profit?<br />
You and I both know that promises look<br />
good on paper, but will they be able to<br />
sustain it after 20-30 years?<br />
The location of proposed building is<br />
inappropriate, i.e. right next to the ocean.<br />
Please refer to Annexure R: Independent<br />
financial feasibility of the <strong>FEIR</strong> and Annexure<br />
U: Marketing Study, Annexure H: Economic<br />
Study as and Section 5.2.3 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Long term employment opportunities could<br />
also be provided. Please refer to Section<br />
5.2.3 of the <strong>FEIR</strong> and Annexure H: Economic<br />
Assessment. Regarding crime please refer to<br />
Section 1.14.1 of this Comment and<br />
Response Report.<br />
Please refer to Section 5.2.7 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>. No<br />
marine impacts are anticipated and limited<br />
ecological impacts due to the existing<br />
development on the site.<br />
Your concern is noted. It is thus important to<br />
ensure the proposed development is<br />
sustainable financially and environmentally.<br />
Please refer to Annexure T of the <strong>FEIR</strong> for a<br />
letter from the proponent as to what they<br />
commit to implementing. Secondly the<br />
proponent would have to comply with the<br />
mitigation measures legally stipulated in the<br />
<strong>Environmental</strong> Authorisation decision should<br />
the development be approved and built.<br />
The proximity of the proposed development to<br />
the ocean is viewed as insignificant as the<br />
proposed development is not envisaged to<br />
impact the ocean in any way, other than<br />
natural storm water runoff.<br />
Sustainability<br />
Sustainability<br />
Sustainability<br />
Sustainability<br />
Sustainability<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 116 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
There are opportunities for retail shops and<br />
employment which will boost the local<br />
economy. Please refer to Section 5.2.3 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>. Please refer to Annexure H: Economic<br />
Assessment.<br />
1.15.6<br />
Meg Cowper Lewis<br />
(SEA) (48)<br />
Page 8 states that the proposed<br />
development has the potential to contribute<br />
positively to the economy, we agree with<br />
that, however the benefits will be for the<br />
developer to make more profit; whilst the<br />
economy of the poor and the previously<br />
disadvantaged will only be negative.<br />
The financial sustainability inputs for<br />
Langezandt Quays indicate that the calculated<br />
risk that the proponent is willing to take is not<br />
misplaced. Financial sustainability cannot be<br />
guaranteed. However, the available evidence<br />
provides no reason to suspect financial failure<br />
and, as such, provides no clear basis to argue<br />
against the desirability of the development.<br />
Sustainability<br />
Please refer to Annexure U of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
1.15.7<br />
1.15.8<br />
Stephen Gerber<br />
(63)<br />
Frances Pienaar<br />
(58)<br />
The proposed development will be of<br />
marginal benefit to the people of Struisbaai<br />
and will only benefit the few associated with<br />
developer.<br />
There is no mention of the financial stability<br />
of the developer. What will happen to this<br />
development if the developer does not sell<br />
all the units or can not get an operator to<br />
run the hotel? Will we be left with an<br />
unsightly white elephant on this sensitive<br />
site?<br />
Applicants response: The “poor” will be<br />
given jobs and benfit from the Cumminity<br />
Trust.<br />
Please refer to Section 1.1.100 of this<br />
Comment and Response Report.<br />
It is important that the proposed development<br />
is financially and economically sustainable.<br />
Upon request at the public meeting held on<br />
the 31 October 2009 a independent feasibility<br />
assessment was undertaken by Turner &<br />
Townsend. Please refer to Annexure R &<br />
Annexure U of the <strong>FEIR</strong> regarding feasibility.<br />
The financial sustainability inputs for<br />
Langezandt Quays indicate that the calculated<br />
risk that the proponent is willing to take is not<br />
misplaced. Financial sustainability cannot be<br />
guaranteed. However, the available evidence<br />
provides no reason to suspect financial failure<br />
and, as such, provides no clear basis to argue<br />
against the desirability of the development.<br />
Sustainability<br />
Sustainability<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 117 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
1.15.9<br />
1.15.10<br />
1.15.11<br />
1.15.12<br />
Dirk de Jongh (Jnr)<br />
(168)<br />
Dirk de Jongh (Jnr)<br />
(168)<br />
Mr. and Mrs.<br />
Hendrik/ Helen<br />
Conradie (108)<br />
Lois Albertyn (109)<br />
The proposed development would not<br />
uphold the economic wellbeing of the town.<br />
Many more opportunities are open to<br />
developers in Struisbaai and development<br />
of the harbour is not the only one. There<br />
are many guest houses, B&B‟s, restaurants<br />
and other attractions that are developed<br />
and added on a constant basis that all<br />
contributes to the economic wellbeing of<br />
Struisbaai. We do not need a commercial<br />
town in Struisbaai<br />
I am in favour of the future development,<br />
this however needs to happen in a<br />
controlled manner that is conducive to the<br />
town‟s character and wellbeing. It should<br />
not be to the financial benefit of the<br />
developer and his contractors alone.<br />
Even worse is the fact that it includes a new<br />
experimental hotel despite previous failures.<br />
All that remains of Struisbaai‟s hotel/motel is<br />
the unsightly demolished site that has been<br />
available for development for some time.<br />
Even the hotel at Aghulas was not<br />
successful and had to be redeveloped into<br />
sectional title units.<br />
What impact will the location of the<br />
development have on insurance? If there's<br />
no insurance, would the developer make<br />
sure that future owners have sufficient<br />
capital for repairs, for example in the event<br />
a natural disaster occur?<br />
The financial sustainability inputs for<br />
Langezandt Quays indicate that the calculated<br />
risk that the proponent is willing to take is not<br />
misplaced. Financial sustainability cannot be<br />
guaranteed. However, the available evidence<br />
provides no reason to suspect financial failure<br />
and, as such, provides no clear basis to argue<br />
against the desirability of the development.<br />
Please refer to Annexure U of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Your concern is noted. Please refer to<br />
Section 5.2.3 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
The proposed development comprises of<br />
three distinct functions, namely Retail,<br />
Fractional title Units and a Hotel. The<br />
feasibility of the hotel portion has been<br />
confirmed by a Marketing Assessment (refer<br />
to Annexure U of the <strong>FEIR</strong>).<br />
The financial sustainability inputs for<br />
Langezandt Quays indicate that the calculated<br />
risk that the proponent is willing to take is not<br />
misplaced. Financial sustainability cannot be<br />
guaranteed. However, the available evidence<br />
provides no reason to suspect financial failure<br />
and, as such, provides no clear basis to argue<br />
against the desirability of the development.<br />
It is envisaged that the proposed development<br />
would be insured for natural disasters as the<br />
owners would wish to protect their investment.<br />
Please refer to Section 5.2.8 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Sustainability<br />
Sustainability<br />
Sustainability<br />
Sustainability<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 118 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
1.15.13<br />
Dirk Kleinschmidt<br />
(114)<br />
To me there are definite conflicting aspects<br />
in the project. How do you reconcile the<br />
stench of fish that hangs over the harbour<br />
after a good catch or when fish are loaded<br />
off boats and cleaned with a luxury five star<br />
hotel on the same property? I have been<br />
through it! Have the developer ever<br />
experienced this?<br />
This has been assessed in Section 5.2.8 of<br />
the <strong>FEIR</strong>. The proposed development would<br />
range between a three – four star<br />
establishment.<br />
Sustainability<br />
1.16 Impact on tourism<br />
1.16.1<br />
Valerie Wiese (6)<br />
We do not require more shops<br />
The findings of the retail assessment indicate<br />
that a retail component of 1,500m² GLA as<br />
proposed for Langezandt Quays should be<br />
able to achieve financial sustainability and<br />
that some needs are undercatered for or not<br />
catered for at all.<br />
Tourism<br />
1.16.2<br />
1.16.3<br />
1.16.4<br />
1.16.5<br />
Dirk Kleinschmidt<br />
(114)<br />
Leonie De Luz (11)<br />
Chris & Ria<br />
Reynolds (34)<br />
David McKinstry<br />
(21)<br />
It‟s a given that water activities in the<br />
harbour will increase with a luxury hotel that<br />
are fully booked (hopefully) and flats that<br />
are all occupied. Vacationers will have toy<br />
boats, jetski‟s, canoes, etc. I have<br />
personally experienced the irritation<br />
subsistence fishers have with vacationers<br />
and small children who try to fish.<br />
Struisbaai is only busy in December.<br />
My honest opinions are that funds should<br />
rather be invested in the conservation of<br />
Struisbaai‟s current state, upgrade existing<br />
businesses and make use of<br />
advertisements to attract tourists.<br />
There is a suggestion that fish may be<br />
collected from the boats. Many commercial<br />
fishermen now operate from ski boats. They<br />
offload on the wharf. That activity is part of<br />
the visitor attraction of the harbour.<br />
Please refer to Annexure U of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Please refer to Sections 1.4.9 and 1.3.60 of<br />
this Comment and Response Report.<br />
Please refer to Annexure H of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.The<br />
proponent argues that vocational ownership<br />
and marketing is expected to increase the<br />
occupancy all year round.<br />
The proponent plans on increasing marketing<br />
to attract tourists.<br />
Collecting the fish would not affect this activity<br />
and provision has furthermore been made for<br />
the delivery of fish to the fish market for retail.<br />
Please refer to Section 2.4.8 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Tourism<br />
Tourism<br />
Tourism<br />
Tourism<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 119 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
Please refer to Section 1.7.103 of this<br />
Comment and Response Report.<br />
1.16.6<br />
1.16.7<br />
1.16.8<br />
Stephen Knobel<br />
(137)<br />
Stephen Knobel<br />
(137)<br />
Hannes and Erica<br />
Pienaar (163)<br />
The proposed development is driven by<br />
growth in tourism. The bus load tourists the<br />
developer is referring to are unlikely to use<br />
a 3 or 4 star accommodation as it would be<br />
too expensive.<br />
Traditional fishing activities are also a<br />
tourist attraction that is best viewed at a<br />
distance, so that irregular hours kept by<br />
subsistence fishermen do not disrupt them.<br />
Struisbaai fishing harbour is one of the main<br />
attractions of Struisbaai and by destroying it<br />
with another development for the financial<br />
benefit of a developer will have serious<br />
negative effects on tourist attraction of<br />
Strusbaai.<br />
A market sustainability assessment was<br />
undertaken (Annexure U of the <strong>FEIR</strong>) to<br />
ascertain the long terms sustainability. The<br />
proposed development was assessed on all<br />
three components and an independent<br />
economic assessment was undertaken to<br />
ensure objectivity. The proposed development<br />
was assessed to be sustainable on all three<br />
components (retail, hotel & fractional<br />
ownership).<br />
Economic Specialist comment:<br />
The development seems to have enough of<br />
the key elements for the likelihood of success<br />
to be relatively high. However, financial<br />
viability is by no means guaranteed. Tour<br />
operators leading bus groups of overseas<br />
tourists most often want to stay in one place<br />
of an acceptably high standard which is why<br />
the hotel should be appealing to them in<br />
addition to its picturesque and interesting<br />
setting.<br />
Your point is noted. Certain design<br />
imperatives would need to be implemented to<br />
ensure adequate reduction of external noise<br />
to occupants of the proposed development as<br />
outlined in Section 5.2.8 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Your concern is noted. Please refer to<br />
Sections 5.2.5 and 5.2.6 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Tourism<br />
Tourism<br />
Tourism<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 120 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
1.16.9<br />
1.16.10<br />
1.16.11<br />
Mr. and Mrs.<br />
Hendrik/ Helen<br />
Conradie (108)<br />
Frederick Janse van<br />
Rensburg (169)<br />
H du Plessis (68)<br />
With regards to the claim that the new hotel<br />
and associated plans will contribute to<br />
tourism by making provision for the<br />
shortage of housing and dining facilities.<br />
Due to this supposedly shortage, Struisbaai<br />
have numerous guesthouses and good<br />
restaurants that provides sufficient<br />
amenities. These buildings were all<br />
constructed within the building regulations.<br />
The result is a fast growing tourism industry,<br />
incidentally as a result of its traditional<br />
harbour facilities and the delight of watching<br />
the arrival, off-load and weighing of the<br />
days catch.<br />
There is more than enough<br />
accommodation.<br />
Currently the harbour is very popular as a<br />
swimming place for families and children.<br />
Your point is noted. Please refer to Section<br />
5.2.3 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Please refer to Section 1.13.9 of this<br />
Comment and Response Report.<br />
Your point is noted. The proposed<br />
development would not impact the harbour<br />
functioning or beaches in any way or form<br />
thus the status quo would remain.<br />
Tourism<br />
Tourism<br />
Tourism<br />
2 Construction phase<br />
impacts<br />
2.1.1<br />
2.1.2<br />
2.1.3<br />
Michelle Vermeulen<br />
(1)<br />
Petrus Jurgens<br />
Visser (4)<br />
Hendrik Andreas<br />
Kotze (19)<br />
I'm concerned about rape and theft due to<br />
the proposed development<br />
Job creation will only be for a short period of<br />
time.<br />
Some topics of impacts on DEIR are either<br />
irrelevant or of little influence on Struisbaai<br />
and the harbour on the longer run. For<br />
example, the impact during the construction<br />
phase represents inconveniences of such<br />
temporary and logical consequence that<br />
anyone who has experience of construction<br />
should accept this as part of the process.<br />
The developer's track record on Langezandt<br />
Quays with regards to shifting sand, fighting<br />
sandstorms, rehabilitation sand during and<br />
after construction is so exemplary; there<br />
should be little cause of concern.<br />
Please refer to Section 1.14.1 of this<br />
Comment and Response Report.<br />
Please refer to Section 5.3.2 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Your point is noted. The EIA process however<br />
dictates that certain issues need to be<br />
addressed. The Draft EMP for example is<br />
required as a key document for both the<br />
construction and operation phase.<br />
Social<br />
Social<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 121 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
Please refer to Section 5.2.3 and 5.3.2 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong> for employment opportunities and<br />
Annexure H: Economic Assessment Report<br />
for employment figures.<br />
2.1.4<br />
2.1.5<br />
2.1.6<br />
2.1.7<br />
Jonine Mostert (25)<br />
Anneke Kloppers<br />
(26)<br />
Julian G Williams<br />
(47)<br />
Lois Albertyn (109)<br />
The second concern is with regard to job<br />
creation aspect. More workers will be<br />
brought into the area to help with the<br />
construction, and what will happen to them<br />
after they're done with construction. There<br />
are no other jobs in Struisbaai. Their<br />
unemployment would lead to social<br />
problems with the biggest one in South<br />
Africa obviously being crime.<br />
How many of the local youth will get jobs<br />
from the proposed development?<br />
Added employment opportunities are<br />
claimed but outside elements who will be<br />
attracted by the proposed development<br />
would pose a serious security risk to all<br />
existing residents of Struisbaai.<br />
The natural coastline will be subject to<br />
building rubble, sewage and construction<br />
teams moving into the area. What<br />
measures will be in place to address this?<br />
Applicants response: The contract would be<br />
awarded to a credible and capable company<br />
at the time of construction and it is premature<br />
at this stage to define which company would<br />
be the successful contractor. We however<br />
commit to employ local people as far as<br />
possible.<br />
Economic Specialist comment:<br />
The possibility for not using local labour is<br />
certainly there, but I don‟t think anyone can<br />
really confidently say what the likelihood is of<br />
this happening. Mitigation measured aimed at<br />
maximizing benefits for locals have been<br />
outlined in section 6.5 of the economic<br />
specialist study. In order to be certain of the<br />
use of local labour to the optimal degree, clear<br />
provisions should be drawn up and included in<br />
the conditions of approval and management<br />
plan for the project. Bear in mind that it is not<br />
reasonable to force the proponent to use local<br />
labour under all circumstances. If, for<br />
example, a certain local labourer does not<br />
provide a good service and/or demands<br />
unreasonably high wages, his/her status as a<br />
local should not offer unfair protection from<br />
the normal consequences of actions.<br />
Please refer to Section 5.2.3 and Annexure H:<br />
Economic and Social assessments of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Please refer to section 2.1.4 of this comments<br />
and response report. Please refer to<br />
Annexure T for the pronents commitments<br />
with respect to employment.<br />
Please refer to Annexure Q: <strong>Environmental</strong><br />
Management Plan of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Social<br />
Social<br />
Social<br />
Construction<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 122 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
2.1.8<br />
Justine Sweet (97)<br />
The draft EIR alleges that the proposed<br />
development would create employment<br />
during the construction phase totaling 259<br />
person years of employment over that<br />
period. Furthermore, the local area would<br />
allegedly contribute 60% towards the<br />
construction personnel [p.150 of dEIR]. Our<br />
clients dispute the accuracy of these<br />
allegations particularly given the apparent<br />
level of mistrust among the local community<br />
towards the applicant [Aurecon draft: public<br />
meeting detailed notes 31 October 2009<br />
paragraph 2.1-2.5]. This is based upon the<br />
community's prior experience with the<br />
applicant during the construction of the<br />
Langezandt Fishermen's Village where the<br />
applicant allegedly promised jobs to the<br />
local community which never materialised<br />
[we have raised this point since most of the<br />
local community do not have the economic<br />
resources to employ a representative to<br />
submit comments on their behalf. Our<br />
clients therefore submit that a greater level<br />
of public participation should have been<br />
undertaken to ensure that the local<br />
community's concerns were adequately<br />
dealt with and addressed.].<br />
The public participation process has been<br />
extensive throughout the EIA to date. Please<br />
refer to Chapter 3 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Applicants response: Langezandt<br />
Fishermens Village used a local builder (local<br />
is defined as Elim, Bredasdorp, Napier). The<br />
contract was terminated as a result of that<br />
builder not being adaptable to the market<br />
recession, which began in October 2008. The<br />
main contractor was approached to negotiate<br />
more competitive costs, speciafically a 5%<br />
reduction in cost. The main contractor i.e.<br />
locally based builder refused to compromise<br />
and therefore in light of the economic<br />
challenges another main contractor was<br />
appointed to undertake and coordinate the<br />
sub-consultants, all of whom remained in<br />
place.The local community was not<br />
disadvantaged during public consultation as<br />
the majority of public meetings took place at<br />
the community library to account for easier<br />
access. The comment made is therefore<br />
misleading when accused of not utilizing local<br />
labour.<br />
Please refer to Annexure T for the proponents<br />
commitments with respect to employment.<br />
Social<br />
3 Process<br />
3.1.1<br />
3.1.2<br />
Jacobus J.D.<br />
Havenga (12)<br />
Jacobus J.D.<br />
Havenga (12)<br />
I would appreciate if you could send me the<br />
CD of the DEIR and other project related<br />
information.<br />
Out of curiosity, when was Aurecon<br />
established?<br />
A CD containing the suite of information that<br />
was uploaded on to the Aurecon website was<br />
posted to you on 4 November 2009.<br />
Aurecon was established in a merger between<br />
Ninham Shand, Africon and Connell Wagner<br />
on the 1 March 2009.<br />
Information<br />
Information<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 123 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
3.1.3<br />
3.1.4<br />
3.1.5<br />
3.1.6<br />
David McKinstry<br />
(21)<br />
MP Loubser (45)<br />
David McKinstry<br />
(21)<br />
Johan Venter (78)<br />
Please provide us with the email addresses<br />
of Interested and Affected Parties for the<br />
project.<br />
The only probable indirect problem I foresee<br />
is related to the location of public ablution<br />
facilities What do you plan to do with the<br />
public ablution facilities at the parking area?<br />
Will it be moved?<br />
The developer has promised to preserve<br />
the rights and access of the fishermen to<br />
the harbour however the designated area<br />
for fish offloading or bait sales is not<br />
reflected in the latest plans. The<br />
representative of Stauch Vorster when<br />
questioned at the meeting at Struisbaai<br />
library on Saturday 24 October admitted<br />
that this was not in his brief.<br />
Find attached the following two documents<br />
for your information: (1) Completed<br />
response sheet with comments on the Draft<br />
<strong>Environmental</strong> Impact Assessment Report<br />
and (2) Memo from Abrie Bruwer, dated 3<br />
November 2009.Please acknowledge<br />
reception of this e-mail.<br />
Owing to the privacy attached to particulars of<br />
registered I&APs an electronic list containing<br />
those I&APs that provided assent to this<br />
requestwas emailed to you on the 6<br />
November 2009. I&AP contact information is<br />
provided in hardcopy in Annexure C of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
The ablution facilities would need to be<br />
relocated to a more amenable location. A<br />
provisional site was chosen on Erf 921<br />
opposite Erf 572, however it may be suitable<br />
to consider locating the facility next to the<br />
MCM building within the harbour. The<br />
proposed development would also include<br />
public ablution facilities.<br />
Stauch Vorster: The detailed Ground Floor<br />
design was not in the original brief but as a<br />
result of all the meetings a layout of the<br />
ground floor has been drawn up and is<br />
included in the <strong>FEIR</strong>. See ground floor plan in<br />
section 2.4.8 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Please refer to Section 1.13.26 of this<br />
Comment and Response Report.<br />
We have acknowledged receipt of these two<br />
documents.<br />
Information<br />
Information<br />
Information<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 124 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
3.1.7<br />
3.1.8<br />
Justine Sweet (97)<br />
Brian Knobel (142)<br />
We submit that as presently proposed this<br />
application should be dismissed. In<br />
summary, it is the view of our clients that<br />
DEADP has insufficient reliable information<br />
before him or her to enable an informed<br />
decision. The development proponent has<br />
failed to demonstrate the feasibility of the<br />
proposed development which it must do in<br />
order for the application to succeed. In<br />
addition, the proposed development is<br />
misaligned with the SDF, which is a guiding<br />
document that must be complied with<br />
unless there is a good motivation for<br />
departing from it. Sustainability of the<br />
proposed development has not been<br />
illustrated and the socio-economic impacts<br />
of the proposed development have not been<br />
properly assessed (particularly given the<br />
public rights attaching to the property).<br />
Finally, our clients also have concerns<br />
about the adequacy of the EIA and the<br />
public participation process which are set<br />
out in this document.<br />
In the last meeting at Struisbaai North<br />
Library, I proposed that the developer erect<br />
poles of 16m on the outer extremities of the<br />
development so that everyone can see the<br />
real size of the development and thus avoid<br />
the smoke and mirrors effect that is being<br />
portrayed at present.<br />
We respectfully disagree with this submission.<br />
The process triggered by the activity was a<br />
Basic Assessment. On the advice of the EAP<br />
after initial public consultation the application<br />
was elevated voluntarily to an EIA and was<br />
accepted by the competent authority<br />
(DEA&DP). Numerous specialist inputs,<br />
extensive public participation (as evidenced<br />
by the voluminous comments) and detailed<br />
assessment has been undertaken. There is<br />
sufficient information upon which the<br />
competent authority can base an informed<br />
decision. The choice of the authority however<br />
regarding whether to authorize this application<br />
based on the clear and fully described<br />
planning issues should not be pre-empted.<br />
The 2006 CAM SDF made reference to a<br />
height limitation of two storeys, however the<br />
2009 CAM SDF makes no reference to height<br />
limitations per se. Height is subject to the<br />
applicable zoning scheme regulations and<br />
development is promoted within the urban<br />
edge.<br />
Please refer to Annexure P & R of the <strong>FEIR</strong><br />
regarding feasibility. Please refer to Section<br />
1.4 of the <strong>FEIR</strong> regarding the SDF<br />
implications. Please refer to Table 6.2 and<br />
Annexures P, R & U of the <strong>FEIR</strong> regarding<br />
sustainability. Please refer to Sections 5.2.3,<br />
5.2.4, 5.2.5 & 5.2.6 as well as Annexure H:<br />
Social and Economic specialist study, of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong> regarding the socio-economic study.<br />
Please refer to Chapter 3 of the <strong>FEIR</strong><br />
regarding the public participation process.<br />
Suggestion noted.. This suggestion has been<br />
communicated to the proponent for<br />
consideration.<br />
Process<br />
Process<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 125 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
3.1.9<br />
3.1.10<br />
3.1.11<br />
3.1.12<br />
3.1.13<br />
Rhona de Groot<br />
(161)<br />
Bobby de Groot<br />
(143)<br />
Stephen Knobel<br />
(137)<br />
Johan Liebenberg,<br />
Dorel Van der<br />
Westhuizen, Kobus<br />
Viljoen, Abrie<br />
Bruwer, Chris Moll,<br />
