CRR IV FEIR ~ 26042010 [FINAL].pdf - Environmental Projects

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (EIA) FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS 

DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR 

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES REPORT 

SUMMARY OF WRITTEN COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE COMMENT PERIOD FROM 

9 OCTOBER 2009 TO 17 NOVEMBER 2009, AND RESPONSES THERETO 

1 Operational phase impacts ................................................................................ 7 

1.1 Planning concerns ...................................................................................... 7 

1.2 Impact on municipal services .................................................................... 27