Stuart Du Plessis,<br />
G. R. Youldon,<br />
Johan Venter (59,<br />
73, 69, 66, 65, 172,<br />
93, 78)<br />
Johan Liebenberg,<br />
Dorel Van der<br />
Westhuizen, Kobus<br />
Viljoen, Abrie<br />
Bruwer, Chris Moll,<br />
Stuart Du Plessis,<br />
G. R. Youldon,<br />
Johan Venter (59,<br />
73, 69, 66, 65, 172,<br />
93, 78)<br />
I strongly recommended the developers to<br />
erect a clearly marked pole to indicate the<br />
exact height of the proposed development<br />
of Langezandt Quays so that we may give<br />
consent to building<br />
We will not give our approval before a<br />
marked pole indicating the maximum height<br />
of the proposed construction is erected in<br />
front of Pelican‟s Restaurant.<br />
A 16m tower/structure must be erected on<br />
site as was done at Langezandt for us get<br />
the realistic reflection of the intended height<br />
and for the developer to win potential<br />
customers or buyers.<br />
I suggest that a pole or construction of 16m<br />
in height be erected before the coming<br />
December holiday so that IAP‟s can get the<br />
real picture. I would also like you to refrain<br />
from using vastly inaccurate information in<br />
the final report. I would suggest that<br />
warnings of this nature (my letter of 8<br />
January 2009 to Mr Foord) be taken<br />
seriously and investigated, as this is fraud,<br />
and such a serious accusation.<br />
The architect‟s images do not reflect the<br />
real visual impact, this has also been noted<br />
by other members of the public. They are<br />
attempting to pass off a four storey, 16m<br />
building, as having only half a storey more<br />
impact than a normal house. The actual<br />
size of the building should be two telephone<br />
poles high. Such inaccuracy in measuring<br />
the height of the building is misleading and<br />
unacceptable<br />
See 3.1.8 of this comments and response<br />
report.<br />
See 3.1.8 of this comments and response<br />
report.<br />
See 3.1.8 of this comments and response<br />
report. Please refer to Section 3.1.16 of this<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
This suggestion was brought to the attention<br />
of the proponent.<br />
Stauch Vorster: This was investigated and it<br />
was confirmed that in the superimposed<br />
images the building are not grossly<br />
downplayed.<br />
Might not be 100% accurate due the difficulty<br />
of the exercise _camera elevation ,camera<br />
angles and target elevation of the real photo<br />
can differ from that of the model.<br />
Stauch Vorster: The lamppost you are<br />
referring to is in fact 9.2m above ngl and<br />
therefore the scale of the proposed<br />
development his accurately depicted<br />
(assuming a reasonable degree of standard<br />
deviation).<br />
These images were furthermore accepted by<br />
the visual impact assessor before being<br />
utilised in the visual impact assessment.<br />
Please refer to Sections 5.2.5 and 5.2.6 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Information<br />
Process<br />
Process<br />
Visual<br />
Visual<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 126 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
3.1.14<br />
3.1.15<br />
3.1.16<br />
3.1.17<br />
3.1.18<br />
Abrie Bruwer (66)<br />
Louis Nell (74)<br />
Justine Sweet (97)<br />
Abrie Bruwer (66)<br />
Karin I Van Niekerk<br />
(87)<br />
I attended an Open Day in December 2008<br />
and I was shocked to see the graphics that<br />
were misleading presented to the public.<br />
These graphic mock-ups, computer<br />
graphics were out of scale and were<br />
purposely shrunk to create the perception<br />
that these multi storey building are in fact<br />
fitting to the neighbourhood. This<br />
constitutes a fraud and I will prove this in<br />
court should it go so far<br />
The picture depicting alternative 6 on page<br />
3 of the draft report does not represent the<br />
true height of the building in the<br />
background. It appears as if the building is<br />
of the same height as the light or telephone<br />
poles on the right of the picture whereas it<br />
should be at least twice the height of the<br />
poles. The picture should show in the<br />
boldest print that " this is an artist's<br />
representation and is not depicted to scale"<br />
At this juncture, it is important to note that,<br />
notwithstanding such concerns having been<br />
repeatedly raised, there still exist grave<br />
concerns about the veracity of the super<br />
imposed illustrations of the proposed<br />
development on the photographs included<br />
in the draft EIR. For example, the height of<br />
the proposed development is grossly played<br />
down in the photographs.<br />
Pictures of true scale of the proposed<br />
building must be presented to the public to<br />
enable them to make an informed decision.<br />
The draft EIA Report mislead the I&AP as it<br />
uses distorted images for the building not to<br />
look as so high.<br />
Please refer to Section 3.1.24 of this<br />
Comment and Response Report.<br />
Please refere to section 3.1.12 and 3.1.13 of<br />
this comments and response report. Please<br />
refer to Section 5.2.5 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Please refer to section 3.1.12 and 3.1.13 of<br />
this comments and response report. Every<br />
effort has been made to ensure accuracy is<br />
portrayed on all visual images utilised<br />
throughout the EIA process. This issue was<br />
raised at the Public Meeting on the 31<br />
October 2009. Please refer to Section 5.2.5 of<br />
the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Please refer to Sections 3.1.12, 3.1.13,<br />
3.1.25, 3.1.26 and 3.1.27 of this Comment<br />
and Response Report.<br />
Disagree, the images that were used by<br />
Stauch Vorster were scaled appropriately.<br />
This has been confirmed in section 2.5 and<br />
5.2.5 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>. These images were also<br />
used by the visual impact assessor during the<br />
visual impact assessment (Annexure G of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>).<br />
Visual<br />
Visual<br />
Visual<br />
Visual<br />
Visual<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 127 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
3.1.19<br />
3.1.20<br />
3.1.21<br />
3.1.22<br />
3.1.23<br />
Brian Knobel (142)<br />
Jacobus J.R. Du<br />
Plessis (141)<br />
Jeanette Bruwer<br />
(75)<br />
Hans Swart (27)<br />
Jacobus J.D.<br />
Havenga (12)<br />
All the graphics of the proposed<br />
development are not to scale. If one<br />
compares the height depicted in relationship<br />
to the 7.6 meter lamppost it is clear that the<br />
development is being portrayed as a lot<br />
smaller and lower that it will ultimately be.<br />
Incorrect representations have been made<br />
on purpose, i.e. building heights, benefits to<br />
fishing community, etc<br />
I demand that all names of complainants<br />
received between 10 December 2007 and<br />
10 February 2008 be made public and proof<br />
supplied that they are on I&AP list and that<br />
they have received correspondence from<br />
Aurecon.<br />
During the public meeting on 31 October<br />
2009 in Struisbaai, Aurecon was asked<br />
about the extent of objections that have<br />
already been made and how these are<br />
managed. The Draft EIR (Volume 1&2) do<br />
not contain information w.r.t. the number<br />
and range of objections made thus far and<br />
the value attributed to them. It might be of<br />
benefit to Aurecon‟s credibility should a<br />
summary of all the objections are distributed<br />
among I&APs.<br />
Did the provincial government receive all<br />
individual complaints via an appendix?<br />
Please refer to Section 3.1.16 of this <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Disagree. Please refer to Sections 1.13.26<br />
and 3.1.16 of this Comment and Response<br />
Report regarding heights.<br />
All correspondence for each phase of the<br />
project is summarized in a Comment and<br />
Response Report for that phase and the<br />
original comments are collated and attached<br />
to the report. The reports have been available<br />
to the public at each phase of the public<br />
participation process. This methodology<br />
applies for all phases. Please refer to<br />
Annexure D of Volume 1 of the DEIR<br />
comments received during the period 18<br />
December 2008 to February 2009.<br />
Comments received during the period 9<br />
October 2009 – 17 November 2009 are<br />
attached in Annexure D of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Public participation processes within the<br />
environmental legislation are aimed at<br />
ensuring that issues and concerns are voiced<br />
by the interested and/or affected parties. As<br />
such, it is not a support poll for particular<br />
options or developments and frequently those<br />
in favour of a proposal will not even<br />
participate as they have few issues to raise.<br />
ALL public correspondence for each phase of<br />
the project is summarized in a Comment and<br />
Response Report for that phase and the<br />
original comments are collated and attached<br />
to the report for all to peruse. These<br />
comments form a critical part of what was<br />
investigated in the EIA. It is therefore blatantly<br />
incorrect to state that Aurecon has not<br />
provided or valued the “objections” of the<br />
I&APs. .<br />
Yes they do receive all individual complaints<br />
in the EIA documentation.<br />
Process<br />
Process<br />
Information<br />
Information<br />
Process<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 128 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
3.1.24<br />
3.1.25<br />
3.1.26<br />
Jacobus J.D.<br />
Havenga (12)<br />
Jacobus J.D.<br />
Havenga (12)<br />
Justine Sweet (97)<br />
Why is the Public meeting scheduled on a<br />
date when most homeowners/ property<br />
owners are not there? Why not hold it<br />
between 16 and 31 December when 80% of<br />
us are there? It is much better to talk about<br />
this verbally than go on and on about it on<br />
paper.<br />
A lot of effort has been made to ensure that<br />
the project information is available on four<br />
public libraries and also on Aurecon<br />
website, however consider the fact that<br />
many of the Struisbaai owners do not live<br />
near these areas and most of them are not<br />
aware of Aurecon website or do not have<br />
access to the internet. If my neighbours<br />
who live in Grabouw had never informed me<br />
about the project, I would never have known<br />
about it.<br />
Approximately 60% of the homeowners in<br />
Struisbaai are holidaymakers who do not<br />
live in Struisbaai all year round but who are<br />
interested and affected parties. This<br />
notwithstanding, the EAP has conducted<br />
some public participation meetings outside<br />
of season, more particularly the last<br />
meeting which took place on 31 October<br />
2009. In addition, the draft EIR was<br />
published for comment between October<br />
and November a period during which it is<br />
unlikely to come to the attention of the nonpermanent<br />
residents;<br />
The EIA process to date has spanned 32<br />
months and all the information for the draft<br />
EIR phase produced was made available for<br />
public comment between 09/10/2009 –<br />
17/11/2009. The EIA regulations do not<br />
stipulate that public meetings are required for<br />
the review period of the DEIR, however to<br />
ensure I&APs had a platform for engagement<br />
the public meetings between 30/31 October<br />
2009 were deemed suitable in line with the<br />
project programme. Please refer to Chapter<br />
3 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
I&APs in this situation can request a CD from<br />
Aurecon. The cost to produce a report of this<br />
size is several thousand Rands and thus is<br />
not viewed as a feasible option.<br />
It is unfortunate that you were not notified.<br />
The process used local newspaper adverts for<br />
the notification of the DEIR, letters, email, sms<br />
as well as word of mouth to ensure that<br />
interested parties become informed of the<br />
process. It may have been that you were not<br />
registered or your post, email or SMS<br />
(depending on your preferred means of<br />
communication) was not delivered to you. In<br />
the future you will be notified by all three<br />
media, should you have provided the<br />
necessary information.<br />
It is not a requirement in terms of the EIA<br />
Regulations to undertake a public meeting<br />
during the draft EIR review. Furthermore,<br />
I&APs are well informed on the proposed<br />
development as the EIA process is at a<br />
advanced stage. In addition an Executive<br />
Summary was posted to I&APs as well as all<br />
the relevant documents being available off the<br />
Aurecon website. Please refer to Section<br />
3.1.24 of this Comment and Response<br />
Report. No party/person was prejudiced by<br />
when the meeting was held. Registered<br />
I&APs were informed accordingly.<br />
Process<br />
Process<br />
Process<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 129 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
3.1.27<br />
3.1.28<br />
3.1.29<br />
3.1.30<br />
3.1.31<br />
3.1.32<br />
Stephen Knobel<br />
(137)<br />
A.S. Lourens &<br />
other 5 Struisbaai<br />
Property owners<br />
(23)<br />
Emmerentia<br />
Hesseling (on<br />
behalf of 4 tax<br />
payers) (41)<br />
Frances Pienaar<br />
(58)<br />
Louis Pisani (96)<br />
Henri R. Du Plessis<br />
(140)<br />
The public participation process was not<br />
adequate and appropriate opportunity for<br />
public participation was not provided as it<br />
has been stated on NEMA. Meetings were<br />
held when the vast majority of property<br />
owners and holiday makers could not attend<br />
the meetings. These meetings should be<br />
rescheduled to coincide with the peak<br />
holiday season i.e. December, the proposed<br />
date for such meeting is 30 December<br />
2009.<br />
More than 75% of Struisbaai‟s tax payers<br />
do not live there on a permanent basis.<br />
Hosting an “Open House” on 30 and 31<br />
October 2009 cannot be seen as public<br />
participation, in fact it is the exact opposite.<br />
According to the Land Use Ordinance No<br />
15 of 1985, the Province has a policy<br />
against placing notices over the December<br />
holiday. Taking this into account, your aim<br />
should be to have the Open House when<br />
people would be here, in other words,<br />
during the December holiday.<br />
Furthermore, the dates that were chosen for<br />
the Open House/ Public meeting were not<br />
practical for most homeowners. It would<br />
have been better to have dates during the<br />
holiday season in order to have more<br />
people involved.<br />
Information meetings are held at obscure<br />
times when 80% of the holiday makers and<br />
people affected by the development are not<br />
in the area.<br />
If the developer wants the general public to<br />
participate in the process, why were the<br />
public meetings conducted outside the<br />
holiday season, all owners of stands who<br />
are not living in Struisbaai contribute to the<br />
rates and taxes of Struisbaai.<br />
Public meetings were not held during the<br />
public holiday seasons<br />
Please refer to Section 3.1.24 of this<br />
Comment and Response Report This is<br />
incorrect as the following meetings were held<br />
to date.<br />
Open House:<br />
1. 27/09/2007<br />
2. 18/12/2007<br />
3. 21/01/2008<br />
4. 22/01/2008<br />
5. 18/12/2008<br />
6. 30/10/2009<br />
Public Meeting:<br />
1. 31/10/2009<br />
Please refer to Sections 3.1.25, 3.1.26 and<br />
3.1.27 of this Comment and Response<br />
Report.<br />
The comment below is seprate from the<br />
EIA process followed todate.<br />
Applicants response: Struisbaai Ratepayers<br />
meeting, which called for attendance in order<br />
to discuss the harbor drew a response of<br />
50/60 people in December 2009.<br />
Please refer to Sections 3.1.25, 3.1.26 and<br />
3.1.27 of this Comment and Response<br />
Report.<br />
Please refer to Sections 3.1.25, 3.1.26 and<br />
3.1.27 of this Comment and Response<br />
Report.<br />
Please refer to Sections 3.1.25, 3.1.26 and<br />
3.1.27 of this Comment and Response<br />
Report.<br />
Please refer to Sections 3.1.25, 3.1.26 and<br />
3.1.27 of this Comment and Response<br />
Report.<br />
Process<br />
Process<br />
Process<br />
Process<br />
Process<br />
Process<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 130 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
3.1.33<br />
3.1.34<br />
3.1.35<br />
3.1.36<br />
3.1.37<br />
Gerry Pienaar (38)<br />
Gerry Pienaar (38)<br />
John Butler (104)<br />
Brian Knobel (142)<br />
H du Plessis (68),<br />
Dawid & Christelle<br />
Kriel (70)<br />
If the proposed developer intends to be<br />
transparent in terms of engaging with<br />
Interested and Affected Parties, why are the<br />
public meetings and Open House<br />
discussions held at the end of October<br />
when there obviously less people that in the<br />
peak season in December?<br />
One can conclude that hosting the public<br />
meetings in October is an attempt to<br />
marginalise the bulk of ratepayers who have<br />
been the main contributors to the income<br />
base of the council. All property owners<br />
and residents in Struisbaai and L'Agulhas<br />
area must have the right to express their<br />
opinion on this matter, this country for too<br />
long has been dogged by decisions that<br />
suite a few and marginalise the majority.<br />
The Public Meetings were held out of<br />
season thus denying many seasonal visitors<br />
that are property owners an opportunity to<br />
comment or make submissions<br />
Public meetings should be in December so<br />
that more property owners or tourists can<br />
be present.<br />
Besides the fact that we didn‟t receive any<br />
notification of the meeting that was held on<br />
31 October, we wouldn‟t have been able to<br />
attend due to the very inconvenient time it<br />
was scheduled for. It would make more<br />
sense to have meetings when most<br />
interested homeowners would be available,<br />
i.e. during December / January.<br />
Please refer to Sections 3.1.25, 3.1.26 and<br />
3.1.27 of this Comment and Response<br />
Report.<br />
Please refer to Sections 3.1.25, 3.1.26 and<br />
3.1.27 of this Comment and Response<br />
Report.<br />
Please refer to Sections 3.1.25, 3.1.26 and<br />
3.1.27 of this Comment and Response<br />
Report.<br />
Please refer to Sections 3.1.25, 3.1.26 and<br />
3.1.27 of this Comment and Response<br />
Report.<br />
Please refer to Sections 3.1.25, 3.1.26 and<br />
3.1.27 of this Comment and Response<br />
Report.<br />
Process<br />
Process<br />
Process<br />
Process<br />
Process<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 131 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
3.1.38<br />
81, 79, 95, 85, 84,<br />
90, 160, 162, 164,<br />
154, 155, 156, 157,<br />
158, 153, 150, 151,<br />
116, 102, 103, 101,<br />
99, 100, 98, 92, 94,<br />
163, 174, 175, 176,<br />
177, 178, 33, 179,<br />
180, 181, 182<br />
The public meetings were deliberately held<br />
out of the holiday season when most of the<br />
rate paying landowners could not attend.<br />
Disagree. Please refer to Sections 3.1.25,<br />
3.1.26 and 3.1.27 of this Comment and<br />
Response Report.<br />
Process<br />
3.1.39<br />
3.1.40<br />
3.1.41<br />
3.1.42<br />
3.1.43<br />
Johan Van Zyl (15)<br />
Johan Van Zyl (15)<br />
Anton Louw (17)<br />
David McKinstry<br />
(21)<br />
David McKinstry<br />
(21)<br />
We would like to thank you for the<br />
opportunity provided to us to make our<br />
contribution to the process. It attests to a<br />
responsible attitude and is much<br />
appreciated.<br />
Please contact us for correct method of<br />
submitting comments, should the use of e-<br />
mails be inappropriate.<br />
The draft EIA Report does not provide<br />
sufficient information to truly consider the<br />
effect of the proposed design on erf 848,<br />
the surroundings and on Struisbaai as a<br />
whole.<br />
Why do you publish the names and postal<br />
addresses of the Interested and affected<br />
parties?<br />
E-mails are just another method of<br />
communicating and are far cheaper, we<br />
may wish to use it for our concerns about<br />
the proposed development. Or is it that<br />
Aurecon not interested in facilitating<br />
communication for all parties?<br />
Your comment is appreciated.<br />
Aurecon will accept comments via email,<br />
letter, fax or verbal. It is however important to<br />
note that it is best practice to submit<br />
comments in writing (hardcopy or electronic)<br />
as this will be included in the documentation<br />
to the decision-making authority.<br />
Strongly disagree. Refer to Section 2.5 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
It is a requirement of the DEA&DP Public<br />
Participation Guidelines to compile and<br />
maintain an I&AP register which should be<br />
included in the documentation.<br />
As a matter of standard practice Aurecon<br />
does not publish email addresses of<br />
registered I&APs without obtaining permission<br />
first. Aurecon believes that it is in the interests<br />
of registered I&APs privacy.<br />
Process<br />
Process<br />
Process<br />
Process<br />
Process<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 132 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
3.1.44<br />
3.1.45<br />
3.1.46<br />
3.1.47<br />
3.1.48<br />
3.1.49<br />
A.S. Lourens &<br />
other 5 Struisbaai<br />
Property owners<br />
(23)<br />
Dirk de Jongh (Jnr)<br />
(168)<br />
A.S. Lourens &<br />
other 5 Struisbaai<br />
Property owners<br />
(23)<br />
Jonine Mostert (25)<br />
Hans Swart (27)<br />
Chris & Ria<br />
Reynolds (34)<br />
Legally your final report has to include all<br />
objections received. Then we will see if you<br />
are legally compliant and if all our detailed<br />
objections are attached.<br />
The EIA suggest that there is support by<br />
I&APs who are they and how do they<br />
benefit financially?<br />
Another misrepresentation you make that<br />
clearly shows your prejudice towards the<br />
developer which is “owing to the public<br />
interest and concern relating to the<br />
alternatives presented during the scoping<br />
phase, the proponent proposed another<br />
alternative, a multi-level…alternative 6”.<br />
Again, send me the letters or emails from<br />
people supporting the multi-level<br />
development. I am an active member of the<br />
Struisbaai Homeowner Association who‟s<br />
every member are against the multi-level<br />
development.<br />
I do not know if my comments are fair or<br />
even useful but I'm honest and thank you<br />
for inviting me for my opinion on this<br />
matter.<br />
My property is located approximately 150<br />
meters away from the proposed<br />
development. It is evident in the Draft<br />
<strong>Environmental</strong> Impact Assessment Report<br />
that the compilers of the report have a<br />
positive inclination towards the proposed<br />
development. The objectivity of the<br />
compilers/consultants is questionable.<br />
Additional comments will be submitted via<br />
email.<br />
You are making a big mistake if you think<br />
the proposed development would have no<br />
impact or a medium impact as you have<br />
suggested.<br />
All comments received are included in the<br />
submission(s) made to the decision-making<br />
authority. All documentation to date has<br />
included all original comments and this will be<br />
maintained throughout the process. As<br />
professional EAPs we strive to ensure that all<br />
relevant information and comments received<br />
are provided to the decision-making authority<br />
for due consideration.<br />
Please refer to this Comment and Response<br />
Report to see who is in favour of the<br />
development.<br />
Aurecon is not prejudice towards any<br />
particular outcome for this EIA process, we<br />
are appointed only to undertake the legal<br />
process and submit information for decisionmaking.<br />
. The additional alternative<br />
(Alternative 6) was the proponent‟s response<br />
to the extremely negative reactions which<br />
emanated from the initial round of<br />
engagement especially relating to the 4 and 6<br />
storey solid buildings options. I&APs<br />
comments in support and in opposition to the<br />
proposed development are contained in the<br />
various EIA Comment and Response Reports.<br />
All comments are welcomed during the EIA<br />
process.<br />
The <strong>Environmental</strong> Assessment Practitioner<br />
has maintained independence and all<br />
conclusions are based on specialist findings<br />
and information available at the time of<br />
compilation.<br />
Please refer to the <strong>FEIR</strong> for detailed<br />
assessment.<br />
Process<br />
Process<br />
Process<br />
Process<br />
Process<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 133 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
3.1.50<br />
3.1.51<br />
3.1.52<br />
3.1.53<br />
Hennie Mostert (37)<br />
E. Ley Kempthorne<br />
(49)<br />
E. Ley Kempthorne<br />
(49)<br />
Meg Cowper Lewis<br />
(SEA) (48)<br />
There are too many "Shoulds" on the<br />
essential mitigation measures which leave<br />
the door wide open for second quality<br />
workmanship and finishes.<br />
The process is flawed as no viable<br />
alternatives for the site have been put<br />
forward. The EIA Regulations state that all<br />
alternatives need to be investigated with<br />
equal weight, this has not been undertaken<br />
and the option to build on the site within the<br />
existing regulations has not been<br />
investigated. Why this has not been<br />
investigated?<br />
Given the R8 million the developer paid for<br />
the land makes the likelihood of the No go<br />
option being undertaken very unlikely. The<br />
implications of this are that if the current<br />
proposal is not developed and then another<br />
option would then be investigated, namely a<br />
development within the building regulations,<br />
and again why this option has not been<br />
investigated as part of this EIA process?<br />
At the very first public meeting the “no-go”<br />
option was insignificantly marked status<br />
quo, and was not listed as a specific Option.<br />
To say that the new Option 6 combines a<br />
previous option with the “No-go” option is<br />
unbelievable. It is impossible to combine a<br />
“no-go” option with some other<br />
development. What part of “No-go” does<br />
the developer not understand? “No-go”<br />
means “No-go”, i.e. Retain the status quo!<br />
The <strong>Environmental</strong> Assessment Practitioner<br />
does not have the authority to enforce<br />
mitigation on the proponent or the competent<br />
authority. Based on the information provided<br />
the competent authority will make a decision<br />
and enforce the required mitigation to be<br />
implemented.<br />
With reference to section 2.4 of the <strong>FEIR</strong> it is<br />
clear that all the alternatives were equally<br />
assessed. Furthermore, Alternative 6 is<br />
compared with the No Go Alternative in<br />
section 5.2.9 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
The <strong>Environmental</strong> Assessment Practitioner<br />
has advised the proponent that a two storey<br />
development should be considered. The<br />
proponent however maintains that a two<br />
storey building is not financially feasible and<br />
that they therefore do not wish to apply for<br />
that option even if it means that no<br />
development can occur on the site should a<br />
negative decision be issued. Please refer to<br />
Annexure P and Annexure R of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Your point is noted. The no-go option<br />
remains a no-go/status quo alternative<br />
(Alternative 5)<br />
Process<br />
Process<br />
Process<br />
Process<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 134 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
3.1.54<br />
3.1.55<br />
3.1.56<br />
3.1.57<br />
3.1.58<br />
Meg Cowper Lewis<br />
(SEA) (48)<br />
Meg Cowper Lewis<br />
(SEA) (48)<br />
Frances Pienaar<br />
(58)<br />
Frances Pienaar<br />
(58)<br />
Frances Pienaar<br />
(58)<br />
Page 3 of the Executive Summary<br />
(Proposed design), it is stated that a<br />
basement parking area would be below<br />
ground level. Surely cognisance has been<br />
taken of the fact that seawater was<br />
encountered only a couple of metres down<br />
when a basement parking area was<br />
investigated for the proposed development<br />
on the old hotel site in Struisbaai. The<br />
proposed building on Erf 848 already stands<br />
below the high-water mark – and the<br />
developers are planning a basement<br />
parking area below ground level! How<br />
perfectly ridiculous is that?!<br />
Page 8, it is only unbelievable for the EAP<br />
to suggest that the proposed development<br />
is considered to be acceptable from an<br />
environmental perspective<br />
The architect‟s impressions are misleading<br />
and one can not form an opinion on these<br />
superimposed photos.<br />
The draft <strong>Environmental</strong> Impact study sent<br />
out had no mention of how many people<br />
participated positively or negatively to your<br />
first survey.<br />
The draft sent out was to give an<br />
assessment of the most significant factors<br />
of the impact of the development in colour<br />
yet a black and white document was sent<br />
for comment.<br />
Please refer to Section 5.2.1, 5.2.8 and<br />
Annexures L & I of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
The specialist assessments undertaken to<br />
date have assess the environmental impacts<br />
to be within acceptable parameters and thus<br />
conclusions have been based on these<br />
assessments.<br />
Please see 3.1.12 and 3.1.13 of the<br />
comments and response report. Please refer<br />
to Section 5.2.5 and Annexure O of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
The architects impressions (which have been<br />
reviewed by the visual specialist) have been<br />
included to attempt to provide I&APs with a<br />
sense of design and scale. All reasonable<br />
efforts have been taken to ensure as accurate<br />
representation as possible.<br />
Public participation processes within the<br />
environmental legislation are aimed at<br />
ensuring that issues and concerns are voiced<br />
by the interested and/or affected parties. As<br />
such, it is not a support poll for particular<br />
options or developments and frequently those<br />
in favour of a proposal will not even<br />
participate as they have few issues to raise.<br />
Owing to the quantum of registered I&APs a<br />
colour copy was not deemed necessary since<br />
the actual impact was written out in the text.<br />
The colour is only a indicatory mechanism. All<br />
documents are available in colour on the<br />
website and in the libraries.<br />
Process<br />
Process<br />
Process<br />
Process<br />
Process<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 135 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
3.1.59<br />
3.1.60<br />
3.1.61<br />
3.1.62<br />
3.1.63<br />
David McKinstry<br />
(21)<br />
Henri R. Du Plessis<br />
(140)<br />
Marie-Lou Roux<br />
(159)<br />
Grant McKinstry<br />
(80)<br />
Justine Sweet (97)<br />
My impression is that the EIA Consultants<br />
have attempted to “mitigate away” most of<br />
my and other objectors detailed opposition<br />
to the scheme, and I am not giving up and<br />
will detail further objection to the<br />
conclusions of your deeply flawed and I<br />
think that the conclusions that were drawn<br />
on Draft <strong>Environmental</strong> Impact Report are<br />
biased.<br />
Distorted images were used to propose a 4<br />
storey building<br />
The architect‟s images of the proposed<br />
development (deliberately?) do not reflect<br />
the true visual impact. This kind of<br />
manipulation of facts is reprehensible and<br />
morally questionable, and adds to the<br />
concerns about the application.<br />
Pictures that show the proposed<br />
development do not accurately depict the<br />
true visual impact of this development. They<br />
have been skillfully manipulated to lessen<br />
the impact to the viewer.<br />
Not all required information has been<br />
placed before the interested and affected<br />
parties in time, if at all. In this regard, we<br />
note that: until at least 18 December 2008<br />
the development proponent failed to place<br />
any building plans before interested and<br />
affected parties and that the plans which<br />
were belatedly provided are inadequate to<br />
enable a proper assessment to be made of<br />
all of the consequences associated with the<br />
development proponent's proposed<br />
development [we reiterate the concerns<br />
raised regarding the photographs upon<br />
which the proposed development has been<br />
superimposed above];<br />
The mitigation proposed is aimed to reduce<br />
the potential impact that was assessed as it<br />
required in EIA metholodology. Aurecon is<br />
committed to processing the information in an<br />
independent fashion.<br />
Please refer to Section 3.1.15 of this<br />
Comment and Response Report.<br />
Please refer to Section 3.1.15 of this<br />
Comment and Response Report.<br />
Please refer to Section 3.1.15 of this<br />
Comment and Response Report.<br />
The necessary material was made available in<br />
the draft EIR for I&APs to make an informed<br />
comment on the draft EIR. Please refer to<br />
Section 3.1.15 of this Comment and<br />
Response Report regarding the photographs.<br />
See section 3.1.12 and 3.1.13 of the<br />
comments and response report.<br />
Process<br />
Process<br />
Process<br />
Process<br />
Process<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 136 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
3.1.64<br />
81, 79, 95, 85, 84,<br />
90, 160, 162, 164,<br />
154, 155, 156, 157,<br />
158, 153, 150, 151,<br />
116, 102, 103, 101,<br />
99, 100, 98, 92, 94,<br />
163, 174, 175, 176,<br />
177, 178, 33, 179,<br />
180, 181, 182<br />
The draft report uses distorted images in<br />
which the proposed 4 storey building is<br />
made to appear just higher than a 2 storey.<br />
Please refer to Section 3.1.12, 3.1.13 and<br />
3.1.15 of this Comment and Response<br />
Report.<br />
Process<br />
3.1.65<br />
3.1.66<br />
3.1.67<br />
3.1.68<br />
David McKinstry<br />
(21)<br />
David McKinstry<br />
(21)<br />
Evan Meirion<br />
Williams (31)<br />
Neville Van der<br />
Westhuizen (71)<br />
The precedents cited of other buildings in<br />
the area are misleading. Firstly those that<br />
have circumvented the two storey limit by<br />
fraudulent or other means including<br />
planning authority incompetence can never<br />
constitute a new set of regulations.<br />
The examples given are largely irrelevant<br />
because they are either on sloping ground<br />
so that at least one side is only two stories<br />
above ground level, or they are situated<br />
against a mountain, or they do not<br />
substantially interfere with neighbour‟ views.<br />
The developer is clutching at straws in<br />
regard to precedent.<br />
I have a major problem with the way the EIA<br />
was presented to a carefully orchestrated<br />
group of 22 affected parties. This underlined<br />
the partiality of the presentation and the<br />
lack of independence of the Aurecon group<br />
The Draft EIA Report is flawed, it is biased<br />
and is in favour of the developer's proposal.<br />
Your point is noted. The other examples<br />
merely point out what has been deemed<br />
acceptable by the public and how it compares<br />
to the proposed design.<br />
Please refer to Section 1.7.145 of this<br />
Comment and Response Report.<br />
All registered I&APs were invited to attend the<br />
October public meetings. A public meeting is<br />
not mandatory for the draft EIR phase and<br />
thus is viewed as a step in the EIA process to<br />
provide registered I&APs with an opportunity<br />
to engage with the EAP. All documents are<br />
available for the public to scrutinize in detail<br />
as required.<br />
Strongly disagree. Please refer to Section 1.8<br />
of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Process<br />
Process<br />
Process<br />
Process<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 137 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
3.1.69<br />
3.1.70<br />
3.1.71<br />
3.1.72<br />
3.1.73<br />
3.1.74<br />
3.1.75<br />
Neville Van der<br />
Westhuizen (71)<br />
Dirk de Jongh on<br />
behalf of Struisbaai<br />
Home Owners<br />
Assosciation (72)<br />
Louis Nell (74)<br />
Ken A. Hodge (111)<br />
Ken A. Hodge (111)<br />
Glynn D. Shield &<br />
Lynne M. Shield<br />
(113 & 112)<br />
Karin I Van Niekerk<br />
(87)<br />
The "no-go" option which maintains the<br />
status quo is the preferred option supported<br />
by the vast majority of the local and<br />
surrounding town residents as well as many<br />
visitors to Struisbaai. This should, in a<br />
democratic process be taken into account in<br />
accessing the impact of this development.<br />
Page 12 of the Executive Summary<br />
indicates that the public have until 11<br />
November 2009 to submit written comments<br />
on the Draft EIR. However on page 1,it<br />
indicated that comments can be submitted<br />
until 17 November 2009. We trust that<br />
comments submitted after 11 November will<br />
qualify for the permitted comment period<br />
It is known that buildings such as these<br />
proposed are usually spoiling the skyline<br />
with other features such as satellite dishes,<br />
TV antennae, air conditioning units, store<br />
tanks and the like. To be fair to the reader,<br />
such features should be shown or a plan in<br />
mitigation should be presented.<br />
As a member of the registered owners of erf<br />
378 I hereby request to be registered as an<br />
Interested and Affected party, contact<br />
details are provided on the completed<br />
registration sheet.<br />
I have recently been forwarded a copy of<br />
the DEIR dated 9 October 2009, I cannot be<br />
certain that I will not have any other<br />
concerns<br />
Please acknowledge the receipt of this<br />
objection<br />
The Public Meetings were held when most<br />
I&APs could not attend i.e. out of season<br />
The no-go option is considered as a feasible<br />
alternative throughout the <strong>FEIR</strong>. While the EIA<br />
process is designed to ensure that impact<br />
assessment and public comment is provided<br />
to the authorities the decision is vested with<br />
them and can be appealed – this is the<br />
democratic process. Please refer to Section<br />
2.4 and 7.3 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
The date for final submission should read 17<br />
November 2009 and comments were<br />
accepted throughout this period. Apologies for<br />
this typographical error or any confusion<br />
caused.<br />
Thank you for this valuable suggestion. A<br />
mitigation measure regarding the roofscape<br />
has been added. The proposed development<br />
is currently in the concept phase; however the<br />
environmental authorisation decision would<br />
limit the proposed development to a certain<br />
height. Therefore, peripherals would need to<br />
be within the height limit that has been set by<br />
the competent authority. Please refer to<br />
Annexure O of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
You have been registered.<br />
Your point is noted and you will be afforded<br />
an opportunity to review the final EIR before<br />
submission is made to the decision making<br />
authority.<br />
You have been sent notification.<br />
Please refer to Section 3.1.25 of this<br />
Comment and Response Report.<br />
Process<br />
Process<br />
Process<br />
Process<br />
Process<br />
Process<br />
Process<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 138 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
3.1.76<br />
Louis Pisani (96)<br />
If there is an effort, which I was made to<br />
believe, to superimpose the building to<br />
create the impression that it will in effect<br />
appear almost the same as for that of a 2<br />
storey building – I object strongest and will<br />
almost state that I question the<br />
professionalism of the person/grouping<br />
leading the public participation process<br />
All reasonable steps have been taken by the<br />
project architect to accurately reflect the scale<br />
and height of the proposed development in<br />
relation to the surrounding area and were<br />
furthermore utilized by the visual impact<br />
assessor..<br />
Stauch Vorster: Building superimposed as<br />
close to reality as possible, no effort was ever<br />
made to make the building appear smaller.<br />
Might not be 100% accurate due the difficulty<br />
of the exercise _camera elevation ,camera<br />
angles and target elevation of the real photo<br />
can differ from that of the model.but the<br />
variations are minimal as certain things in the<br />
model need to be in scale with certain things<br />
on the photograph.<br />
Process<br />
3.1.77<br />
3.1.78<br />
3.1.79<br />
3.1.80<br />
3.1.81<br />
Gawie Bruwer (76)<br />
Dirk de Jongh (Jnr)<br />
(168)<br />
Henri R. Du Plessis<br />
(140)<br />
Marie-Lou Roux<br />
(159)<br />
Marie-Lou Roux<br />
(159)<br />
The legal entity responsible for the upkeep<br />
of not only the building, but also parking and<br />
maintenance of the area after completion, is<br />
not indicated. A shelve company shifting<br />
responsibility after selling the development<br />
cannot be held responsible once dissolved<br />
The EIA does not deal with the issues<br />
comprehensively and sufficiently; I‟ll<br />
address my viewpoints accordingly<br />
I have protested before but I never received<br />
any response.<br />
The DEIR is seriously misleading and<br />
biased in many respects.<br />
The DEIR does not reflect the extent of the<br />
opposition to the impact that the proposed<br />
development will have on the harbour. It is<br />
not mentioned in the DEIR that over a<br />
thousand complaints were submitted<br />
against the negative impact this proposal<br />
will have on the harbour.<br />
See section 3.1.12 and 3.1.13 of the<br />
comments and response report.<br />
Applicants response: The body corporate<br />
would be established to perform this function.<br />
The pristine nature of Langezandt Fishermens<br />
Village should provide an indication of how<br />
the proposed development would be<br />
managed.<br />
Your opinion is noted however the EAP<br />
disagrees.<br />
Notification has been sent, using the provided<br />
contact details.<br />
Disagree ever effort has been made to<br />
provide all relevant information an specialist<br />
inputs for informed-decision making. Please<br />
refer to Section 1.8 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
All comments have been included in the EIA<br />
reports and summarized in the Comment and<br />
Response Reports. We have however revised<br />
section 3.4 – 3.8 of the <strong>FEIR</strong> to ensure that<br />
the reader is made aware of the nature and<br />
quantity of the comments.<br />
Process<br />
Process<br />
Process<br />
Process<br />
Process<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 139 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
3.1.82<br />
3.1.83<br />
3.1.84<br />
3.1.85<br />
Stephen Knobel<br />
(137)<br />
Abrie Bruwer (66)<br />
D.G. & J.L. Falck<br />
(64)<br />
D.G. & J.L. Falck<br />
(64)<br />
The whole EIA is based on assumptions<br />
and predictions and cannot be verified or<br />
guaranteed. Allegations of broken promises<br />
by the client were made.<br />
The developer claims that the two storey<br />
building restriction is not enforced and<br />
backs this with pictures of 3 storey buildings<br />
that have sunken garages with two stories<br />
on top and are not three stories above<br />
ground.<br />
The EIA states that the proposed<br />
development will increase the length of the<br />
holiday season and I fail to see the logic<br />
behind this. South Africans are very<br />
sensitive to the weather, especially when it<br />
comes to seaside resorts. Cape Town is a<br />
prime example of this, where occupancy<br />
levels in winter is far lower than in summer<br />
months.<br />
It is also not true to state that Struisbaai<br />
does not have any facilities for tour busses<br />
and without the proposed development of<br />
Erf 848 the town will not have such facilities.<br />
This was an oversight in the reasoning of a<br />
developer.<br />
The EIA is based on specialist input as well as<br />
comments received for I&APs. Every<br />
reasonable measure has been taken to<br />
ensure reasonable confidence in the findings<br />
accuracy as well as sufficient information for<br />
the competent authority to make an informed<br />
decision. Assumptions and gaps in<br />
information are declared in Section ** as<br />
legally required.<br />
This was the case in accordance with the<br />
2006 SDF which has now been superceded<br />
by the 2009 CAM SDF which no longer makes<br />
provision for a two storey limitation. Section<br />
2.7 of <strong>FEIR</strong> states that the proponent plans to<br />
apply for the appropriate zonation and rights<br />
to meet the requirements of the proposed<br />
development.<br />
Economic Specialist: The financial<br />
sustainability inputs for Langezandt Quays<br />
indicate that the calculated risk that the<br />
proponent is willing to take is not misplaced.<br />
Financial sustainability cannot be guaranteed.<br />
However, the available evidence provides no<br />
reason to suspect financial failure and, as<br />
such, provides no clear basis to argue against<br />
the desirability of the development.<br />
Please refer to Annexure U of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Economic Specialist: The financial<br />
sustainability inputs for Langezandt Quays<br />
indicate that the calculated risk that the<br />
proponent is willing to take is not misplaced.<br />
Financial sustainability cannot be guaranteed.<br />
However, the available evidence provides no<br />
reason to suspect financial failure and, as<br />
such, provides no clear basis to argue against<br />
the desirability of the development.<br />
Process<br />
Process<br />
Process<br />
Process<br />
Please refer to Annexure U of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 140 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
3.1.86<br />
3.1.87<br />
3.1.88<br />
3.1.89<br />
3.1.90<br />
D.G. & J.L. Falck<br />
(64)<br />
Jeanette Bruwer<br />
(75)<br />
Jeanette Bruwer<br />
(75)<br />
Jeanette Bruwer<br />
(75)<br />
Jeanette Bruwer<br />
(75)<br />
The developer states that development will<br />
result in better fish prices for the fisherman.<br />
My logic is telling me that should a more up<br />
market shop be used, a higher rental will be<br />
payable, resulting in a higher cost structure<br />
and higher prices to the buyer. It will not<br />
result in higher income to the fisherman – it<br />
could rather result in a loss of income as<br />
potentially fewer buyers will be interested in<br />
buying fish at higher prices. The statement<br />
that fisherfolk will benefit from the new<br />
development in terms of prices for their<br />
produce is therefore highly unlikely.<br />
The interested and affected parties who<br />
passed their comments about the proposed<br />
either fax or post between 10 December<br />
2007 and 10 February 2008 have been<br />
disregarded. They never received any<br />
correspondence from Aurecon and were<br />
subsequently not notified of the public<br />
meeting and not able to lodge their<br />
opposition to this project.<br />
The public comment period from 9 October<br />
to 17 November 2009 should be extended<br />
to mid January 2010 so that we have an<br />
opportunity to familiarize ourselves with the<br />
fact and with most of the homeowners.<br />
The libraries in which these draft EIA<br />
reports are available are beyond reach of<br />
probably 90% of homeowners at Struisbaai.<br />
The EIA report is flawed and should be<br />
redone. It is further too biased in<br />
discrepancies on site selection, site<br />
availability, visual impact, heritage impact<br />
etc,<br />
Please refer to Section 1.6.16 of this<br />
Comment and Response Report.<br />
Please refer to Section 3 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
A 40 day comment period was provided as<br />
per the NEMA requirements. It must be noted<br />
that registered I&APs will be afforded a further<br />
21 days to comment on the final EIR before it<br />
will be submitted to the decision-making<br />
authorities.<br />
The reports were sent to libraries that best<br />
suited the I&AP profile per geographical area.<br />
Including the library in Struisbaai Noord. All<br />
the relevant documentation was made<br />
available for review on the Aurecon website<br />
www.aurecongroup.com<br />
Strongly disagree. Every effort has been<br />
made to include specialist input on the<br />
potential environmental impacts. Furthermore,<br />
extensive public participation has been<br />
undertaken throughout this EIA. Aurecon does<br />
not accept the accusation that the report(s)<br />
are bias as Aurecon is a reputable<br />
environmental consultancy and the EAP is a<br />
registered professional environmental<br />
scientist that abides to a strict code of ethics.<br />
Process<br />
Process<br />
Process<br />
Process<br />
Process<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 141 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
3.1.91<br />
3.1.92<br />
3.1.93<br />
Grant McKinstry<br />
(80)<br />
Andre Morgenthal<br />
(89)<br />
A.F. & J.H. Tooke<br />
(67)<br />
The notion that it is not economically viable<br />
for the developer to build a structure of 2<br />
storey's, is quite frankly irrelevant. As a<br />
developer of existing property in Struisbaai,<br />
the developer should know the building<br />
regulations better than most people. As<br />
such, I am led to believe that he was fully<br />
aware of this restriction prior to his purchase<br />
of ERF 848, and has taken a gamble that<br />
he would be able to have the rules changed<br />
to suit his pocket.<br />
It has come to our attention that there was a<br />
deadline for submission of comments and<br />
objections, today, 17 th of November.<br />
However, even though I had registered as<br />
an Interested and Affected Parties and have<br />
submitted my comments last year, we never<br />
received any correspondence or feedback.<br />
We therefore demand an extension in order<br />
to study the scoping report, to offer me and<br />
others (who have also not received an<br />
opportunity due to the lack of<br />
communication from your side) to<br />
investigate what we consider does not<br />
reflect a realistic picture of the impact on the<br />
socio- and ecological environment.<br />
The comment stating that some I&APs have<br />
supported the proposed development as it<br />
would significantly upgrade the harbour<br />
infrastructure need to be contextualized.<br />
Perhaps the I&APs were responding to<br />
whether the development of any nature<br />
would be an improvement. Improvement<br />
the harbour does not depend on a four<br />
storey building. The proposed mitigating<br />
factor of a staggered design to reduce<br />
height/ visual effect is inadequate. There is<br />
no mitigating factor that will reduce<br />
satisfactory the severity of this impact.<br />
The proponent is undertaking the impact<br />
assessment as legally required and the<br />
proposed development may not be approved.<br />
Every effort is made to ensure that all<br />
registered I&APs receive information<br />
throughout the EIA process. This is usually<br />
undertaken in various ways such as post,<br />
email, fax or sms. According to our database<br />
you selected the option to receive<br />
correspondence via email. We experienced a<br />
technical problem with our bulk emails which<br />
consequently resulted in you not receiving a<br />
notification. We have addressed this issue<br />
with you in an email dated 18/11/2009.<br />
Your point is noted. Please refer to Section<br />
5.2.5 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Process<br />
Process<br />
Process<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 142 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
3.1.94<br />
3.1.95<br />
3.1.96<br />
3.1.97<br />
3.1.98<br />
A.F. & J.H. Tooke<br />
(67)<br />
Dirk Kleinschmidt<br />
(114)<br />
W. J. and S.N.<br />
Wilken (105)<br />
Erla Rabe (83)<br />
Erla Rabe (83)<br />
The results indicated on the impact<br />
assessment table are highly subjective.<br />
There is no reference as to whose expert<br />
opinion was taken into consideration. A few<br />
examples of impacts that are controversial<br />
are assigned to parking in the harbour and<br />
to traffic flow during the peak periods. Such<br />
impact should be rated as high both before<br />
and after mitigation. Furthermore the impact<br />
on heritage as been rated as low and very<br />
low, without mitigation and with mitigation<br />
respectively. This denies the significant<br />
impact that this development will have on<br />
the local fishermen and the fishing village<br />
atmosphere of Struisbaai.<br />
I sincerely hope that all the concerns,<br />
reservations, questions and objections to<br />
the harbour project will be addressed<br />
adequately to make the development a<br />
reality. Note I only read through the<br />
executive summary and not the impact<br />
report. Please hear my plea to investigate<br />
this aspect thoroughly and to have wellstructured<br />
mitigation measures in place that<br />
would address people‟s concerns.<br />
Please acknowledge reception of this<br />
objection.<br />
1. I don‟t believe the public meetings were<br />
adequately advertised among residents. I<br />
know of a number of people who was<br />
unaware of the meeting. I received an e-<br />
mail as notification and saw an<br />
advertisement in the Suidernuus. However,<br />
I did not see an advert in any of the larger<br />
newspapers, e.g. Weekend Argus, and I<br />
talked to a number of homeowners and<br />
residents who did not receive notices via<br />
mail.<br />
The photos on the letter of the proposed<br />
development are very small and blurred.<br />
Strongly disagree. Please refer to Chapter 4<br />
of the <strong>FEIR</strong> for the methodology adopted.<br />
Specialists were consulted to inform each of<br />
the potential impacts listed in Section 5 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong> and this is clearly outlined in the text.<br />
Please refer to the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Acknowledgement has been sent to you.<br />
Please refer to Chapter 3 of the <strong>FEIR</strong> which<br />
details the steps taken to notify I&APs of the<br />
meeting.<br />
Please refer to the <strong>FEIR</strong> which is available on<br />
the website (www.aurecongroup.com) and in<br />
the libraries.<br />
Process<br />
Process<br />
Process<br />
Process<br />
Process<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 143 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
3.1.99<br />
3.1.100<br />
3.1.101<br />
3.1.102<br />
Hans Swart (27)<br />
Hans Swart (27)<br />
Justine Sweet (97)<br />
Justine Sweet (97)<br />
First of all, I want confirmation that you have<br />
registered me as an Interested and Affected<br />
Party, as I have registered on two separate<br />
occasions before but never received any<br />
confirmation, letters or information<br />
regarding the process for the development.<br />
The impacts and associated intensity, as<br />
well as the proposed mitigation measures in<br />
the Draft EIR are very unconvincing.<br />
We confirm that the EAP has advised us<br />
[Telephone discussion between Justine<br />
Sweet and John Foord on 12/11/2009] that<br />
there will be a further opportunity to<br />
comment on the final environmental impact<br />
report. [Of some concern to us is the fact<br />
that a further specialist feasibility report is<br />
apparently being prepared. in our view, this<br />
ought properly to have been included in the<br />
dEIR]. We confirm our clients' rights to do<br />
so.<br />
In addition, the development proponent<br />
comments that "retaining the current<br />
operations of the fishermen is of tourism<br />
value since it would positively contribute to<br />
the attractiveness of the harbour for tourists<br />
and locals alike." [p. 115 of dEIR]. It is<br />
therefore not clear why the required<br />
mitigation measures in this regard, for<br />
example strategies to accommodate and<br />
encourage the acquiring of fish from local<br />
fishermen, are only put forward as optional<br />
mitigation measures [p. 114-115 of dEIR].<br />
These optional measures, coupled with the<br />
inevitable closure of Harbour Catch<br />
mentioned below, in fact indicate that the<br />
development would eliminate the current<br />
operations. This contradicts the above<br />
statement concerning the retention of these<br />
operations.<br />
You are registered on the database. We have<br />
checked our database and confirm that you<br />
will receive future correspondence in this<br />
regard. Please refer to Section 3 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Every reasonable effort has been made to<br />
assess the potential impacts associated with a<br />
development of nature within the EIA<br />
methodology outlined in Chapter 4.<br />
An independent review of the feasibility report<br />
was a response to I&AP comments during the<br />
DEIR phase and has now been concluded<br />
and is available for review in Section 2.4.6<br />
and Annexure R of the <strong>FEIR</strong>. I&APs will have<br />
an opportunity to comment on this in the final<br />
EIR.<br />
EAP Response: The design (Alternative 6)<br />
makes provision for an interface between the<br />
fisherfolk and the fish market facility in the<br />
proposed development.<br />
Applicants response: Although the fishing<br />
operations will add to the attraction of the<br />
harbour, the proponent is not in control of the<br />
fisherfolks operations as it falls under MCM.<br />
Please refer to Section 5.2.3 of the <strong>FEIR</strong><br />
regarding mitigation measures. Please refer<br />
to Section 1.6.17 of this Comment and<br />
Response Report regarding other activities.<br />
Please refer to Annexure T of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Process<br />
Process<br />
Process<br />
Process<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 144 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
3.1.103<br />
3.1.104<br />
3.1.105<br />
Justine Sweet (97)<br />
Justine Sweet (97)<br />
Justine Sweet (97)<br />
The EAP alleges that the Integrated Coastal<br />
Management Act [24 of 2008. Desmond<br />
Marinus at the DEA] ("ICMA") is not<br />
applicable in the context of the EIA process<br />
because a date for its commencement has<br />
not yet been set. We are advised [Mr<br />
Marinus of the DEA] that a date has in fact<br />
been set for the commencement of the<br />
ICMA which shall be published shortly. In<br />
any event, given the fact that this Act has<br />
already been published and is directly<br />
applicable to the applicant's proposed<br />
development, it is our view that its content<br />
should have been addressed within the<br />
draft EIR.<br />
As a result, our clients contend that the<br />
abovementioned pertinent provisions of the<br />
ICMA should have been addressed within<br />
the draft EIR particularly given their<br />
relevance to the location of the site within<br />
the coastal protection zone. To the extent<br />
that they have not been addressed, they<br />
must be taken into account by the decisionmaker.<br />
Although the conversion of the application<br />
from a basic assessment requirement to a<br />
full scoping and environmental impact<br />
assessment is to be applauded (more<br />
particularly based on the extensive negative<br />
reaction to the proposed development), the<br />
public participation has still, in our view<br />
been inadequate.<br />
The ICMA has been enacted and became<br />
operational on the 1 December 2009 (expect<br />
sections 11, 65, 66, 95, 96 and 98) and has<br />
been included into the <strong>FEIR</strong>. Please refer to<br />
Section 1.3.5 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Please refer to Section 1.3.5 of the <strong>FEIR</strong><br />
which has been revised from the DEIR to<br />
include this Act as it became operational on 1<br />
December 2009.<br />
The EAP respectfully disagrees with the<br />
ascertion that public participation has been<br />
inadequate.Please refer to Chapter 3 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong> which summarises all public<br />
engagements throughout the assessment to<br />
date.<br />
Process<br />
Process<br />
Process<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 145 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
3.1.106<br />
3.1.107<br />
3.1.108<br />
3.1.109<br />
Justine Sweet (97)<br />
Justine Sweet (97)<br />
Carel Schaap (165)<br />
Louis Pisani (96)<br />
It does not appear that particular steps have<br />
been taken to inform and address the<br />
concerns of the community of Struisbaai<br />
Noord (including the local fishermen) who<br />
will be particularly affected by a<br />
development which essentially caters for<br />
once-off tourists rather than the Struisbaai<br />
public;<br />
To date, not all homeowners have been<br />
informed of, are aware of or have<br />
commented on the proposed development<br />
[We confirm that for example, one Judge<br />
Combrink who resides in Natal but owns a<br />
house in close proximity to the proposed<br />
development only became aware of the<br />
proposed development when John van<br />
Niekerk advised him of it telephonically].<br />
As stated elsewhere in this report, the<br />
requirement for full public participation and<br />
consultation must be greater given the<br />
public nature of the site and the rights<br />
attaching to it.<br />
A much more inclusive process of public<br />
participation is required. I own property in<br />
Struisbaai, yet accidentally learned (very<br />
late) of this report. This development<br />
process excludes interested and affected<br />
parties and this needs to be addressed.<br />
If you consider the combined investment of<br />
all these individuals at present property<br />
prices and you compare it to the input cost<br />
of the developer I think the public<br />
participation process is flawed and biased in<br />
favour of the developer.<br />
Please refer to Chapter 3 of the <strong>FEIR</strong><br />
regarding the public participation process.<br />
The fisherfolk have furthermore been<br />
personally invited to participate through their<br />
representatives and have chosen to attend<br />
the meetings in small numbers. To this end,<br />
the social impact assessment undertaken<br />
addressed the fisherfolk to ensure issues<br />
raised were considered and included in the<br />
EIA. A detailed independent Social Impact<br />
Assessment was undertaken to ensure all<br />
spheres of the Struisbaai community were<br />
consulted (Annexure H of the <strong>FEIR</strong>). Please<br />
also refer to Section 5.2.3 of the <strong>FEIR</strong><br />
regarding opportunities for Struisbaai. Please<br />
refer to Section 1.13.26 of this Comment and<br />
Response Report regarding the fisher folk‟s<br />
concerns being considered.<br />
Please refer to Chapter 3 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>. The<br />
<strong>Environmental</strong> Assessment Practitioner has<br />
gone beyond what is legally required to<br />
accommodate I&APs and has taken all<br />
reasonable steps to ensure I&APs are<br />
informed as the EIA process continues.<br />
Please refer to Section 3 of the <strong>FEIR</strong><br />
regarding the extensive public participation<br />
process.<br />
All reasonable steps have been taken to<br />
include and promote public engagement<br />
through the EIA to date. Please refer to<br />
Section 3 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Process<br />
Process<br />
Process<br />
Process<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 146 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
3.1.110<br />
Justine Sweet (97)<br />
An application in terms of the Promotion of<br />
Access to Information Act [2 of 2002] was<br />
submitted to Mr Roodt [the proponent<br />
developer's representative] (both in Cape<br />
Town and in Struisbaai), Mr Tommy<br />
Brummer [the proponent developer's townplanner],<br />
Mr Piet Bakker [the proponent<br />
developer's architect] and Mr John Foord<br />
(of the EAP) by John van Niekerk on or<br />
about 9 February 2009. To date, no<br />
response has been formally forthcoming<br />
[the EAP's representative, John Foord,<br />
advised Mr John van Niekerk on several<br />
occasions that the proponent developer had<br />
taken advice and that the answers would be<br />
forthcoming] and our clients reserve their<br />
rights to supplement this objection pending<br />
delivery of such information; and<br />
1. All plans, drawing, diagrams, charts,<br />
deeds of transfer, and/or documents<br />
relating to Erf 848 Struisbaai that<br />
discloses:<br />
a. Erf extent;<br />
b. set back from all four boundaries of Erf<br />
848 of any buildings or structures to be<br />
erected/ constructed;<br />
c. proposed building/ structure coverage;<br />
d. proposed entry/ exit points;<br />
e. proposed height (above mean sea level)<br />
of any buildings/structures;<br />
f. bulk factor attached to structures/<br />
buildings;<br />
g. restrictive condition imposed in favour of<br />
the general public of a right of way (as<br />
depicted on diagram No 596/1961<br />
annexed to Deed of Transfer No T<br />
482/1962;<br />
h. special restrictive condition relating to the<br />
rights to hotels and liquor licenses on Erf<br />
848 as is set out in deed of transfer No<br />
T482/1962;<br />
i. special restrictive condition forbidding the<br />
erection of any building on Erf 848 until<br />
plans have been submitted to and<br />
approved by the directors of Struis Bay<br />
Estates (Pty) Ltd.<br />
Process<br />
RESPONSE TO 1 ABOVE:<br />
The documentation referred to above has<br />
now been provided, either by virtue of the<br />
provision of the title deed in question; or by<br />
the provision of other relevant detail<br />
contained in the <strong>FEIR</strong> and its Annexures.<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 147 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
One of the reasons why this request purportedly<br />
lodged under PAIA was not responded to by the<br />
proponent before the production of this draft of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong> is because the request failed to comply with<br />
certain stipulated requirements under that Act; for<br />
example, the requester failed to pay the required<br />
request fee, as stipulated in the Act read with its<br />
regulations. Another reason was because (in light<br />
of the flawed request, as adverted to directly<br />
above) there appeared to be no justifiable basis on<br />
which to prefer this I&AP to the others (some 1,400<br />
in total) who or which have participated in this<br />
process.<br />
3.1.110<br />
2. All reports, correspondence (minutes, notes or<br />
memoranda of meetings or correspondence)<br />
and or notifications presented to, or received<br />
from any person, provincial department, Cape<br />
Agulhas Municipality, committee, subcommittee,<br />
working groups or task teams,<br />
consultant (whether public or private) regarding<br />
the proposed use and/or change of zoning of<br />
Erf 848 Struisbaai or the passing of buildings<br />
plans regarding buildings to be erected and<br />
used on Erf 848 Struisbaai.<br />
RESPONSE TO 2 ABOVE:<br />
As this <strong>FEIR</strong> and its Annexures make abundantly<br />
clear, the formal application for zoning (as well as<br />
whatsoever other applications may be required in<br />
order to facilitate the proposed land use) are<br />
explained and/or summarized in the documentation<br />
that has served before ht provincial environmental<br />
authority to date. Please see annexure M of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong> for the land use planning documentation.<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 148 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
3. All correspondence (from or to) any person,<br />
body, committee, sub-committee, working<br />
group or task team, or Provincial Government,<br />
consultant which is or was in the possession of<br />
the Provincial Government of council relating to<br />
such aforementioned use or proposed change<br />
of zoning.<br />
RESPONSE TO 3 ABOVE:<br />
As this <strong>FEIR</strong> and its Annexures make abundantly<br />
clear, the formal application for zoning (as well as<br />
whatsoever other applications may be required in<br />
order to facilitate the proposed land use) are<br />
explained and/or summarized in the documentation<br />
that has served before ht provincial environmental<br />
authority to date. Please see annexure M of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong> for the land use planning documentation.<br />
3.1.110<br />
4. All opinions, memoranda, reports of counsel,<br />
attorneys, architects engineers or town<br />
planners or, notes, memoranda or other<br />
documentation in the possession of any official<br />
or employee of the company relating to such<br />
aforementioned use or change of zoning.<br />
RESPONSE TO 4 ABOVE:<br />
This category of information purportedly sought by<br />
this I&AP amounts to a “fishing expedition”. It does<br />
not specify with sufficient particularity, the<br />
information so sought. In addition it purports to<br />
include a request for types of information that can<br />
be refused in terms of the refusal grounds<br />
stipulated in the PAIA (for e.g. information that is<br />
legally privileged like reports of counsel and / or<br />
attorneys).<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 149 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
5. Copies of all agreements entered into<br />
between the company and other persons<br />
relating to the use or change of zoning of<br />
Erf 848 Struisbaai.<br />
3.1.110<br />
RESPONSE TO 5 ABOVE:<br />
3.1.111<br />
Justine Sweet (97)<br />
Although a new feasibility study is being<br />
prepared (and which we understand has not<br />
yet been completed but should be available<br />
on or about 17 November 2009), we<br />
understand [from an e-mail from John Foord<br />
to Justine Sweet dated 12/11/2009] that that<br />
study will only be made available to the<br />
interested and affected parties upon<br />
publication of the Final <strong>Environmental</strong><br />
Impact Report. It is submitted that given the<br />
identified inadequacies of the existing<br />
feasibility study (and the contentious issue<br />
of alternatives), the draft EIR should not<br />
have been made available for comment<br />
until the new feasibility study was available<br />
or, at the very least, the period within which<br />
to comment extended upon distribution of<br />
such report. The very purpose of comments<br />
on the draft EIR (and the specialist reports<br />
attached thereto) is to seek to allow the<br />
EAP the opportunity to address the issues<br />
raised by such report or, in this case, to<br />
allow further alternatives to be properly<br />
investigated.<br />
It is not possible to discern exactly what is<br />
meant under this request. In any event it<br />
amounts a “fishing expedition” as it does nor<br />
specify with sufficient (or any) particularity,<br />
exactly what is sought.<br />
There was no commitment to have the<br />
independent feasibility report completed by 17<br />
November 2009. The comment period for the<br />
draft EIR however ended on the 17 November<br />
2009. The request for an independent review<br />
of the Feasibility Statement (Annexure P of<br />
the DEIR) was raised at the Public Meeting<br />
(31 October 2009). Turner & Townsend was<br />
then appointed to undertake a feasibility<br />
assessment and it was determined that the<br />
proponents‟ interpretation was within the<br />
range of estimates provided by Turner &<br />
Townsend. The feasibility report, though not<br />
as detailed as the Turner & Townsend,<br />
assessment was thus adequate in terms of<br />
the selection of alternatives.<br />
Process<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 150 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
3.1.112<br />
3.1.113<br />
3.1.114<br />
Justine Sweet (97)<br />
Justine Sweet (97)<br />
Justine Sweet (97)<br />
The EAP is a well known and well regarded<br />
firm and we do not wish to place its integrity<br />
in question. However, given the<br />
requirement that EAPs must at all times<br />
remain objective and independent in their<br />
duties as a practitioner, we are constrained<br />
to point out the following: Throughout the<br />
public participation process, questions of<br />
the EAP's independence and objectivity<br />
have been raised. In this regard, we refer<br />
to the minutes of the public participation<br />
meetings;<br />
The EAP has not specifically made any<br />
recommendation on whether or not the<br />
proposed development should proceed.<br />
As an independent expert, the EAP's<br />
responsibility is, in our view, to make a<br />
recommendation on whether or not a<br />
particular development is appropriate in the<br />
circumstances. In our view, the EAP has<br />
failed to do so.<br />
It appears that, where contentious issues<br />
arise, the EAP simply refers to the<br />
proponent's argument or decision. In this<br />
regard, we refer to paragraph 2.4.5. of the<br />
draft EIR in which, with reference to the<br />
request that the development proponent<br />
consider a two storey alternative, it states<br />
that "the proponent has argued that a two<br />
storey building will not be financially<br />
sustainable …" The EAP has apparently<br />
not committed itself to a conclusion either<br />
way. This, in our view, and more<br />
particularly given the integrity of the EAP, is<br />
problematic<br />
It is often the case that I&APs make<br />
allegations about the <strong>Environmental</strong><br />
Assessment Practitioners. More specifically, if<br />
I&APs do not agree with the <strong>Environmental</strong><br />
Assessment Practitioner findings. Aurecon<br />
maintains that these allegations are<br />
unreasonable and unjustified. Please refer to<br />
Section 1.8 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Disagree. The <strong>Environmental</strong> Assessment<br />
Practitioner has provided its opinion in Section<br />
7.5 of the DEIR and the <strong>FEIR</strong> in terms of<br />
Section 32 (2) m in GNR 385 (the NEMA EIA<br />
Regulations). Conclusions were provided in<br />
Section 6 of the DEIR and <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
With reference to Annexures P & R of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong> it is clear that a 2 storey alternative is<br />
not financially feasible or reasonable in the<br />
circumstances. The EAP obtained a<br />
motivation of market and economic viability<br />
which has been independently reviewed. As<br />
such we accept the argument that the<br />
proponent does not wish to apply for this<br />
option and requires only a decision on the<br />
option it has shown to be reasonable and<br />
feasible. - The EAP thus assessed<br />
alternatives that are considered financially<br />
feasible and as such the decision making<br />
authority would need to apply their minds to<br />
consider if the proposed development is<br />
acceptable within the context of the receiving<br />
environment.<br />
Process<br />
Process<br />
Process<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 151 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
3.1.115<br />
3.1.116<br />
3.1.117<br />
3.1.118<br />
A.S. Lourens &<br />
other 5 Struisbaai<br />
Property owners<br />
(23)<br />
A.S. Lourens &<br />
other 5 Struisbaai<br />
Property owners<br />
(23)<br />
Meg Cowper Lewis<br />
(SEA) (48)<br />
Grant McKinstry<br />
(80)<br />
Another misrepresentation you make that<br />
clearly shows your prejudice towards the<br />
developer which is “owing to the public<br />
interest and concern relating to the<br />
alternatives presented during the scoping<br />
phase, the proponent proposed another<br />
alternative, a multi-level…alternative 6”.<br />
Again, send me the letters or emails from<br />
people supporting the multi-level<br />
development. I am an active member of the<br />
Struisbaai Homeowner Association who‟s<br />
every member are against the multi-level<br />
development.<br />
How can a four-storey building that would<br />
suite in the V&A Waterfront in Cape Town<br />
also fit in Struisbaai? The prejudice from<br />
environmental consultants is blatantly<br />
shameless and the Province should<br />
urgently put a system in place where they<br />
appoint the consultants and pay them with<br />
money guaranteed by the developer. If not,<br />
EIAs would continue to provide motivations<br />
for the needs of developers.<br />
Page 5 of the Executive Summary (The<br />
public participation process), It is<br />
unfortunate that it is still legally permissible<br />
for developers to appoint their own<br />
environmental consultants. In many cases,<br />
this practice creates a source of corruption<br />
and collusion, whereby it is in the<br />
consultants‟ interests to propose the<br />
development in a positive framework, and<br />
mitigate negative impacts wherever<br />
possible. Until the policy of appointments of<br />
consultants by developers is changed,<br />
public participation will amount to nothing<br />
more than a farce.<br />
Careful consideration needs to be given to<br />
the potential impacts, and needs to reflect<br />
an accurate and fair assessment of the<br />
situation. I don‟t believe that this report<br />
accomplishes either of those objectives.<br />
Aurecon is not prejudiced towards any<br />
particular outcome for this EIA process, we<br />
are appointed only to undertake the legal<br />
process and submit information for decisionmaking.<br />
. The additional alternative<br />
(Alternative 6) was the proponent‟s response<br />
to the extremely negative reactions which<br />
emanated from the initial round of<br />
engagement especially relating to the 4 and 6<br />
storey solid buildings options. I&APs<br />
comments in support and in opposition to the<br />
proposed development are contained in the<br />
various EIA Comment and Response Reports.<br />
The EAP has maintained its independence<br />
and ensured that all issues have been<br />
adequately investigated and reported in<br />
accordance with accepted methodologies.<br />
Where appropriate, specialists have been<br />
appointed to undertake more detailed<br />
assessments and all information has been<br />
made public in the EIA documentation. The<br />
issue of independence in terms of Section 1.8<br />
of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Your comment is noted, however Aurecon<br />
maintains its independence. Please refer to<br />
Section 1.8 and Section 3 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Strongly disagree. This has been considered<br />
throughout the EIR.<br />
Process<br />
Process<br />
Statement<br />
Process<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 152 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
3.1.119<br />
A.F. & J.H. Tooke<br />
(67)<br />
It is interesting to note that the EAP<br />
supports the development though they<br />
identify the negative visual impact of the<br />
proposed development? How can the EAP<br />
support the proposal despite the negative<br />
visual impact they've identified?<br />
The <strong>Environmental</strong> Assessment Practitioner<br />
does not support the proposed development.<br />
The EAP is requested in terms of Section 32<br />
(2) m of the NEMA to provide an opinion in<br />
terms of whether the proposed development<br />
should be granted authorisation or not. In our<br />
opinion, subject to the visual impact, no<br />
significant environmental impact applies to<br />
prohibit such a development.<br />
Process<br />
3.1.120<br />
3.1.121<br />
3.1.122<br />
SW Meyer (46) The report is good and transparent Noted. Process<br />
Justine Sweet (97)<br />
Justine Sweet (97)<br />
A full copy of the title deed in respect of the<br />
site has not been annexed to the draft EIR.<br />
It appears, however, that there are<br />
potentially title deed restrictions which have<br />
not been mentioned or addressed in the<br />
draft EIR [i.e. there may be a condition<br />
which stipulates that the site shall be used<br />
for the erection of a building to be used for<br />
the cleaning, salting and storing of fresh fish<br />
in refrigerated rooms]. Consequently, we<br />
reserve our rights to supplement this<br />
objection upon such title deeds being made<br />
available and comment on those restrictions<br />
included in the draft EIR [it should be noted<br />
that a failure buy the development applicant<br />
to make a full copy of the title deeds<br />
available to the department will result in any<br />
decision taken by the department being<br />
once which potentially failed to take all<br />
relevant information and considerations into<br />
account and which would be subject to<br />
appeal and judicial review].<br />
In our view, although this is not the<br />
equivalent of "public open space", the public<br />
rights attaching to these restrictions require<br />
a particularly comprehensive public<br />
participation process. In our view, and as<br />
stated elsewhere in this objection, the public<br />
participation process has not taken this into<br />
account and is accordingly inadequate.<br />
This is incorrect. The title deeds are included<br />
in Annexure S of the <strong>FEIR</strong>. Please refer to<br />
Sections 2.6 and 2.7 of the <strong>FEIR</strong> regarding<br />
the lifting of title deed restrictions.<br />
Tommy Brummer: There are no conditions in<br />
the title deed which prescribe the use of the<br />
property or the type of building that is to be<br />
erected. Condition B.6.(b), which prescribed<br />
that the property “shall be used only for the<br />
erection thereon of a building to be used for<br />
the cleaning, salting and storing of fresh fish<br />
in refrigerated rooms”, was removed from the<br />
title deed in terms of a Notice that was<br />
published in the Provincial Gazette on 26<br />
September 2003 and accordingly no longer<br />
applies. The town planning application is still<br />
to be submitted, part of the application will be<br />
for the removal of the “three quarters built<br />
upon area” restriction, the restriction referring<br />
to loading bays (typically imposed on<br />
industrial erven) and the 7.61m street building<br />
line restriction.<br />
Please refer to Chapter 3 regarding the public<br />
participation process. The <strong>Environmental</strong><br />
Assessment Practitioner has exceeded the<br />
requirements as defined in the EIA<br />
Regulations and it is noted that an application<br />
in terms of the Removal of Restrictions Act<br />
(No. 84 of 1967) will also need to be followed<br />
with its associated objection process.<br />
Process<br />
Process<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 153 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
3.1.123<br />
3.1.124<br />
Johan Liebenberg,<br />
Dorel Van der<br />
Westhuizen, Kobus<br />
Viljoen, Abrie<br />
Bruwer, Chris Moll,<br />
Stuart Du Plessis,<br />
G. R. Youldon,<br />
Johan Venter (59,<br />
73, 69, 66, 65, 172,<br />
93, 78)<br />
Justine Sweet (97)<br />
The condensed EIR notification for the open<br />
day posted to I&AP had no colour<br />
differences for the impact assessments and<br />
was thus useless as a means to measure<br />
the different impacts. Impact assessment<br />
have to be redone to give fair opportunity to<br />
all involved to access the various impacts<br />
and their grades, as it is impossible to<br />
distinguish or to comment when impacts are<br />
shown in black and white.<br />
The restrictions and rights of way are<br />
significant and affect the public. They also<br />
dictate, to a large extent, what alternatives<br />
are feasible and should be permitted. It is<br />
submitted that it creates an absurd result to<br />
consider alternatives which, at this stage,<br />
are not yet known to be possible. Given the<br />
significant impact upon the public should<br />
the title deed restrictions be removed, it is<br />
our view that a specialist town-planning and<br />
socio-economic study ought to have formed<br />
part of the EIA process in order to<br />
determine properly the socio-economic<br />
impacts of the proposed development [it<br />
should be noted that a failure by the<br />
development applicant to address all<br />
information inadequacies will result in any<br />
decision taken by the department being one<br />
which potentially failed to take all relevant<br />
information and considerations into account<br />
and which would be subject to appeal and<br />
judicial review]. Thus, in our view, the<br />
necessary information is not before the<br />
interested and affected parties or the<br />
Department and any decision taken without<br />
that information will be flawed and<br />
reviewable.<br />
The colours are merely indicative and are<br />
available on the Aurecon website. The actual<br />
impacts to which the colours referred were<br />
typed into the same table.Furthermore,<br />
original copies were available for viewing at<br />
the Struisbaai Noord library, Cape Town<br />
library, Sandton Library and the Cape Agulhas<br />
Municipality.<br />
Disagree. The EIA process assessed the<br />
impact of the proposed development, which<br />
included the potential scenario of lifting the<br />
title deed restrictions. A social and economic<br />
impact assessment was undertaken and was<br />
included in Annexure H of the DEIR. Tommy<br />
Brummer Town Planners have provided input<br />
in terms of the proposed process that would<br />
be followed to release certain title deed<br />
restrictions as well as the proposed change in<br />
terms of zonation.<br />
We wish to correct the suggestion that (in so<br />
far as necessary before I&APs, which we<br />
dispute), that this would lead in the first<br />
instance to a decision that would be<br />
“reviewable”. There is a right of appeal<br />
provided for under NEMA, and this internal<br />
remedy would have to be exhausted before<br />
any party could seek the review and setting<br />
aside of a decision that they might choose to<br />
challenge.<br />
Process<br />
Process<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 154 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
3.1.125<br />
Justine Sweet (97)<br />
We also note that the site may have formed<br />
part of the admiralty reserve [Section 1(1) of<br />
the ICMA]. However, this is not mentioned<br />
in the draft EIR and since we were not<br />
furnished with a copy of the title deed, we<br />
are unable to determine whether this is the<br />
case. We request confirmation from the<br />
applicant as to whether the site forms part<br />
of the admiralty reserve. We reserve our<br />
clients' rights to submit further comments in<br />
this regard.<br />
There is no mention in the title deeds of the<br />
property falling within the admiralty reserve.<br />
The admiralty reserve is state land whereas<br />
Erf 848 is private land.<br />
Process<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 155 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
Disagree the role of the EIA is not to motivate<br />
for planning alterations rather to consider the<br />
consequences of the activities which may be<br />
undertaken on that location. It is the<br />
responsibility of the Planners to motivate for<br />
any required deviations. Please refer to<br />
Section 1.38, 1.4 and 2.8 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
3.1.126<br />
Justine Sweet (97)<br />
Amongst others, the purpose of an SDF is<br />
to ensure a harmonised, integrated and<br />
consistent approach to spatial development<br />
planning. These frameworks are prepared<br />
consequent upon careful consideration and<br />
consultation by the relevant local authority,<br />
in this case Cape Agulhas Municipality.<br />
Developments which constitute exceptions<br />
to such frameworks ought, at the very least,<br />
to demonstrate that there is a significant<br />
need for such a development, that they are<br />
feasible and that there are exceptional<br />
circumstances justifying a departure from<br />
the SDF, particularly where the departure is<br />
as extreme as the proposed development.<br />
In our view, the draft EIR fails to do so.<br />
Tommy Brummer: SDF‟s do not change or<br />
confer real rights on land; the purpose of a<br />
SDF is to guide appropriate future change and<br />
to guide municipalities to assess applications<br />
for land use changes. Zoning Scheme<br />
Regulations, on the other hand, have a<br />
binding effect on the development rights<br />
attributed to land and confer real rights on<br />
properties; however, given the dynamic nature<br />
of towns, it is impossible to predict the exact<br />
requirements of development rights and a<br />
measure of flexibility is therefore built into<br />
Zoning Schemes in order to take changing<br />
circumstances into account, normally<br />
achieved through the processing of town<br />
planning applications such as rezonings and<br />
departures, where each development<br />
proposal is assessed on its own merits and<br />
desirability. In this regard we are of the<br />
opinion that the restrictions imposed on the<br />
property in terms of the current approved SDF<br />
is unconstitutional as it takes away rights<br />
afforded to the property in terms of the Zoning<br />
Scheme. On the other hand, the draft SDF<br />
does not prescribe building envelopes for the<br />
Harbour Precinct (as opposed to the current<br />
SDF); this is welcomed as it is clearly not the<br />
function of SDFs to prescribe development<br />
envelopes.<br />
Process<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 156 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
3.1.127<br />
Justine Sweet (97)<br />
In general, the development proponent has<br />
failed to demonstrate that the proposed<br />
development is sustainable as required by,<br />
amongst other things, the principles<br />
enshrined in NEMA [Section 2]. We<br />
submit that there is insufficient information<br />
in the draft EIR to determine the feasibility<br />
and sustainability of the proposed<br />
development. For example, the costs of<br />
infrastructure improvements have been<br />
calculated based on a rough estimate. As<br />
noted below, significant infrastructure<br />
improvements are required for the proposed<br />
development to take place and, given the<br />
budgetary and other constraints placed on<br />
local authorities throughout South Africa, it<br />
is simply not realistic to place such<br />
significant demands on the Cape Agulhas<br />
Municipality (more particularly when the<br />
demands are in favour of an apparently<br />
small minority favouring development rather<br />
than the general public).<br />
Disagree. With reference to Section 6.1.3,<br />
Annexure P, Annexure R and Annexure U of<br />
the <strong>FEIR</strong> the proposed development has been<br />
assessed to be both financially viable<br />
(specifically Alternative 6) and confirmation<br />
has been received from CAM confirming their<br />
ability to provide services.<br />
Process<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 157 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
3.1.128<br />
3.1.129<br />
Justine Sweet (97)<br />
Justine Sweet (97)<br />
The development proponent has failed to<br />
demonstrate the sustainability and feasibility<br />
of the proposed hotel. It is submitted that<br />
there is little need for a further hotel in<br />
Struisbaai and a development which<br />
incorporates a hotel is simply not<br />
sustainable (financially or otherwise).<br />
Previously, a hotel in Struisbaai failed.<br />
Further, we point out that, despite being the<br />
developer of another proposed boutique<br />
hotel in the area, [in fact, no more than 1.5<br />
km from the site] namely at Langezandt, the<br />
development proponent has failed to<br />
mention or consider such boutique hotel.<br />
We have also been advised that a new<br />
hotel has been approved on the old<br />
Struisbaai Hotel site which would also affect<br />
the alleged feasibility of the applicant's<br />
proposed development. Significantly, we<br />
understand that although application was<br />
made for a building outside of the SDF<br />
requirements, the Department failed to<br />
approve it and that development may be<br />
constructed to a maximum height of 10m<br />
[as advised by the chairman of the<br />
Struisbaai Residents Association]. These<br />
facts are, it is submitted, material facts<br />
which ought to have been considered and<br />
disclosed [in this regard, we refer to the<br />
requirement in regulation 23(2) which<br />
requires that a development applicant place<br />
all relevant facts before the Department]<br />
and which almost certainly affect the<br />
economic feasibility of the proposed hotel.<br />
The impact of the proposed hotel on guest<br />
house operators (and their employees) has<br />
also not been adequately considered.<br />
Disagree. With reference to Section 6.1.3,<br />
Annexure P, Annexure R and Annexure U of<br />
the <strong>FEIR</strong> the proposed development has been<br />
assessed to be both financially viable<br />
(specifically Alternative 6) and confirmation<br />
has been received from CAM confirming their<br />
ability to provide services.<br />
Disagree. Please refer to Section 5.2.3 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Process<br />
Process<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 158 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
The feasibility study included in the draft<br />
EIR is, in our view, wholly inadequate. In<br />
this regard, we confirm that the EAP has<br />
commissioned a further feasibility study<br />
(and must assume, based on this fact, that<br />
the EAP holds a similar view). For what it is<br />
worth, the feasibility study fails to<br />
demonstrate an understanding of the<br />
principles of economic viability analysis<br />
(feasibility study) [these comments as well<br />
as those directly below are courtesy of Lori<br />
Colussi, a professional quantity surveyor at<br />
De Leeuw, Cape Town of the De Leeuw<br />
Group]. It is lacking in, amongst other<br />
things, the following respects: There is no<br />
development programme to understand<br />
whether values are future or present; There<br />
is no description of product; There is no<br />
basis stated for land value (square metre<br />
bulk rate); There is no proper analysis of the<br />
construction costs. On a cursory analysis,<br />
these costs reflect that they are not realistic; Please refer to Section 2.4.6, Annexure P and<br />
There is no reference to local authority or Annexure R of the <strong>FEIR</strong>. An independent<br />
other approvals of any nature; There is no feasibility assessment was undertaken by<br />
reference to value added tax; Reference Turner & Townsend and confirmed that the<br />
has been made to "other costs" being proponent‟s feasibility statement (Annexure P<br />
calculated at 20% of development costs. of the DEIR/<strong>FEIR</strong>) was deemed reasonable<br />
3.1.130<br />
Justine Sweet (97)<br />
Process<br />
This fails to indicate a proper understanding and acceptable i.e. Basement + 3 Floors. This<br />
of the relevant costs or items; and<br />
alternative would yield a 24.08% profit margin<br />
Numerous additional costs are excluded whereas the proponents calculation was<br />
(although there is an indicated intent to 24.16%. It is therefore reasonable to accept<br />
allow for such costs at 20%). These costs this figure as accurate.<br />
include, amongst other things, geotechnical<br />
investigations, land surveyors fees, legal<br />
costs, funding costs, escalation in<br />
construction costs, professional fees, local<br />
authority costs such as plan scrutiny fees,<br />
interim taxes, bulk service charges,<br />
marketing and pre-opening costs,<br />
furnishings, fixtures and equipment,<br />
financing costs, occupational health and<br />
safety compliance, etc. In summary, the<br />
feasibility study does not provide sufficient<br />
information to properly analyse or identify<br />
the risk to the proponent developer.<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> Ordinarily ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc a feasibility study should be<br />
159 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
3.1.131<br />
3.1.132<br />
3.1.133<br />
Justine Sweet (97)<br />
Justine Sweet (97)<br />
Justine Sweet (97)<br />
At the outset it is important to note the<br />
emphasis which NEMA places on the<br />
required investigation of the potential<br />
consequences or impacts of alternatives to<br />
a proposed activity on the environment<br />
within an application for environmental<br />
authorisation [Section 24(4)(b)(i)]. The EIA<br />
Regulations require both a basic<br />
assessment report and a scoping report to<br />
identify feasible and reasonable alternatives<br />
to the proposed activity [Reg. 23(1)(g) &<br />
29(1)(b) in GNR 385].<br />
Given, amongst other things, the present<br />
economic crisis as well as the large bond on<br />
the property, there is some concern that<br />
there may not be sufficient financial<br />
resources to see the proposed development<br />
to completion. In this regard, and in the<br />
unlikely event that this development is<br />
approved, we submit that the development<br />
proponent ought to provide some comfort<br />
(by way of, for example, a bank guarantee)<br />
to the Department and interested and<br />
affected parties we submit that there is<br />
scope for this in the dEIA Regs.]<br />
Our clients do not deny that the site is<br />
presently in a state of disrepair. In this<br />
regard, we confirm that our clients would<br />
not be opposed to a development which is<br />
in line with relevant town-planning<br />
restrictions and which adequately<br />
accommodates public concerns and rights.<br />
NEMA only requires a Basic Assessment<br />
Report for the proposed development.<br />
However the <strong>Environmental</strong> Assessment<br />
Practitioner applied for an upgrade to full EIA<br />
process. Please refer to Section 2.4 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong> and Section 3.1.52 of this Comment and<br />
Response Report regarding alternatives.<br />
Applicants response: All development<br />
funding is put in place pre-sales of an<br />
acceptable level is achieved. The developers‟<br />
track record at Langezandt Fishermens<br />
Village, a billion rand development, provides<br />
proof of the ability to deliver. There is no<br />
obligation to provide comfort to I&APs.<br />
Your point is noted. Please refer to Section<br />
3.1.52 of this Comment and Response<br />
Report.<br />
Process<br />
Process<br />
Process<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 160 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
3.1.134<br />
Justine Sweet (97)<br />
We submit that there is insufficient<br />
information [e.g. p. 81 of dEIR] in the draft<br />
EIR to determine the impact, feasibility and<br />
sustainability of the proposed development.<br />
For example, the costs of the apparently<br />
extensive infrastructure improvements<br />
required by the proposed development have<br />
merely been calculated on the basis of a<br />
20% cost of development. In our view, this<br />
is wholly inadequate. In addition, the Cape<br />
Agulhas Local Municipality and the<br />
Directorate of Marine and Coastal<br />
Management ("MCM") has not been<br />
properly consulted regarding traffic and<br />
parking [p. 31 of dEIR.]<br />
Please refer to Annexure P and Annexure R<br />
of the <strong>FEIR</strong>. The various authorities have<br />
been engaged on several occasions<br />
throughout the past 3 years. The Cape<br />
Agulhas Local Municipality was consulted on<br />
the traffic alternatives at a meeting that took<br />
place on the 31 July 2009. Telephonic<br />
correspondence with Marine and Coastal<br />
Management ("MCM"), Desmond Marinus<br />
took place on the 30 July 2009 to discuss the<br />
traffic options in principle and the proponent<br />
was informed that MCM would consider traffic<br />
solutions proposed as a product of the EIA<br />
process.<br />
Process<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 161 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
3.1.135<br />
3.1.136<br />
Justine Sweet (97)<br />
Johan Liebenberg,<br />
Dorel Van der<br />
Westhuizen, Kobus<br />
Viljoen, Abrie<br />
Bruwer, Chris Moll,<br />
Stuart Du Plessis,<br />
G. R. Youldon,<br />
Johan Venter (59,<br />
73, 69, 66, 65, 172,<br />
93, 78)<br />
While it is acknowledged that the area is<br />
severely depressed and that the<br />
unemployment is high, it is submitted that<br />
the proposed development is simply not one<br />
which will contribute towards a solution to<br />
those problems. In general, it is submitted<br />
that there will be fewer jobs created by the<br />
development than those impacted on or<br />
eradicated by it. The development<br />
proponent concedes that numerous<br />
livelihoods are dependent upon the ability of<br />
the fishermen to continue to use the<br />
harbour. In fact, a socio-economic survey<br />
conducted in 2008, and which is not<br />
referred to by the EAP, indicates that more<br />
than 20% of the persons employed in Ward<br />
5 are employed in the fishing industry. In<br />
our view, the real impact on employment<br />
opportunities and loss has not properly<br />
been investigated. In this regard, we note<br />
that much of the information relied upon by<br />
the development proponent's specialists is<br />
either outdated [we note reliance, for<br />
example on a 2001 census] or considered<br />
desk top/armchair information rather than<br />
factually accurate [we note reference to<br />
quotas in the fishing industry whereas in<br />
Struisbaai the local fishermen generally<br />
refer to a total allowable effort allocation]<br />
information.<br />
The authors of the DEIR are constantly<br />
naming and pointing to the problem, but<br />
they fail to address it. The mitigation<br />
measures that are recommended are<br />
inadequate. The community needs real<br />
answers to real problems.<br />
Please refer to Section 5.2.3 of the <strong>FEIR</strong> and<br />
Sections 1.6.15 and 1.13.26 of this Comment<br />
and Response Report regarding the impact on<br />
the fisherfolk as well as Section 5.2.3,<br />
Annexure H and Annexure O of the <strong>FEIR</strong><br />
regarding employment opportunities.<br />
Specialists have been consulted at all<br />
reasonable stages within the EIA to assist in<br />
arriving at an informed interpretation with<br />
regard to the identified impacts and<br />
suggestions for mitigation measures.<br />
Process<br />
Process<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 162 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
3.1.137<br />
3.1.138<br />
3.1.139<br />
3.1.140<br />
Johan Liebenberg,<br />
Dorel Van der<br />
Westhuizen, Kobus<br />
Viljoen, Abrie<br />
Bruwer, Chris Moll,<br />
Stuart Du Plessis,<br />
G. R. Youldon,<br />
Johan Venter (59,<br />
73, 69, 66, 65, 172,<br />
93, 78)<br />
Johan Liebenberg,<br />
Dorel Van der<br />
Westhuizen, Kobus<br />
Viljoen, Abrie<br />
Bruwer, Chris Moll,<br />
Stuart Du Plessis,<br />
G. R. Youldon,<br />
Johan Venter (59,<br />
73, 69, 66, 65, 172,<br />
93, 78)<br />
Johan Liebenberg,<br />
Dorel Van der<br />
Westhuizen, Kobus<br />
Viljoen, Abrie<br />
Bruwer, Chris Moll,<br />
Stuart Du Plessis,<br />
G. R. Youldon,<br />
Johan Venter (59,<br />
73, 69, 66, 65, 172,<br />
93, 78)<br />
Johan Liebenberg,<br />
Dorel Van der<br />
Westhuizen, Kobus<br />
Viljoen, Abrie<br />
Bruwer, Chris Moll,<br />
Stuart Du Plessis,<br />
G. R. Youldon,<br />
Johan Venter (59,<br />
73, 69, 66, 65, 172,<br />
93, 78)<br />
A low rating for traffic flow can only be<br />
possible if you have the swimmers and<br />
fisherman enter the harbour through the<br />
main door of the proposed development.<br />
I also note that on Aurecon website, the<br />
impact rating is in Black and White, while all<br />
the proposed views of the development had<br />
colour. Page 117 - and so were the spatial<br />
planning context; Page 59 – and various<br />
aerial photographs. The impact<br />
assessments (black and white) are of more<br />
importance. I argue that this constitute a<br />
fatal flaw<br />
Referring on page 31 (1.7), it is assumed<br />
the information given by the proponent is<br />
correct. In the meeting, on Saturday 31<br />
October 2009, the architect acknowledged<br />
that it is difficult to be accurate when<br />
superimposing new developments onto<br />
existing photographs. Despite all the<br />
warnings, you still allow this material to be<br />
used at the presented in public.<br />
It is inaccurate to state that “due to strong<br />
opposition to alternatives” the development<br />
appointed an architect to design alternative<br />
6. We were totally against 4 storey building<br />
(alternative 6), even at the previous public<br />
meetings. The number of oppositions is not<br />
mentioned anywhere in your report<br />
No such suggestion has ever been made. The<br />
access to the harbour via Harbour Road will<br />
remain unaffected.<br />
This is incorrect. The tables in the draft EIR<br />
were in colour with red clearly showing where<br />
the high negative impacts were. The detail<br />
was also explain thoroughly in the text.<br />
Please refer to Section 3.1.123 of this<br />
Comment and Response Report. The<br />
correspondence sent by letter would have<br />
been presented in black and white.<br />
Stauch Vorster: The lamppost you are<br />
referring to is in fact 9.2m above ngl and<br />
therefore the scale of the proposed<br />
development his accurately depicted<br />
(assuming a reasonable degree of standard<br />
deviation).<br />
These images were furthermore accepted by<br />
the visual impact assessor before being<br />
utilised in the visual impact assessment.<br />
Please refer to Sections 5.2.5 and 5.2.6 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Your comment is noted, however with<br />
reference to the Feasibility Assessment<br />
(Annexure P/R of the <strong>FEIR</strong>) it is clear that a<br />
building less than ground level plus three<br />
levels would not be financially viable.<br />
Alternatives assessed have thus been in line<br />
with the potential feasibility as the proponent<br />
would be reluctant to develop an unprofitable<br />
building.<br />
Process<br />
Process<br />
Process<br />
Process<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 163 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
3.1.141<br />
3.1.142<br />
3.1.143<br />
3.1.144<br />
Johan Liebenberg,<br />
Dorel Van der<br />
Westhuizen, Kobus<br />
Viljoen, Abrie<br />
Bruwer, Chris Moll,<br />
Stuart Du Plessis,<br />
G. R. Youldon,<br />
Johan Venter (59,<br />
73, 69, 66, 65, 172,<br />
93, 78)<br />
Johan Liebenberg,<br />
Dorel Van der<br />
Westhuizen, Kobus<br />
Viljoen, Abrie<br />
Bruwer, Chris Moll,<br />
Stuart Du Plessis,<br />
G. R. Youldon,<br />
Johan Venter (59,<br />
73, 69, 66, 65, 172,<br />
93, 78)<br />
Johan Liebenberg,<br />
Dorel Van der<br />
Westhuizen, Kobus<br />
Viljoen, Abrie<br />
Bruwer, Chris Moll,<br />
Stuart Du Plessis,<br />
G. R. Youldon,<br />
Johan Venter (59,<br />
73, 69, 66, 65, 172,<br />
93, 78)<br />
Johan Liebenberg,<br />
Dorel Van der<br />
Westhuizen, Kobus<br />
Viljoen, Abrie<br />
Bruwer, Chris Moll,<br />
Stuart Du Plessis,<br />
G. R. Youldon,<br />
Johan Venter (59,<br />
73, 69, 66, 65, 172,<br />
93, 78)<br />
I demand that each objection be listed and<br />
the number of IAP‟s objecting to that<br />
particular point be listed. As it currently<br />
stands it seems that the objections are only<br />
against the alternatives. How can the best<br />
decision be taken if the numbers of the<br />
objecting I&AP‟s are not reflected?<br />
I have been informed by some I&APs that<br />
they were not informed of the public<br />
meetings and this report. I strongly object<br />
to this and this is unfair to the individual and<br />
everyone and jeopardizes this process.<br />
They have the right to ask for a restart.<br />
I further object to these meetings being held<br />
off-season i.e. the open day was six weeks<br />
before the school holidays, surely it could<br />
have waited until then. You would have a<br />
much fairer and objective report with more<br />
input from the majority of property owners<br />
who only visit in the holidays. I urge you to<br />
allow comments obtained in the holiday<br />
period of 2009 and if not, then to state that<br />
in this report.<br />
The DEIR states that the local traditional<br />
fishermen will be accommodated as best<br />
they can with a fish processing facility in the<br />
proposed building, however the architect<br />
could not point out the location of such a<br />
facility at the Open Day meeting. Once<br />
again an empty promise.<br />
Please refer to Section 3.1.140 of this<br />
Comment and Response Report and Volume<br />
2 of the <strong>FEIR</strong> to see how many people are<br />
opposed to the proposed development. The<br />
decision is not based on a popularity poll but<br />
on all facts presented to the authorities.<br />
Every effort is made to ensure all registered<br />
I&APs are informed/notified throughout the<br />
EIA process. We did experience a technical<br />
fault with email correspondence, however<br />
other media was utilised to ensure notification<br />
to all registered I&APs was achieved. Please<br />
refer to section 3 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
The EIA process to date has spanned 32<br />
months and all the information for the draft<br />
EIR phase produced was made available for<br />
public comment between 09/10/2009 –<br />
17/11/2009. The EIA regulations do not<br />
stipulate that public meetings are required for<br />
the review period of the DEIR, however to<br />
ensure I&APs had a platform for engagement<br />
the public meetings between 30/31 October<br />
2009 were deemed suitable in line with the<br />
project programme. Please refer to Chapter<br />
3 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
The architect was not mandated to design the<br />
retail section in detail. The <strong>Environmental</strong><br />
Assessment Practitioner was however<br />
informed by the proponent from the beginning<br />
of the EIA process that there would be a fish<br />
market/handling facility and this has been<br />
conveyed to I&APs on numerous occasions.<br />
Please refer to Section 2.4.8 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Process<br />
Process<br />
Process<br />
Process<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 164 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
3.1.145<br />
Johan Liebenberg,<br />
Dorel Van der<br />
Westhuizen, Kobus<br />
Viljoen, Abrie<br />
Bruwer, Chris Moll,<br />
Stuart Du Plessis,<br />
G. R. Youldon,<br />
Johan Venter (59,<br />
73, 69, 66, 65, 172,<br />
93, 78)<br />
It is unacceptable to state that the<br />
development will have a positive impact on<br />
the harbour. This is the last unspoilt<br />
commercial harbour in the country, where<br />
the traditional chukkies are moored without<br />
yacht marinas and constructions as<br />
proposed. It is absurd to rate this intrusion<br />
as positive. You have received over 1000<br />
complaints stating that the harbour is<br />
unspoilt and yet this has not been reflected<br />
in your Draft EIA Report.<br />
Incorrect all comments received have been<br />
included in the reports and summarized in<br />
relevant Comment Response reports. Please<br />
refer to Sections 3, 5.2.4 and 5.2.5 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Process<br />
3.1.146<br />
81, 79, 95, 85, 84,<br />
90, 160, 162, 164,<br />
154, 155, 156, 157,<br />
158, 153, 150, 151,<br />
116, 102, 103, 101,<br />
99, 100, 98, 92, 94,<br />
163, 174, 175, 176,<br />
177, 178, 33, 179,<br />
180, 181, 182<br />
I know of many I&APs who submitted letters<br />
of protest but are not on the database<br />
therefore we must assume their disapproval<br />
has been mislaid or lost.<br />
Please check Volume 2 of the <strong>FEIR</strong> to<br />
determine if their objection has reached<br />
Aurecon. Aurecon takes all reasonable steps<br />
to ensure the inclusion of every comment<br />
received during the EIA whether the<br />
comments are positive or negative.<br />
Process<br />
3.1.147<br />
Justine Sweet (97)<br />
The significant noise created by the<br />
fishermen, created at all times of the day<br />
and night, could pose a significant nuisance<br />
to residents and hotel guests within the<br />
proposed development [p. 141-142 of<br />
dEIR]. It is unclear whether the essential<br />
mitigation measures suggested would be<br />
sufficient to ensure that this nuisance does<br />
not result in the alienation of the fishermen<br />
as a result of persistent complaints being<br />
lodged against them. If double glazing is<br />
required to accommodate this noise<br />
concern, air conditioning would follow as a<br />
matter of course. No provision has been<br />
made for this and once again, this<br />
demonstrates a failure to consider all<br />
relevant considerations and associated<br />
impacts.<br />
EAP response: It has been stated on<br />
numerous occasions throughout the EIA that<br />
the appropriate design imperatives would be<br />
included into the construction.<br />
Stauch Vorster: Double glazing was intended<br />
from the beginning of the design stage.<br />
Noise<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 165 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
4 Consideration of<br />
alternatives<br />
4.1.1<br />
Johan Van Zyl (15)<br />
Furthermore, the argument that the<br />
developer does not have any other land<br />
suitable for this type of development is<br />
raising concerns about the weight of the<br />
report. However, the fact that we don‟t have<br />
any land does not give us more rights. It<br />
would be more appropriate for the<br />
developer to focus his energy on areas that<br />
require his abilities.<br />
Erf 848 is the only property that the proponent<br />
owns and therefore is exploring the possibility<br />
of developing on that erf. It has been<br />
suggested to utilise the old Struisbaai Hotel<br />
site as an alternative site, however it has been<br />
confirmed by El-Mé Properties that the selling<br />
price of the Struisbaai Hotel site is<br />
R 75,000,000 which is unacceptable to the<br />
proponent and unfeasible.<br />
Alternatives<br />
4.1.2<br />
4.1.3<br />
4.1.4<br />
Johan Van Zyl (15)<br />
Johan Van der<br />
Westhuizen (39)<br />
Leon Lotter (40)<br />
There is no reason why property away from<br />
the harbour can't be used, should the area<br />
require development. Organised<br />
expropriation is still legal in South Africa,<br />
however the reason behind this decision<br />
has to be appropriate<br />
Alternatives are too limited, it looks like the<br />
proposed development is being forced.<br />
Erf 848 should in fact be sold to the harbour<br />
authorities in order to provide for future<br />
needs and developments. What other<br />
options are there for future developments in<br />
the harbour?<br />
Please refer to Section 4.1.1 of this Comment<br />
and Response Report.<br />
Please refer to Section 2.4 of the <strong>FEIR</strong> and<br />
Section 3.1.51 of this Comment and<br />
Response Report.<br />
Your point is noted. Development in the<br />
harbour is the responsibility of MCM.<br />
Please refer to Section 4.1.1 of this Comment<br />
and Response Report.<br />
Alternatives<br />
Alternatives<br />
Alternatives<br />
4.1.5<br />
4.1.6<br />
Chris Van der Walt<br />
(43)<br />
E. Ley Kempthorne<br />
(49)<br />
The property located above the Nostra<br />
would be more suitable for this type of<br />
development.<br />
Has sufficient thought been given to<br />
locating the hotel in a more suitable position<br />
such as next to Nostra or near the<br />
Langezandt Quays Fishing Village?<br />
Applicants response: The property that you<br />
are referring to is priced well out of the market<br />
price at R 75,000,000 in comparison to the<br />
value paid for Erf 848. It would not be<br />
financially viable.<br />
Please refer to Section 3.1.52 and 4.1.5 of<br />
this Comment and Response Report.<br />
Alternatives<br />
Alternatives<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 166 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
4.1.7<br />
4.1.8<br />
4.1.9<br />
4.1.10<br />
4.1.11<br />
4.1.12<br />
4.1.13<br />
4.1.14<br />
E. Ley Kempthorne<br />
(49)<br />
Meg Cowper Lewis<br />
(SEA) (48)<br />
David McKinstry<br />
(21)<br />
Neville Van der<br />
Westhuizen (71)<br />
Karin I Van Niekerk<br />
(87)<br />
Les C. Freese (91)<br />
Dirk de Jongh (Jnr)<br />
(168)<br />
Gillian Vermaak<br />
(152)<br />
It's been mentioned that the proposed<br />
development is a waterfront style<br />
development however given the current<br />
proposed activities a significant opportunity<br />
for a more sympathetic development could<br />
be lost if this development is allowed to<br />
continue.<br />
Page 3 of the Executive Summary<br />
(Alternatives) states that Erf 848 is the only<br />
site available to the developer for this<br />
development as they are the landowners.”<br />
This sentence clearly has no logical<br />
meaning in the English language and<br />
throughout this entire process minimal<br />
mention has been made of the “No-go”<br />
option.<br />
The “no go” option is the one that will best<br />
serve the needs of the various communities<br />
of Struisbaai, as opposed to the developer,<br />
and it will preserve the character and<br />
ambiance of this beautiful part of South<br />
Africa.<br />
Another absolutely unreasonable statement<br />
is to state that Erf 848 is the only site<br />
available to the developer for this<br />
development as they are the landowners.<br />
There are other alternatives. The vacant old<br />
hotel site Erf 230 is ideally suited for the<br />
development envisaged<br />
There is enough land in the area that can<br />
be developed without major impacts.<br />
I support positive progress and tasteful, and<br />
developments which consider things like<br />
heritage, zoning etc.<br />
The EIA suggests that alternative 6 would<br />
be viable than other alternatives, however<br />
we‟re not satisfied with the proposed<br />
development despite this propaganda.<br />
One can buy freshly caught fish at a regular<br />
fish shop (not a sterile woolies market) at<br />
reasonable prices.<br />
Your point is noted. Please refer to Section<br />
5.2.3 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Please refer to Section 3.1.51 of this<br />
Comment and Response Report. The no-go<br />
option is referred to throughout the <strong>FEIR</strong> and<br />
is the base state against which the proposed<br />
development is measured. Please refer to<br />
Section 5.2.9 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Your point is noted. Please refer to Section<br />
5.2.9 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Please refer to Section 4.1.1 and 4.1.5 of this<br />
Comment and Response Report.<br />
Please refer to Section 3.1.51 of this<br />
Comment and Response Report and Chapter<br />
6 of the <strong>FEIR</strong> which summarises the findings<br />
Your point is noted. Please refer to Section<br />
2.8 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
The EIA findings were informed by the various<br />
specialist studies undertaken and taken<br />
through the approved methodology however<br />
we accept that you may not like the proposed<br />
design.<br />
The proposed development plans to sell the<br />
fish from a fish market facility. Please refer to<br />
Section 2.4.8 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Alternatives<br />
Alternatives<br />
Alternatives<br />
Alternatives<br />
Alternatives<br />
Alternatives<br />
Alternatives<br />
Alternatives<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 167 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
4.1.15<br />
4.1.16<br />
4.1.17<br />
4.1.18<br />
4.1.19<br />
4.1.20<br />
4.1.21<br />
Gillian Vermaak<br />
(152)<br />
Hannes and Erica<br />
Pienaar (163)<br />
Andrea Buys (50)<br />
B.J. Viljoen (18)<br />
Stephen Knobel<br />
(137)<br />
Jeanette Bruwer<br />
(75)<br />
G.R. Youldon (93)<br />
There is a caravan selling cone ice-cream,<br />
not an expensive carousel in a supermarket<br />
There's an alternative area that was<br />
earmarked for hotel or holiday<br />
accommodation, why does the developer<br />
destroy another part of Struisbaai.<br />
Why is the proposed hotel rather not built in<br />
an area where the old hotel stood?<br />
The proposed development would rather be<br />
located at where the old hotel and cottages<br />
(rondawels) are located at present. They've<br />
got a negative visual impact. Why do you<br />
want to continue with the current location –<br />
it will only be a source of irritation in the<br />
future should the proposed development<br />
continue.<br />
There are other sites available for the<br />
proposed development i.e. old Struisbaai<br />
Hotel as well as the old Agulhas Hotel.<br />
Such sites could be used for the proposed<br />
development without damaging the<br />
character of the one of the last remaining<br />
working fishing harbours. Should the<br />
developer decide to utilise alternative sites,<br />
the proposed development would be<br />
supported by everyone.<br />
Numerous alternative sites are available for<br />
the proposed development including the old<br />
Motel site.<br />
The proposed development can be located<br />
anywhere else without destroying the<br />
character of a harbour.<br />
Your comment is noted, however activities<br />
occurring within the Harbour will be under the<br />
control of MCM and not the developer.<br />
Please refer to Section 4.1.1 and 4.1.5 of this<br />
Comment and Response Report.Please refer<br />
to section 2.4 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Please refer to Section 4.1.1 and 4.1.5 of this<br />
Comment and Response Report.<br />
Please refer to Section 4.1.1 and 4.1.5 of this<br />
Comment and Response Report.<br />
Please refer to Section 4.1.1 and 4.1.5 of this<br />
Comment and Response Report.Please refer<br />
to section 2.4 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Please refer to Section 3.1.51, 4.1.1 and 4.1.5<br />
of this Comment and Response Report<br />
regarding alternative sites.<br />
Please refer to Section 3.1.51 of this<br />
Comment and Response Report regarding<br />
alternative sites.<br />
Alternatives<br />
Alternatives<br />
Alternatives<br />
Alternatives<br />
Alternatives<br />
Alternatives<br />
Alternatives<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 168 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
4.1.22<br />
4.1.23<br />
4.1.24<br />
4.1.25<br />
Carel Schaap (165)<br />
A.F. & J.H. Tooke<br />
(67)<br />
A.F. & J.H. Tooke<br />
(67)<br />
A.F. & J.H. Tooke<br />
(67)<br />
The DEIR explores no alternative sites for<br />
development. I personally feel that the<br />
stretch of land between Langezandt and<br />
Struisbaai North would be appropriate for<br />
the proposed development as it does not as<br />
clearly affect any residential property<br />
around. Also the now-abandoned<br />
commercial development between<br />
Langezandt and the main road would be a<br />
good position - overlooking the quaint<br />
fishing village of Langezandt towards the<br />
sea, while having the excellent access from<br />
the main road. Or the stretch of properties<br />
on Marine Drive between the ridge and the<br />
main road - even a 4 storey development<br />
would not spoil any property's line of sight to<br />
the beach below.<br />
A hotel site already exists in Struisbaai, and<br />
is another ideal alternative property and is<br />
currently vacant. This site must already<br />
have the required zoning, is centrally<br />
located alongside a public parking area and<br />
directly adjacent to the sea shore. I<br />
therefore contest the argument that<br />
alternative locations should not be<br />
considered, they should be considered.<br />
I disagree with the statement that site layout<br />
alternatives are limited, and that one<br />
feasible layout is therefore assessed. The<br />
fact that the developer bought the land at<br />
too high price should not justify an<br />
inappropriate development.<br />
I do not believe that adequate alternative<br />
activity and design alternatives have been<br />
explored, the only alternatives noted were<br />
an industrial development for fish<br />
processing and a four to six storey<br />
residential development. There must be<br />
other far more appropriate alternatives e.g.<br />
craft workshop and market which employs<br />
local disadvantaged communities, one and<br />
two storey residential development etc,<br />
Please refer to section 2.4 of the <strong>FEIR</strong> and<br />
4.1.1 of this Comments and Response<br />
Report.<br />
Please refer to Section 4.1.1 and 4.1.5 of this<br />
Comment and Response Report.Please refer<br />
to section 2.4 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Please refer to Section 3.1.51 of this<br />
Comment and Response Report regarding<br />
alternative sites.<br />
Please refer to Section 4.1.1 of this Comment<br />
and Response Report.Please refer to section<br />
2.4 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Alternatives<br />
Alternatives<br />
Alternatives<br />
Alternatives<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 169 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
4.1.26<br />
4.1.27<br />
4.1.28<br />
4.1.29<br />
4.1.30<br />
A.F. & J.H. Tooke<br />
(67)<br />
Lindie Snyman (61)<br />
GJ Pienaar (56)<br />
Mr. and Mrs.<br />
Hendrik/ Helen<br />
Conradie (108)<br />
E de Kock (88)<br />
We would propose a cluster residential<br />
development of a single and double storey<br />
residential units in the genre developed<br />
Langezandt Quays village, augmenting,<br />
rather than overwhelming the atmosphere<br />
and character of the harbour, and setting a<br />
standard for responsible, tasteful and<br />
appropriate development in Struisbaai.<br />
According to your documentation there are<br />
no alternative site locations – what about<br />
where the hotel was?<br />
There is an existing much larger<br />
undeveloped erf zoned for a hotel available<br />
(the old hotel site) that is strategically<br />
located at the main beach. This can be<br />
used for the developer‟s purposes without<br />
having unreasonable impact on the interest<br />
of neighbouring homeowners and the facility<br />
users at the fishing harbour.<br />
There are properties available for this type<br />
of development, e.g. die demolished<br />
Struisbaai hotel/motel property. An excellent<br />
opportunity to due something positive for<br />
Struisbaai as a tourist destination.<br />
I am in favour of: (1) A world class seafood<br />
restaurant, building according to local<br />
traditional architecture, one storey, (2) Small<br />
shops that have local and traditional goods<br />
for sale, (3) Keeping the harbour building as<br />
is with fishing boats, etc. This is what gives<br />
the harbour its atmosphere and personality,<br />
(4) Heritage centre that shows the history of<br />
fishermen, Struisbaai and the marine leave<br />
in the bay; this can link to a shipwreck<br />
museum. The future Agulhas National Park<br />
heritage centre and the Elim heritage<br />
centre, (5) No housing and (6) Paid parking.<br />
Please refer to Annexure P & R of the <strong>FEIR</strong><br />
regarding the feasibility of less than four<br />
storey development of this nature.<br />
Please refer to Section 4.1.1 and 4.1.5 of this<br />
Comment and Response Report.Please refer<br />
to section 2.4 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Please refer to Section 3.1.51, 4.1.1 and 4.1.5<br />
of this Comment and Response Report<br />
regarding alternative sites.<br />
Please refer to Section 3.1.51, 4.1.1 and 4.1.5<br />
of this Comment and Response Report<br />
regarding alternative sites.<br />
Thank you for your suggestions. Refer to<br />
Annexure R of the <strong>FEIR</strong> for the feasibility<br />
assessment undertaken by Turner &<br />
Townsend<br />
Alternatives<br />
Alternatives<br />
Alternatives<br />
Alternatives<br />
Alternatives<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 170 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
4.1.31<br />
4.1.32<br />
4.1.33<br />
Gert Groenewald,<br />
Anna-Marie<br />
Groenewald,<br />
Juliana Van der<br />
Merwe, Anneke<br />
Groenewald, Gerda<br />
Groenewald (138,<br />
138, 183, 184, 185,<br />
186)<br />
Gert Groenewald,<br />
Anna-Marie<br />
Groenewald,<br />
Juliana Van der<br />
Merwe, Anneke<br />
Groenewald, Gerda<br />
Groenewald (138,<br />
138, 183, 184, 185,<br />
186))<br />
Justine Sweet (97)<br />
The development should be<br />
environmentally friendly – fisher style<br />
shops, a few boats in the water, a bar in an<br />
anchored boat, an old shipwreck<br />
transformed into a restaurant (or a building<br />
constructed to look like one), etc. Use your<br />
imagination to create something unique that<br />
would be an asset.<br />
Residential developments should not be<br />
allowed in the harbour. There are more then<br />
enough accommodation in Struisbaai. The<br />
harbour should rather include shops,<br />
restaurants, etc. where people can walk<br />
barefoot and in swimwear and even sit<br />
down at the Pelican. The Pelican‟s idea is<br />
ideal. No ugly buildings please.<br />
Site location alternatives were not<br />
considered [p. 43 of dEIR]. This is despite<br />
the fact that there were at least two suitable<br />
alternative locations for the proposed<br />
development identified by the original town<br />
planners [as advised by Mr Stephen Knobel<br />
during a telephone discussion]. These are<br />
set back from the harbour and would avoid<br />
the potential alienation of the fishermen<br />
from the use of the harbour. These sites<br />
will also be more appropriate for residential<br />
units as the noise, smells and irregular<br />
hours kept by the fishermen will not pose a<br />
nuisance to the residents.<br />
Thank you for your suggestions. Refer to<br />
Annexure R of the <strong>FEIR</strong> for the feasibility<br />
assessment undertaken by Turner &<br />
Townsend<br />
Thank you for your suggestions. The hotel<br />
only accounts for a portion of the proposed<br />
development. The items that you have<br />
supported are included in the proposed<br />
development i.e. restaurants and shops with<br />
the lower level being available for informal<br />
attire.<br />
Please refer to Section 4.1.1 and 4.1.5 of this<br />
Comment and Response Report.Please refer<br />
to section 2.4 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Alternatives<br />
Alternatives<br />
Alternatives<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 171 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
4.1.34<br />
4.1.35<br />
4.1.36<br />
Justine Sweet (97)<br />
Justine Sweet (97)<br />
A.F. & J.H. Tooke<br />
(67)<br />
During the Scoping Phase, four activity<br />
alternatives were investigated, namely an<br />
industrial development (consisting of two<br />
options), a combination of residential and<br />
retail development, a residential<br />
development comprising 4 levels and a<br />
residential development comprising 6 levels<br />
[p. 40-41 of dEIR; p.22-23 of Final Scoping<br />
Report.] The "no go" option was also<br />
considered. Subsequently, a sixth<br />
alternative, a mixed residential and retail<br />
development comprising between two and<br />
four storeys, was proposed in an effort to<br />
respond to some of the interested and<br />
affected parties concerns [p. 26 & 41of<br />
dEIR]. Activity alternatives one to four were<br />
"scoped out" due to reasons set out in the<br />
draft EIR [Table 2.3 on p.44 of dEIR]. No<br />
viable alternatives have really been put<br />
forward and properly investigated. It is<br />
submitted that this represents a fatal flaw in<br />
the process.<br />
In addition, the new activity alternative six<br />
("the proposed development") proposes an<br />
upmarket fish handling facility which would<br />
purchase fish from local fishermen. The<br />
development proponent confirms that the<br />
success of this facility is dependent upon<br />
the availability of fish resources and<br />
sustainability [p. 62 of dEIR] It seems<br />
somewhat incongruous that the<br />
development proponent therefore rejected<br />
proposed alternative one, a fish processing<br />
plant, on the basis that "there would not be<br />
sufficient fish stock landed to make the<br />
business viable."[Table 2.3 on p.44 of<br />
dEIR]. This puts into question the alleged<br />
non feasibility of activity alternative one.<br />
I object to the statement that the erf 848 is<br />
the only site available to the developer for<br />
this development as they are landowners.<br />
The fact that the developer has made<br />
unwise property investment decisions does<br />
not justify that there are no alternatives.<br />
Strongly disagree. Please refer to Section 2.4<br />
of the <strong>FEIR</strong>. The process adopted in an<br />
iterative process where a number of<br />
alternatives were considered and scoped out<br />
resulting in Alternatives 5 & 6 as the final<br />
alternatives to be taken through the<br />
assessment phase<br />
Applicants response: The fish market that is<br />
proposed is vastly on a smaller scale and thus<br />
can be financially viable due to the quantum<br />
of fish required to make the facility<br />
sustainable. Alternative 1 was limited to fish<br />
handling/process as the primary business<br />
whereby Alternative 6 has a more diversified<br />
functionality.<br />
Please refer to Section 3.1.51 of this<br />
Comment and Response Report regarding<br />
alternative sites.<br />
Alternatives<br />
Alternatives<br />
Alternatives<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 172 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
4.1.37<br />
Johan Liebenberg,<br />
Dorel Van der<br />
Westhuizen, Kobus<br />
Viljoen, Abrie<br />
Bruwer, Chris Moll,<br />
Stuart Du Plessis,<br />
G. R. Youldon,<br />
Johan Venter (59,<br />
73, 69, 66, 65, 172,<br />
93, 78)<br />
Referring to page 48 (2.4.5), the<br />
proponent‟s argument as to why he refuses<br />
to have a two storey building included in the<br />
study as being commercially unsustainable<br />
is strange.<br />
Please refer to Annexures R & T of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Alternatives<br />
5 Opposition to the proposed development<br />
5.1.1<br />
5.1.2<br />
5.1.3<br />
5.1.4<br />
Jacobus J.D.<br />
Havenga (12)<br />
Johan Venter (78)<br />
Gert Groenewald,<br />
Anna-Marie<br />
Groenewald,<br />
Juliana Van der<br />
Merwe, Anneke<br />
Groenewald, Gerda<br />
Groenewald (138,<br />
138, 183, 184, 185,<br />
186)<br />
Jacobus J.D.<br />
Havenga (12)<br />
I feel sorry for the residents who live near<br />
the harbour and who would firsthand<br />
experience negative impact resulting from<br />
the development<br />
With reference to Abrie Bruwer‟s memo<br />
dated 3 November 2009 regarding this<br />
issue. This memo expresses my feelings<br />
and objections towards the proposed<br />
development.<br />
We all agree to the following objections. We<br />
agree with everything written in the<br />
Suidernuus on 13 November 2009 by the<br />
Suidpunt <strong>Environmental</strong> Alliance.<br />
Do not see me as an ill- humour person;<br />
rather think about how you would feel in our<br />
position. Wouldn‟t you also ask questions?<br />
Noted. Please refer to Section 5.2.3 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Noted. Please refer to Section 2.8 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Noted. Please refer to Section 2.8 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
All comments and queries are welcomed.<br />
Public participation is a critical part of the<br />
information required for an informed decision<br />
to be taken. Thank you for participating.<br />
Oppose<br />
Objection<br />
Objection<br />
Oppose<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 173 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
5.1.5<br />
5.1.6<br />
5.1.7<br />
5.1.8<br />
5.1.9<br />
5.1.10<br />
5.1.11<br />
5.1.12<br />
5.1.13<br />
Jonine Mostert (25)<br />
Evan Meirion<br />
Williams (31)<br />
Hennie Mostert (37)<br />
Emmerentia<br />
Hesseling (on<br />
behalf of 4 tax<br />
payers) (41)<br />
Meg Cowper Lewis<br />
(SEA) (48)<br />
Stephen Gerber<br />
(63)<br />
Frances Pienaar<br />
(58)<br />
Evan Meirion<br />
Williams (31)<br />
Evan Meirion<br />
Williams (31)<br />
I do not understand how far the project is<br />
and whether it will be going ahead but I<br />
think it is a bad idea.<br />
I'm a Struisbaai resident for 17 years and<br />
annual visitor for 45 years and the proposed<br />
development cannot take place<br />
As a resident of Struisbaai, I think that the<br />
proposed development is a smoke screen<br />
I am completely against the proposed<br />
development as a Struisbaai homeowner. I<br />
have personally also talked to members of<br />
the fishing community and they explicitly<br />
object to the proposed development. They<br />
have signed a petition against it.<br />
The Suidpunt <strong>Environmental</strong> Alliance<br />
objects most strongly to any up-market<br />
development exceeding two storeys within<br />
the Struisbaai Historic and Cultural Harbour<br />
precinct<br />
I am Struisbaai property owner erf 890 and<br />
with my family we strongly object against<br />
the proposed development.<br />
I would like to express my strongest<br />
opposition to the proposed development of<br />
the Struisbaai Harbour.<br />
Given the overwhelming negative reaction<br />
by the directly and indirectly affected<br />
Struisbaai community, this development<br />
should be rejected just like the<br />
developments at Hout Bay and the Apostles<br />
in the Peninsula mountain chain<br />
The virtual 100% rejection of the proposal<br />
by those present was clear for all to see.<br />
The draft EIR Phase has been completed.<br />
Additional studies and information was<br />
obtained to answer issues raised by<br />
registered I&APs during the draft EIR review<br />
phase which ended on the 17 November<br />
2009. The <strong>FEIR</strong> will be made available for<br />
public review before submission is made to<br />
the decision-making authority after which the<br />
environmental authorisation decision can be<br />
taken.<br />
Noted. Please refer to Section 2.8 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Noted. Please refer to Section 2.8 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Noted. Please refer to Section 2.8 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Noted. Please refer to Section 2.8 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Noted. Please refer to Section 2.8 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Noted. Please refer to Section 2.8 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Noted. Please refer to Section 2.8 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Noted. Please refer to Section 2.8 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Oppose<br />
Oppose<br />
Oppose<br />
Oppose<br />
Oppose<br />
Oppose<br />
Oppose<br />
Oppose<br />
Oppose<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 174 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
5.1.14<br />
5.1.15<br />
5.1.16<br />
5.1.17<br />
5.1.18<br />
5.1.19<br />
5.1.20<br />
5.1.21<br />
5.1.22<br />
Neville Van der<br />
Westhuizen, A.F. &<br />
J.H. Tooke (71, 69)<br />
Dirk de Jongh on<br />
behalf of Struisbaai<br />
Home Owners<br />
Assosciation (72)<br />
Tiaan P. Lourens<br />
(110)<br />
Heleen Rabe (118)<br />
Dirk de Jongh (Jnr)<br />
(168)<br />
Bob P. De Groot<br />
(143)<br />
Marie-Lou Roux<br />
(159)<br />
Jan Momberg (3)<br />
D.G. & J.L. Falck<br />
(64)<br />
I strongly object to the proposed<br />
development Commercial development at<br />
the traditional Harbour.<br />
Support for the development was recruited<br />
at schools in the Southern Cape – most<br />
likely under the pretence of marketing for<br />
the proposed sectional title deeds. Will you<br />
be using this as public support for the<br />
development? As you know by now, no-one<br />
in Struisbaai supports the development.<br />
Provincial and local government institutions<br />
have been informed of the situation.<br />
As we're doing business in the fishing<br />
industry, we are totally opposed to the<br />
proposed development.<br />
I object to the proposed development in<br />
Struisbaai.<br />
It is my view the proposed harbour<br />
development is not conducive to the<br />
wellbeing of Struisbaai and I am therefore<br />
against it. I am against this development<br />
due to the impacts already mentioned.<br />
Other opportunities are available for<br />
development that (after the necessary<br />
consultation of all interested parties) will<br />
enhance and grow Struisbaai for us to<br />
contribute to the economic needs being<br />
placed upon us.<br />
I do not approve the proposed<br />
development.<br />
We ask that this application not be<br />
approved.<br />
I want to lodge my strongest objection to the<br />
development at the Harbour.<br />
We are strongly opposed to the<br />
development proposed by Golden Falls<br />
Trading 193 (Pty) Ltd on erf 848.<br />
Noted. Please refer to Section 2.8 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Noted. Regarding the school support, you<br />
made the same comment at the public<br />
meeting on 31 October 2009, but despite a<br />
commitment by you to provide proof of such<br />
support; we are yet to validate this allegation.<br />
Upon consultation with the proponent they<br />
have denied any such doing in the strongest<br />
terms. This allegation can only be accepted if<br />
the proof is supplied.<br />
Applicants response: We take exception to<br />
this allegation and call on you to prove this<br />
irresponsible allegation in the strongest terms.<br />
Noted. Please refer to Section 5.2.3 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Noted. Please refer to Section 2.8 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Noted. Please refer to Section 2.8 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Noted. Please refer to Section 2.8 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Noted. Please refer to Section 2.8 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Noted. Please refer to Section 2.8 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Noted. Please refer to Section 2.8 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Oppose<br />
Oppose<br />
Oppose<br />
Oppose<br />
Oppose<br />
Oppose<br />
Oppose<br />
Oppose<br />
Oppose<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 175 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
5.1.23<br />
5.1.24<br />
5.1.25<br />
5.1.26<br />
5.1.27<br />
5.1.28<br />
5.1.29<br />
5.1.30<br />
5.1.31<br />
5.1.32<br />
5.1.33<br />
5.1.34<br />
5.1.35<br />
5.1.36<br />
S. Du Plessis (171)<br />
Grant McKinstry<br />
(80)<br />
Johan & Cecilia<br />
Janse van<br />
Rensburg (57)<br />
GJ Pienaar (56)<br />
Amaria Erasmus<br />
(107)<br />
Mr. and Mrs.<br />
Hendrik/ Helen<br />
Conradie (108)<br />
Frederick Janse van<br />
Rensburg (169)<br />
Erla Rabe (83)<br />
A. J. Vlok (139)<br />
Jacobus J.R. Du<br />
Plessis (141)<br />
Valerie Wiese (6)<br />
Ignatius Petrus<br />
Lourens (82)<br />
G.G. Newman (149)<br />
Justine Sweet (97)<br />
The fishermen in Struisbaai are totally<br />
against the proposed development in<br />
Struisbaai Harbour.<br />
I object to the currently proposed<br />
development the strongest possible terms.<br />
We strongly object to the any development<br />
more than two storeys on erf 848.<br />
I herewith confirm as owner of erf 649 my<br />
opposition to the development of erf 848 for<br />
the reasons explained in my submission<br />
annexure.<br />
Against it.<br />
Be warned, should you receive approval,<br />
we will object vehemently to the<br />
development.<br />
I continue to object to multi-storey buildings<br />
in the harbour area.<br />
I object to the proposed development of the<br />
Struisbaai harbour.<br />
Seen in the light of the above and<br />
considering the undoable and monocular<br />
mitigation measures used to try and<br />
substantiate the development, we have to<br />
object strongly to the proposed<br />
development.<br />
I am completely against the development.<br />
The proposed development will negatively<br />
affect the harbour area.<br />
As a tourist, it would be very sad for<br />
Struisbaai community should the proposed<br />
development be approved.<br />
I am a fisherman from Struisbaai and object<br />
to the development<br />
We have been instructed to object to the<br />
development and to submit formal written<br />
comments on the draft EIR.<br />
Noted.<br />
Applicants response: Please provide a list of<br />
the fishermen you make reference to.<br />
Noted. Please refer to Section 2.8 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Noted. Please refer to Section 2.8 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Noted. Please refer to Section 2.8 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Noted. Please refer to Section 2.8 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Noted. Please refer to Section 2.8 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Noted. Please refer to Section 2.8 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Noted. Please refer to Section 2.8 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Noted. Please refer to Section 2.8 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Noted. Please refer to Section 2.8 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Noted. Please refer to Section 2.8 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Noted. Please refer to Section 2.8 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Noted. Please refer to Section 2.8 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Noted. Please refer to Section 2.8 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Oppose<br />
Oppose<br />
Oppose<br />
Oppose<br />
Oppose<br />
Oppose<br />
Oppose<br />
Oppose<br />
Oppose<br />
Oppose<br />
Objection<br />
Objection<br />
Oppose<br />
Oppose<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 176 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
5.1.37<br />
5.1.38<br />
Justine Sweet (97)<br />
Justine Sweet (97)<br />
Given the fact that our clients object to the<br />
proposed development in its current form,<br />
our clients object to any application brought<br />
on behalf of the development proponent<br />
under the relevant town-planning legislation,<br />
including any applications for a rezoning of<br />
the property, either to Special Zone,[i.t.o.<br />
Section 8 Scheme Regulations of LUPO]<br />
Business Zone [where the Cape Agulhas<br />
Municipality Integrated Zoning Scheme is<br />
approved by the Provincial Administration<br />
for the Western Cape prior to the granting of<br />
a rezoning of the site] or any other zone and<br />
the removal of any title deed or other<br />
restrictions on the property.<br />
The development proponent's observation<br />
that a potential precedent could be set in<br />
respect of buildings that exceed the SDF's<br />
two storey limit are greatly concerning to our<br />
clients [p. 125 of dEIR]. It is for this reason<br />
that our clients strongly object to the<br />
approval of the proposed development in its<br />
current form.<br />
Noted Please refer to Section 2.8 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Noted. Please refer to Section 2.7 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Oppose<br />
Oppose<br />
6 Support for the<br />
proposed<br />
development<br />
6.1.1<br />
6.1.2<br />
6.1.3<br />
6.1.4<br />
6.1.5<br />
M.J Edwards (7) The proposed development is acceptable. Noted. Favour<br />
Mark Murtz (14)<br />
SW Meyer (46)<br />
Glynn D. Shield &<br />
Lynne M. Shield<br />
(113 & 112)<br />
Yvonne M Burke<br />
(166)<br />
I've got no concerns with regard to the<br />
proposed development, the development<br />
must go ahead<br />
I'm a businessman as well as a resident and<br />
I support possible businesses and<br />
restaurants.<br />
I am favourable of the proposed<br />
development<br />
I thank you for your interest in developing a<br />
building in Struisbaai, it can have a positive<br />
impact on our town.<br />
Noted.<br />
Noted.<br />
Noted.<br />
Noted.<br />
Favour<br />
Favour<br />
Favour<br />
Favour<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 177 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
7 General comment<br />
7.1.1<br />
7.1.2<br />
7.1.3<br />
7.1.4<br />
7.1.5<br />
7.1.6<br />
7.1.7<br />
7.1.8<br />
Jacobus J.D.<br />
Havenga (12)<br />
Johan Van Zyl (15)<br />
Johan Van Zyl (15)<br />
A.S. Lourens &<br />
other 5 Struisbaai<br />
Property owners<br />
(23)<br />
Robin N Green (44)<br />
David McKinstry<br />
(21)<br />
Evan Meirion<br />
Williams (31)<br />
Evan Meirion<br />
Williams (31)<br />
Good luck with your planning and work<br />
We are truly concerned about the<br />
development and respect the developer, as<br />
well as appreciate the contributions he has<br />
made.<br />
Southern Staying understands how difficult<br />
the decision is that has to be made and<br />
wish the decision makers good luck. May<br />
the decision not rip the community apart<br />
and may the Lord bless the people of this<br />
area.<br />
All previous detailed comments/objections<br />
are still relevant.<br />
It looks like the developers want to change<br />
the entire coastline of South Africa and<br />
change every harbour into a waterfront, this<br />
is enough.<br />
The developer wants the building and is<br />
unlikely to deliver the promises he has<br />
made.<br />
It will be simple to collapse any<br />
concessionary agreement between the<br />
developer and the community a couple of<br />
years down the road.<br />
Struisbaai is a community with a difference.<br />
It brings residents and visitors into close<br />
proximity with the magnificent coastline and<br />
the wildlife it supports. It is a reasonably<br />
safe community to visit and to raise children<br />
in, the developer wants to change that.<br />
Noted. Please refer to the <strong>FEIR</strong> for further<br />
information.<br />
Noted.<br />
Noted. Decision making authorities are<br />
provided with as much information as is<br />
reasonably acceptable to apply their minds in<br />
the formulation of a decision (be it negative or<br />
positive).<br />
Noted. Please refer to the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Noted. The Department of <strong>Environmental</strong><br />
Affairs has a project underway, namely the<br />
Harbour Transitions Project, which aims to<br />
upgrade proclaimed fishing harbours.<br />
Noted. Please refer to Annexure T of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>. If the proposed development is<br />
approved, a number of conditions would apply<br />
that will be audited by the decision making<br />
authority to ensure compliance.<br />
Noted. In the event that the proposed<br />
development proceeds, administrative<br />
structures will be put in place and maintained<br />
to ensure optimal operations.<br />
Noted. Please refer to Section5.2.6 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Opinion<br />
Opinion<br />
Opinion<br />
Opinion<br />
Opinion<br />
Opinion<br />
Opinion<br />
Opinion<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 178 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
7.1.9<br />
7.1.10<br />
7.1.11<br />
7.1.12<br />
7.1.13<br />
7.1.14<br />
7.1.15<br />
Louis Pisani (96)<br />
Louis Pisani (96)<br />
Gillian Vermaak<br />
(152)<br />
Gillian Vermaak<br />
(152)<br />
Chris Moll (65)<br />
Amaria Erasmus<br />
(107)<br />
Hans Swart (27)<br />
My impression is that the developer and his<br />
professional team maybe trying to mislead<br />
people and take short cuts, which makes<br />
one to question the integrity of the whole<br />
development.<br />
My opinion is that the Agulhas/Overberg<br />
region is successfully marketed as a natural<br />
unspoilt coastline area, which I think needs<br />
to be preserved as such and that a four<br />
storey eyesore on the pristine coastal belt<br />
will be to the detriment of any endeavours.<br />
For those visitors requiring more<br />
sophisticated forms of entertainment, I<br />
suggest they holiday elsewhere<br />
Obviously developers require a good return<br />
on their investment, but this should not be<br />
at the expense of the residents and the very<br />
happy holidaymakers that make Struisbaai<br />
their home through the year<br />
Every day one reads in the press of more<br />
and more cases of corruption and<br />
dishonesty being uncovered in Government<br />
and top flight business, what example does<br />
this set for our youth, do we want our<br />
Country to become another Somalia<br />
To my opinion this development can cause<br />
a lot of problems for Struisbaai in the future.<br />
Regarding the proposed development and<br />
associated studies, reports and actions by<br />
Aurecon (environmental impact assessment<br />
consultants appointed by the developer):<br />
Please note the above objections are made<br />
due to the fact that I am a permanent<br />
resident with property located very close to<br />
erf 848.<br />
Disagree. Please refer to the Chapter 1.2, 1.5<br />
and 1.8 of the <strong>FEIR</strong> regarding the process<br />
followed. Aurecon, the appointed<br />
<strong>Environmental</strong> Assessment Practitioner is an<br />
independent consultant and is governed by<br />
the National <strong>Environmental</strong> Management Act<br />
(R. 385) with regard to undertaking this EIA.<br />
Aurecon has no financial gain from this<br />
development going ahead.<br />
Noted. Please refer to Sections 5.2.4 and<br />
5.2.5 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Noted. Please refer to the <strong>FEIR</strong> which<br />
addresses comments raised during the review<br />
of the DEIR.<br />
Noted. The proponent has the right to develop<br />
Erf 848 (private property). Due consideration<br />
for the needs of the public have been<br />
considered and in the context of this proposed<br />
development that 2 – 4 storey alternative<br />
(Alternative 6) has been assessed as the<br />
preferred alternative.<br />
Noted. The proponent has the right to develop<br />
Erf 848 (private property). All the necessary<br />
legal requirements and procedures are being<br />
followed to ensure that the proposed<br />
development application is considered by the<br />
decision making authorities.<br />
Noted. The EIA process to date has strived to<br />
determine potential environmental impacts.<br />
Please refer to the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Noted. Please refer to the Chapter 1.2, 1.5<br />
and 1.8 of the <strong>FEIR</strong> regarding the process<br />
followed. Aurecon, the appointed<br />
<strong>Environmental</strong> Assessment Practitioner is an<br />
independent consultant and is governed by<br />
the National <strong>Environmental</strong> Management Act<br />
(R. 385) with regard to undertaking this EIA.<br />
Aurecon has no financial gain from this<br />
development going ahead.<br />
Opinion<br />
Opinion<br />
Opinion<br />
Opinion<br />
Opinion<br />
Opinion<br />
Opinion<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 179 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
7.1.16<br />
7.1.17<br />
7.1.18<br />
7.1.19<br />
7.1.20<br />
7.1.21<br />
7.1.22<br />
7.1.23<br />
7.1.24<br />
Wentzel van Renen<br />
(134)<br />
A. J. Vlok (139)<br />
John W. Newman<br />
(146)<br />
Justine Sweet (97)<br />
Justine Sweet (97)<br />
Jonine Mostert (25)<br />
Jonine Mostert (25)<br />
Rene Swart (30)<br />
MP Loubser (45)<br />
Certain promises made during the previous<br />
Langezandt project that have not been kept.<br />
We will shortly provide comment regarding<br />
the issues mentioned in previous<br />
correspondence, as well our reaction to the<br />
latest presentation.<br />
I have had to rely on the sea from a very<br />
young age.<br />
We act for the South Cape Environment<br />
Protection Society [which is an I&AP in its<br />
own right as registered in the covering letter<br />
to this objection and as represented by DLA<br />
Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr Inc, which has<br />
always represented various I&APs in this<br />
matter and has been registered as an<br />
I&AP], which is a duly constituted voluntary<br />
association independent of its members,<br />
which represents various surrounding<br />
landowners within Struisbaai and other<br />
interested and affected parties as listed in<br />
annex A in their personal capacities<br />
(collectively, "our clients").<br />
Kindly confirm receipt of the attached<br />
comments together with the annex thereto.<br />
Thank you very much for sending me the<br />
communication all the way from South<br />
Africa. I appreciate it and it's quite<br />
important.<br />
I am not very familiar with all the legal terms<br />
used in the executive summary. But I did<br />
study all the possible outcomes and impact<br />
on the environment and community.<br />
I'm a resident; my property is located<br />
approximately 150 away from the harbour<br />
I am the owner of erf 572 (business<br />
property), located at the proposed parking<br />
area. The design for the parking area looks<br />
good. My erf is located on Heidelaan and is<br />
the only fenced property in the parking area<br />
Noted. Could you please expand on what<br />
promises were not kept and any suggestions<br />
regarding how any agreements should be<br />
changed to be more binding on the developer.<br />
Noted. All information can be forwarded to<br />
Simon Van Wyk. Please refer to the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Noted. The proposed development would not<br />
have any impact to the sea.<br />
Noted. Comments on the DEIR have been<br />
considered and attended to in order to provide<br />
feedback to the I&APs that DLA Cliffe Dekker<br />
Hofmeyr Inc represent in this matter. Please<br />
refer to the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
We have sent confirmation via email, dated 18<br />
November 2009.<br />
Your comment is appreciated. All comments<br />
are important and need to be considered as<br />
part of the EIA.<br />
Noted. Every attempt is made to describe the<br />
EIA and associated information in easy to<br />
read terms. Please refer to the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Noted. Please review the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Noted. The preferred traffic alternative 4, as<br />
amended has attempted to make provision for<br />
the most suitable traffic solution, given the<br />
challenges facing parking in this area.<br />
Opinion<br />
Opinion<br />
Opinion<br />
Opinion<br />
Opinion<br />
Statement<br />
Statement<br />
Statement<br />
Statement<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 180 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
7.1.25<br />
7.1.26<br />
7.1.27<br />
7.1.28<br />
7.1.29<br />
Meg Cowper Lewis<br />
(SEA) (48)<br />
Meg Cowper Lewis<br />
(SEA) (48)<br />
Meg Cowper Lewis<br />
(SEA) (48)<br />
Louise Louw (22)<br />
Meg Cowper Lewis<br />
(SEA) (48)<br />
There is a tendency for developers from<br />
other areas to undertake unwanted and<br />
unattractive development on small towns to<br />
make profit. Such developments are<br />
objected by the vast majority of local<br />
residents. These developments change the<br />
spirit and atmosphere of these small towns<br />
forever. Developers then frequently move<br />
on again after pocketing their millions to<br />
look for further easy pickings.<br />
Upmarket developments such as the<br />
proposed development do not work in<br />
favour of previously disadvantaged people.<br />
Those who are to gain are the developers,<br />
the consultants, the estate agents, the legal<br />
fraternity/sorority, etc., and of course those<br />
wealthy enough to afford million-rand<br />
apartments, with enough money to spend at<br />
the expensive boutiques and restaurants.<br />
A four-storey development has been<br />
compared to a six-storey, eight-storey, and<br />
even a massive fish factory. This is a way<br />
to deceive the public to choose the least<br />
hideous option, i.e. the proposed four-storey<br />
building.<br />
It is evident that the developer is not<br />
interested in improving the area for the<br />
benefit and use of the public, but is only<br />
doing this for profit. One would think that the<br />
developer would use such a sensitive site to<br />
make some profit to benefit the community<br />
and improve Struisbaai in general.<br />
Page 10 (Summary of Essential Mitigation<br />
Measures), it is stated that wealthy people<br />
are generally high consumers which results<br />
in greater volumes of waste materials, and<br />
with a far heavier carbon footprint than the<br />
underprivileged. This must surely be<br />
considered a crucial issue when our planet<br />
is faced with the anticipated horrors of<br />
climate change.<br />
Noted.<br />
Applicants response: We live and work in<br />
Struisbaai and feel equally passionate about<br />
our region and therefore do not consider<br />
ourselves separate from the community.<br />
Please refer to Section 5.2.3 and Annexure H:<br />
Economic & Social Study of the <strong>FEIR</strong><br />
regarding opportunity for historically<br />
disadvantaged individuals.<br />
Alternatives 1 to 4 have been scoped out and<br />
have thus not been considered as viable<br />
options. Please refer to Section 2.4 and 5.2.9<br />
of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Noted. The proposed development would<br />
have a multitude of benefits to the public as<br />
well as external visitors to Struisbaai.<br />
Noted. The proposed development has a<br />
higher carbon footprint than the no-go option,<br />
however construction material that contains<br />
lower embodied energy has been proposed.<br />
Please refer to Section 7.2.1 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Statement<br />
Statement<br />
Statement<br />
Statement<br />
Statement<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 181 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
7.1.30<br />
7.1.31<br />
7.1.32<br />
7.1.33<br />
Meg Cowper Lewis<br />
(SEA) (48)<br />
Mike P Loubser (45)<br />
Mike P Loubser (45)<br />
David McKinstry<br />
(21)<br />
We submit images of the Struisbaai Harbour<br />
on 26 September 2009 for inclusion into this<br />
objection. It is difficult to get previous<br />
images since every time there's a big storm<br />
surge the high-water mark changes to claim<br />
more of the land. I know that the car park<br />
was completely flooded after the Tsunami<br />
but I do not have images for this. Living as I<br />
do close to the ocean I have seen high tides<br />
during the last five years that I've never<br />
witnessed before in my life. But then again,<br />
I have images from my house but not of the<br />
Struisbaai Harbour.<br />
Referring to the draft design on the DEIR, I<br />
believe that the proposed development<br />
would have a positive impact on the area<br />
and cannot find any negative aspect related<br />
to it.<br />
Currently the old Sea-fishery building at the<br />
jetty (north) is partially utilized. Should this<br />
building be used for public ablution<br />
facilitates, visitors and fishermen would<br />
have a much short distance to walk. It<br />
would also prevent people from using the<br />
adjacent bushy area as a toilet. With the<br />
approval from the Agulhas Municipality, I<br />
suggest that the public ablution facilities<br />
should be connected to the main structure<br />
of the harbour and a service plan.<br />
Further evidence of the developers real<br />
intentions is contained in the Economic<br />
Specialist report Sec 6.2 p19, The<br />
proponent is conveniently handing over the<br />
problem of the potential shutdown of<br />
Harbour Catch to MCM and the local<br />
authorities. I agree he does not have to<br />
provide this service but he does have to be<br />
limited to the activities for which the Harbour<br />
is legislated.<br />
Noted. Section 5.2.8 of the <strong>FEIR</strong> details the<br />
potential impact of sea level rise.<br />
Applicants response: Disagree, we were in<br />
the harbor at the time of the incident and did<br />
not witness a sea level rise to the degree as<br />
detailed in your comment.<br />
Noted.<br />
Thank you for the suggestion it has been<br />
forwarded to CAM and the proponent for<br />
consideration. The proposed development<br />
does make provision for ablution facilities<br />
(refer to section 2.4.8 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>) however<br />
the existing ablution facilities located on Erf<br />
921 would need to be relocated a suitable and<br />
amenable location.<br />
Regarding the fish handling facility, the<br />
architect was not mandated to design the<br />
retail section in detail. The <strong>Environmental</strong><br />
Assessment Practitioner was however<br />
informed by the proponent from the beginning<br />
that there would be a fish handling facility (fish<br />
market) and this has been conveyed to I&APs<br />
on numerous occasions.<br />
Statement<br />
Statement<br />
Statement<br />
Statement<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 182 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
Please refer to Annexure U of the <strong>FEIR</strong><br />
regarding tourism potential.<br />
7.1.34<br />
7.1.35<br />
7.1.36<br />
7.1.37<br />
7.1.38<br />
David McKinstry<br />
(21)<br />
David McKinstry<br />
(21)<br />
David McKinstry<br />
(21)<br />
Evan Meirion<br />
Williams (31)<br />
Neville Van der<br />
Westhuizen (71)<br />
The economic assessment is riddled with<br />
generalities and frankly who knows what the<br />
long term effect will be. No attempt seems<br />
to have been made to get tourism experts to<br />
concur with the consultant‟s views.<br />
No amount of bleating about needing 4<br />
stories to make the development viable<br />
justifies the developer's application.<br />
There is no need i.e. legal, environmental,<br />
or social to rescue the developer from his<br />
mistaken assumption, at the expense of the<br />
fishing, residential or visiting community of<br />
Struisbaai<br />
There have been enough proposed<br />
developments in sensitive areas in the<br />
recent past. Most of these have been<br />
characterised by the cultivating of<br />
inappropriate political involvement to “ease”<br />
the approval of the project.<br />
Referring to Page two of the Executive<br />
Summary it is unreasonable to state that the<br />
buildings are approximately 9m above<br />
mean sea level (amsl), which equates to<br />
+5m above natural ground level (ngl).<br />
Unless the intention is to raise the ground<br />
floor of the development by more than one<br />
floor height above natural ground level,<br />
therefore no need to excavate for the<br />
proposed basement.<br />
Economic Specialist comment:<br />
Indeed, assessing long term economic effects<br />
with high levels of confidence is difficult which<br />
is why bold statements, potentially misleading<br />
quantification or „long-shot‟ predictions have<br />
been avoided. This helps to avoid spurious<br />
„accuracy‟, but probably increases the<br />
potential for comments that the report is too<br />
„general‟.<br />
Noted. Please refer to Section 2.4.6 and<br />
Annexure R of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Noted. The proponent has the right to develop<br />
Erf 848 (private property) within the confines<br />
of the CAMSDF (2009) as well as statutory<br />
requirements.<br />
Noted. The proponent has the right to<br />
develop Erf 848 (private property) within the<br />
confines of the CAMSDF (2009) as well as<br />
statutory requirements.<br />
These heights are referring to the current<br />
buildings i.e. Alternative 5 and not Alternative<br />
6 (proposed development).<br />
Statement<br />
Statement<br />
Statement<br />
Statement<br />
Statement<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 183 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
7.1.39<br />
7.1.40<br />
7.1.41<br />
7.1.42<br />
7.1.43<br />
7.1.44<br />
7.1.45<br />
Louis Nell (74)<br />
Louis Pisani (96)<br />
Louis Pisani (96)<br />
Les C. Freese (91)<br />
Les C. Freese (91)<br />
Les C. Freese (91)<br />
Les C. Freese (91)<br />
It is morally wrong for the developers to<br />
seek relief from the current height<br />
restrictions based on a poor business<br />
decision made when purchasing the<br />
property. At the time of making the decision<br />
to purchase the property they knew about<br />
the ruling height restrictions and chose to<br />
risk their money in the hope that the public<br />
will bail them out of an overpriced<br />
transaction.<br />
Part of my objection maybe nostalgic after<br />
spending at least 90% all of my December<br />
holidays in Struisbaai since 1982. I assume<br />
that one should always weigh up your<br />
personal requirements and needs with that<br />
of the bigger picture and the community as<br />
a whole.<br />
Please acknowledge receipt of my e-mail<br />
and ensure that my detail is on your<br />
database.<br />
I am tired of developers half truths, strategic<br />
omissions and lies and their various<br />
consultants doing whatever is necessary to<br />
support a profit model predicated on an<br />
idiotic purchase.<br />
Garden Falls chose to overextend<br />
themselves by spending too much on a<br />
property zoned for industrial use and not for<br />
what the purchaser intends should not<br />
garner any sympathy from anybody.<br />
Sound business is about measured risk.<br />
Golden Falls wants to make good on its<br />
investment without due consideration for the<br />
people of Struisbaai no matter the cost.<br />
Golden Falls must not expect anything other<br />
than a battle they won‟t win if they pursue<br />
this development.<br />
A new CAM SDF, dated 2009 has superceded<br />
the 2006 CAM SDF which had a height<br />
limitation of two stories. The new CAM SDF<br />
promotes development within the urban edge.<br />
Erf 848 is situated within the urban edge and<br />
height is now restricted in accordance with<br />
zonation, which is currently Industrial Zone 1<br />
to be changed to Special Zone.<br />
Applicants response: Happy that the<br />
acquisition was prudent and responsible. In<br />
order to achieve all the objectives as stated, a<br />
critical mass is required.<br />
Noted. Please refer to Section 5.2.4 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
We have acknowledged receipt of your e-mail<br />
and your details are captured on our I&AP<br />
register.<br />
Your concern is noted. Aurecon has<br />
remained independent and objective. Please<br />
refer to Section 7.1.39 of this comments and<br />
response report and Section 1.8 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Noted. Please refer to Section 7.1.39 of this<br />
comments and response report.<br />
The EIA process is a mechanism that is used<br />
to determine the potential impacts to the<br />
environmental, social and economic aspects<br />
in relation to the community of Struisbaai.<br />
Noted. The proponent has the right to develop<br />
Erf 848 (private property) within the confines<br />
of the CAMSDF (2009) as well as statutory<br />
requirements.<br />
Statement<br />
Statement<br />
Statement<br />
Statement<br />
Statement<br />
Statement<br />
Statement<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 184 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
7.1.46<br />
7.1.47<br />
7.1.48<br />
7.1.49<br />
7.1.50<br />
7.1.51<br />
7.1.52<br />
Les C. Freese (91)<br />
Les C. Freese (91)<br />
Les C. Freese (91)<br />
Les C. Freese (91)<br />
Heleen Rabe (118)<br />
Johannes P.<br />
Albertyn (117)<br />
Gawie Bruwer (76)<br />
I am convinced that the municipality would<br />
not approve this misguided quest for profit<br />
at the expense of common sense and the<br />
voting public. I am convinced that should<br />
approval be granted, opposition will be<br />
mobilised on both a political and legal level.<br />
I support all the facts contained in the<br />
response by Abrie Bruwer dated 13<br />
November 2009<br />
There is no way that fish processing will fit<br />
in with the activities of the proposed<br />
development. The developers seem to<br />
believe that winning the support of the<br />
fisherfolk in Struisbaai Noord will be easily<br />
achieved by empty promises. He has<br />
underestimated the sense of heritage and<br />
the level of dignity that exists within the<br />
Struisbaai Noord community. I haven‟t and<br />
can confidently predict that Struisbaai<br />
Noord will not support this pathetic attempt<br />
at making good on a poor business<br />
decision.<br />
Should the proposed development be<br />
approved, the developer will be subjected to<br />
a sustained protest that will be three times<br />
the size of the VMS protest of 2008. The<br />
developer has succeeded in at least<br />
providing something around which the two<br />
Struisbaai can unite. For that I thank them.<br />
I have been living here most of my life and<br />
do not wish to see the town ruined any<br />
further by insensitive builders and<br />
developers.<br />
There should be a tarred road along the<br />
coast from the Hermanus for whale<br />
watching to Cape Agulhas through the<br />
reserve to attract the tourists.<br />
This eventually boils down to the breaking<br />
of the local building regulations and the<br />
assurance that opposing parties will also<br />
combat this to the highest level.<br />
Noted. The CAM would need to apply their<br />
minds to the application, not only the EIA, but<br />
the planning application etc in the overall<br />
context. A right to appeal will be allowed for<br />
once DEA&DP issues a environmental<br />
authorisation decision.<br />
Noted.<br />
Noted. Please refer to Section 7.1.33 of this<br />
Comment and Response Report.<br />
Noted. The proponent has the right to develop<br />
Erf 848 (private property) within the confines<br />
of the CAMSDF (2009) as well as statutory<br />
requirements.<br />
Noted. The proposed development however<br />
aims to meet the requirements of the<br />
CAMSDF 2009 as well as any other statutory<br />
requirements.<br />
This falls outside of the mandate for this EIA,<br />
however suggestions such as proposed can<br />
be made to the Provisional Department of<br />
Transport and the CAM.<br />
The current proposal would exceed the height<br />
restriction of the Spatial Development<br />
Framework. The competent authority would<br />
need to make a decision on whether this is<br />
acceptable.<br />
Statement<br />
Statement<br />
Statement<br />
Statement<br />
Statement<br />
Statement<br />
Statement<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 185 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
7.1.53<br />
7.1.54<br />
7.1.55<br />
7.1.56<br />
7.1.57<br />
7.1.58<br />
Gillian Vermaak<br />
(152)<br />
Brian Knobel (142)<br />
Brian Knobel (142)<br />
Chris Moll (65)<br />
Chris Moll (65)<br />
Chris Moll (65)<br />
The question as to “why do people love<br />
visiting the harbour, should be seriously<br />
considered and the answer to this will<br />
provide solutions as to what should happen<br />
at this special area.<br />
There will not be a place to offload vessel<br />
catches from the ski boats or chukkies in<br />
the harbour area.<br />
A small token section of the development<br />
will not suffice to handle any significant<br />
quantities of fish when the catches are good<br />
and fishing are biting.<br />
As a property owner in the Overberg I think<br />
I have the right and duty to add my name to<br />
concerned Struisbaai citizens on this<br />
development. It looks like the developer is<br />
just want to make profit without abiding to<br />
the regulations. We should clean up our act<br />
and start living a life of integrity both on or<br />
personal and business dealings.<br />
The development seems be heavily filled<br />
with misleading information. Ignoring the<br />
strong opposition against this development<br />
would be problem. We're in a situation<br />
whereby the quest for personal gain and<br />
greed takes priority over all other<br />
considerations.<br />
I request that this development be reviewed<br />
and amended to fully comply with existing<br />
legislation and that transparent and full<br />
disclosure of all relevant information<br />
pertinent to this development be made<br />
available to all stakeholders and interested<br />
parties whose input must be recorded and<br />
taken into account before any final approval<br />
on the project is made.<br />
Please refer to Sections 5.2.6 and 5.2.7 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Please refer to Section 1.6.15 of this<br />
Comment and Response Report.<br />
Your point is noted. Other facilities may need<br />
to be developed to handle excess fish.<br />
Noted.<br />
Applicants response: We have the right to<br />
follow due process with integrity.<br />
The EIA reports endevour to share all<br />
pertinent information clearly and logicially with<br />
the proponent, the public and decisionmakers.<br />
All concerns have been noted and<br />
considered. Please refer to Annexure D &<br />
Volume 2 of the <strong>FEIR</strong> regarding comments<br />
received and considered.<br />
The assessment has been undertaken in<br />
accordance Section 24 (5) of NEMA and<br />
information regarding the EIA has been made<br />
available to ensure I&APs are afforded a<br />
opportunity to engage in the EIA. Please note<br />
that should the development proceed it will<br />
also require approvals from the planning<br />
authorities as outlined in Section 1.3.8 and 2.7<br />
of the <strong>FEIR</strong><br />
Statement<br />
Statement<br />
Statement<br />
Statement<br />
Statement<br />
Statement<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 186 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
7.1.59<br />
7.1.60<br />
7.1.61<br />
D.G. & J.L. Falck<br />
(64)<br />
D.G. & J.L. Falck<br />
(64)<br />
D.G. & J.L. Falck<br />
(64)<br />
Should the developer have the traditional<br />
hotel usage in mind, it should be very<br />
similar to the hotel which used to be located<br />
next to Nostra, opposite the beach; however<br />
the proposed development is a far more<br />
upmarket hotel usage. Is this really<br />
necessary and will it not scar our coastline<br />
and the town‟s rural ambience forever? We<br />
do not want to have hotel where only rich<br />
people would have access to it.<br />
Furthermore, guests will be “encouraged”<br />
not to dispose of certain items into the<br />
sewage system, or to reduce the amount of<br />
water usage, etc, is simply not good<br />
enough. This cannot be guaranteed by the<br />
developer. I am sure that he will not be<br />
willing to take responsibility for this, and the<br />
“encouragement” is therefore of limited<br />
significance.<br />
Struisbaai is already experiencing severe<br />
economic pressure outside holiday periods<br />
when it is quiet. To now allow several<br />
restaurants, shops and similar activity to a<br />
town where economic pressure is already a<br />
concern, would worsen that.<br />
The hotel portion of the proposed<br />
development forms only a portion of the<br />
facilities that would be provided and therefore<br />
the functionality is envisaged to be more<br />
diversified that the traditional hotel concept.<br />
Please refer to Section 5.2.5 of the <strong>FEIR</strong><br />
regarding the visual impact.<br />
Please refer to Annexure T for a copy of the<br />
mitigation measures that the proponent is<br />
willing to commit to. The EMP (Annexure Q) is<br />
a evolving document that can be amended to<br />
include various measures to ensure a reduced<br />
impact to the receiving environment.<br />
Please refer to Section 5.2.3 of the <strong>FEIR</strong><br />
regarding the economic impact.<br />
Statement<br />
Municipal<br />
Services<br />
Statement<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 187 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
Please refer to Section 2.4.4 and 5.2.3 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong> regarding the economic impact.<br />
7.1.62<br />
D.G. & J.L. Falck<br />
(64)<br />
Adding about 1,100m² of commercial space<br />
could well mean the end of a large chunk of<br />
the commercial market in Struisbaai and<br />
could ultimately, resulting in the loss of the<br />
rates base for the traditional commercial<br />
properties and the economic ruin of traders<br />
of Struisbaai, as it has happened in<br />
Bredasdorp.<br />
Economic Specialist response:<br />
The key consideration with regard to the<br />
commercial component of the development is<br />
spatial – i.e. that it would not be established in<br />
an area that is seen as inappropriate for<br />
commercial development in planning<br />
guidance. Competition with existing<br />
commercial interests in Struisbaai is likely but<br />
considered acceptable in a market-based<br />
economy, hence there are no clear reasons to<br />
discourage it or assess it as a net negative<br />
(provided it is spatially appropriate). Having<br />
said that competition is likely, it should be<br />
borne in mind that it is not likely to be fierce as<br />
the kind of commercial space on offer at the<br />
development will be quite differentiated from<br />
that in other parts of Struisbaai in that it would<br />
probably attract greater interest from more<br />
upmarket and tourism focused businesses.<br />
This should reduce direct competition with<br />
existing businesses in Struisbaai and<br />
commercial ruin is not regarded as likely.<br />
While there may be some re-distributional<br />
effects with regard to where rates and other<br />
municipal income comes from (e.g.<br />
businesses at the development may<br />
contribute more while those at existing<br />
commercial nodes potentially contribute less),<br />
it is considered unlikely that overall municipal<br />
income will decrease. Ultimately the rates and<br />
income base will only truly be under threat if<br />
there is a net loss of commercial activity in<br />
Struisbaai as a result of the development.<br />
This is considered highly unlikely.<br />
Statement<br />
An independent market sustainability<br />
assessment was undertaken by Douglas<br />
Parker Associates to ascertain the market<br />
appeal for the proposed retail portion of the<br />
the proposed development.<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 188 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
The assessment concluded that the Struisbaai<br />
economy and potential market can<br />
accommodate the additional retail market<br />
envisaged. Please refer to Annexure U of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
7.1.63<br />
7.1.64<br />
7.1.65<br />
7.1.66<br />
7.1.67<br />
Jeanette Bruwer<br />
(75)<br />
Jeanette Bruwer<br />
(75)<br />
Martoinette la<br />
Grange (86)<br />
S. Du Plessis (171)<br />
S. Du Plessis (171)<br />
Erf 848 is unique, located on a high water<br />
mark for the purposes of storing and<br />
handling of fresh fish, it must be kept that<br />
way.<br />
By allowing the proposed development to<br />
continue is to allow greed, lies and<br />
misconduct to reign over the heritage, lives<br />
and unspoiltness of many generations.<br />
Please reconsider this development.<br />
We're aware that the proposed<br />
development will generate massive incomes<br />
for the developer but not for the fishermen<br />
and their families.<br />
The developer promised to provide job<br />
opportunities to Struisbaai-Noord<br />
Community at his previous Langezandt<br />
Quays Development and those promises<br />
never materialized.<br />
Erf 848 is private property and the proponent<br />
is exercising their right to apply for<br />
development. Please refer to Section 2.4.8 of<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong> which details the plans for the fish<br />
market which incorporates the handling of<br />
fish.<br />
Noted. The proponent has the right to develop<br />
Erf 848 (private property). Please refer to 2.3<br />
of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Aurecon does not make the decision in terms<br />
of approval. The Department of <strong>Environmental</strong><br />
Affairs and Development Planning is the<br />
competent authority.<br />
Please refer to Section 5.2.3 of the <strong>FEIR</strong><br />
regarding economic benefit.<br />
Please refer to Section 5.2.3 and Annexure H:<br />
Economic and Social assessments of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>. The local Struisbaai community will be<br />
afforded an opportunity for employment both<br />
at the construction phase as well as the<br />
operational phase.<br />
Applicants response: Many people from<br />
Struisbaai-Noord who provide reliable<br />
consistent services and work at Langezandt<br />
Fishermens Village, is and have been<br />
employed for many years. Labour from Elim,<br />
Bredasdorp etc is also viewed as local.<br />
Statement<br />
Statement<br />
Statement<br />
Statement<br />
Statement<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 189 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
7.1.68<br />
7.1.69<br />
7.1.70<br />
7.1.71<br />
7.1.72<br />
7.1.73<br />
S. Du Plessis (171)<br />
G.R. Youldon (93)<br />
G.R. Youldon (93)<br />
Hannes and Erica<br />
Pienaar (163)<br />
Hannes and Erica<br />
Pienaar (163)<br />
Grant McKinstry<br />
(80)<br />
We were willing to take MCM on during the<br />
VMS 2008- protest and we are more than<br />
willing to do the same to the developer of<br />
Struisbaai Harbour if our heritage in not left<br />
in tacked.<br />
The attitude of this development is wrong.<br />
The developers are not seriously taking into<br />
consideration the needs of others and the<br />
pride which people have in their harbour.<br />
They are only trying to make a profit using<br />
this icon as a focal point.<br />
If the developers would show that they're<br />
improving the harbour, then I would support<br />
them.<br />
Residential development in the harbour is<br />
only for the financial benefit of the<br />
developer and not in the interest of the<br />
surrounding residents for the following<br />
reasons<br />
Hermanus is a good example of where the<br />
traditional harbour was preserved as part of<br />
the heritage as well as tourist attraction.<br />
The Struisbaai harbour is the last harbour of<br />
its kind that remains in the country. It is an<br />
unspoilt harbour that is used by the local<br />
fisherman, beachgoers and pedestrians<br />
who walk along the boardwalk that lines the<br />
coastline. To access the existing harbour<br />
requires to walk on the public servitude.<br />
This servitude belongs to the people of<br />
Struisbaai, not to the developer. Once again<br />
I am assuming that the developer will move<br />
to change this to suit his own pocket.<br />
Noted. Please refere to Section 5.2.4 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Concerns raised by I&APs as well as issues<br />
identified during the EIA by the EAP have<br />
been assessed to determine the potential<br />
impact that would be caused by the proposed<br />
development. Annexures P & R of the <strong>FEIR</strong><br />
address the issues of Feasibility.<br />
Noted. Please refer to Sections 5.2.5, 5.2.6<br />
and 5.2.9 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Please refer to Section 5.2.3 of the <strong>FEIR</strong><br />
regarding financial benefit.<br />
Your point is noted, however accordingy to<br />
the Heritage Specialist and the Record of<br />
Decision issued by Heritage Western Cape<br />
the Struisbaai Harbour contains limited<br />
regional heritage value. Please refer to<br />
Section 5.2.4 of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
The servitude is registered in the title deeds<br />
and would need to be removed via a planning<br />
process i.e. amended to the new high water<br />
mark. Refer to Annexure M of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Applicants response: Only a fraction of the<br />
servitude has been used for many years as<br />
the property is enclosed.<br />
Statement<br />
Statement<br />
Statement<br />
Statement<br />
Statement<br />
Statement<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 190 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
7.1.74<br />
7.1.75<br />
7.1.76<br />
7.1.77<br />
Carel Schaap (165)<br />
Johan & Cecilia<br />
Janse van<br />
Rensburg (57)<br />
Justine Sweet (97)<br />
Justine Sweet (97)<br />
The existing site does not comprise "lowkey<br />
tourist and fishing development" as<br />
stated. It is a commercial (small but of<br />
significant importance to the local<br />
population) fishing harbour which is at the<br />
heart and supports the local community,<br />
and happens also to be used for<br />
recreational purposes due to its rustic<br />
atmosphere. The developer's restaurant is<br />
incidental - the safe swimming cove and<br />
breakwater are much bigger attractions.<br />
We (JJJ van Rensburg Familie Trust) are<br />
the registered owners of Erf 440 (19<br />
Kusweg-Noord, the house is named<br />
Suiderkruis and located across the harbour<br />
parking area).<br />
Presently the site is home to three single<br />
storey buildings (in line with the present<br />
Cape Agulhas Spatial Development<br />
Framework, 2006 ("SDF"), including<br />
Pelicans Restaurant and a fish processing<br />
plant known as Harbour Catch which<br />
processes approximately 50% of all fish<br />
landed in the harbour and also provides ice<br />
and bait to the local fishermen [p. 38-39 of<br />
dEIR]. It is directly neighbouring and<br />
supports the harbour.<br />
These services form an integral part of the<br />
Struisbaai harbour and contribute towards<br />
the livelihood of the persons providing these<br />
services, and also the people to whom the<br />
services are provided or the goods sold.<br />
Not to maintain these services within the<br />
proposed development contradicts the very<br />
terms of the IDP and SDF, which encourage<br />
job creation, to which the development<br />
proponent refers and by which the decisionmaker<br />
must be guided.<br />
Erf 848 is private property. Harbour activities<br />
is the responsibility of MCM, though the<br />
proponent is willing to incorporate current<br />
activities where feasible. The breakwater and<br />
swimming cove will remain as is as they form<br />
part of the harbor and as a consequence are<br />
managed by MCM.<br />
Noted.<br />
Noted. The CAMSDF has since been<br />
replaced with the CAMSDF (2009) which<br />
allows builing within the urban edge. Elements<br />
of Harbour Catch and Pelican‟s form part of<br />
the proposed development (Alternative 6).<br />
Please refer to Section 5.2.3 and Annexure H:<br />
Economic Assessment of the <strong>FEIR</strong> regarding<br />
job creation.<br />
Statement<br />
Statement<br />
Statement<br />
Statement<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 191 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
7.1.78<br />
7.1.79<br />
7.1.80<br />
Justine Sweet (97)<br />
Justine Sweet (97)<br />
Johan Liebenberg,<br />
Dorel Van der<br />
Westhuizen, Kobus<br />
Viljoen, Abrie<br />
Bruwer, Chris Moll,<br />
Stuart Du Plessis,<br />
G. R. Youldon,<br />
Johan Venter (59,<br />
73, 69, 66, 65, 172,<br />
93, 78)<br />
There is increasingly a propensity in South<br />
Africa to over-develop seaside villages and<br />
towns. It is submitted that it is the<br />
responsibility of the EAP, the Department<br />
and the interested and affected parties to<br />
ensure that this does not happen. The EAP<br />
uses the description of Struisbaai as a<br />
tranquil, quiet seaside fishing village to<br />
motivate for the increase in tourism.<br />
However, the increase in tourism will<br />
potentially destroy the very tranquility that<br />
motivated it. Any development within<br />
Struisbaai must be designed in a manner<br />
which maintains its sense of place.<br />
Importantly, the site falls within the "coastal<br />
protection zone" because the site is situated<br />
within 100 metres of the high water mark<br />
[Section 16(1)(e)]. The stated purpose of a<br />
coastal protection zone is to enable the use<br />
of land that is adjacent to coastal public<br />
property to be managed, regulated or<br />
restricted in order to, among other things,<br />
protect the ecological integrity, natural<br />
character and the economic, social and<br />
aesthetic value of coastal public property<br />
and to protect people, property and<br />
economic activities from risks associated<br />
with sea-level rises [Section 17(a) and (c)].<br />
Bus tourism, which the developer argues to<br />
be his target, is the cheapest travel package<br />
available and they do not eat at Agulhas<br />
Lighthouse, although the facilities exist.<br />
They are dealing with the cheapest<br />
eateries. The developer should rather build<br />
40 toilets and a snackwich machine that<br />
makes 60 toasted cheeses in 10 minutes<br />
flat to cater for bus tourism<br />
Please refer to Sections 5.2.5 and 5.2.6 of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong> regarding the change in sense of place.<br />
Applicants response: The increase in<br />
tourism sought will not remotely reach the<br />
levels as experienced in Cape Town‟s V&A<br />
Waterfront for instance, as such, it will retain<br />
most of its tranquility.<br />
Your point is noted. The competent authority<br />
would need to make a decision on whether or<br />
not to authorize the proposed development<br />
based on these principles and what has been<br />
presented in the <strong>Environmental</strong> Impact<br />
Assessment.<br />
Noted.<br />
Applicants response: Foreign bus tourism<br />
operates and supports venues that can<br />
accommodate them as a group and provide a<br />
certain standard which meet their<br />
requirements.<br />
Statement<br />
Statement<br />
Opinion<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 192 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: <strong>CRR</strong><br />
7.1.81<br />
7.1.82<br />
Johan Liebenberg,<br />
Dorel Van der<br />
Westhuizen, Kobus<br />
Viljoen, Abrie<br />
Bruwer, Chris Moll,<br />
Stuart Du Plessis,<br />
G. R. Youldon,<br />
Johan Venter (59,<br />
73, 69, 66, 65, 172,<br />
93, 78)<br />
Johan Liebenberg,<br />
Dorel Van der<br />
Westhuizen, Kobus<br />
Viljoen, Abrie<br />
Bruwer, Chris Moll,<br />
Stuart Du Plessis,<br />
G. R. Youldon,<br />
Johan Venter (59,<br />
73, 69, 66, 65, 172,<br />
93, 78)<br />
Page 108(i) of the DEIR state that the<br />
harbour is currently the main local tourist<br />
attraction in Struisbaai as well as its beach<br />
area and maintaining the Harbour or<br />
improving the Harbour as an attraction is<br />
thus crucial. However a four storey<br />
hotel/time share with tourist buses will not<br />
improve the harbour; it will only be of benefit<br />
to the wealthy people. At the moment this<br />
is the focal point of Struisbaai/Agulhas.<br />
He (Proponent) bought the property<br />
knowing the applicable restrictions with the<br />
intention of making a profit. Why are these<br />
restrictions now unsustainable? He cannot<br />
claim ignorance. The real reason is that he<br />
is trying to have his four storey proposal<br />
passed and should it fail, will go for the legal<br />
option in any case. I plead with the<br />
authorities not to allow the applicant to<br />
proceed with this development.<br />
To clarify, the proposed development ranges<br />
from two storeys to a maximum of four<br />
storeys. Please refer to Section 5.2.3 and<br />
Annexure H: Economic and Social<br />
assessments of the <strong>FEIR</strong> regarding<br />
employment opportunities and Section 5.2.5 &<br />
5.2.6 of the <strong>FEIR</strong> regarding impact on harbour<br />
area as an attraction.<br />
Noted. Please refer to Annexure P & R of the<br />
<strong>FEIR</strong> regarding the feasibility of other options.<br />
Opinion<br />
Statement<br />
7.1.83<br />
Gert Groenewald,<br />
Anna-Marie<br />
Groenewald,<br />
Juliana Van der<br />
Merwe, Anneke<br />
Groenewald, Gerda<br />
Groenewald (138,<br />
183, 184, 185, 186<br />
Please also read all the objections stated in<br />
the Suidernuus, as well as the Suidernuus<br />
of 20 November 2009<br />
We have sourced as many of the articles as<br />
we can and this has been included in<br />
Annexure B of the <strong>FEIR</strong>.<br />
Statement<br />
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\<strong>CRR</strong> <strong>IV</strong> <strong>FEIR</strong> ~ <strong>26042010</strong> [<strong>FINAL</strong>].doc 193 of 193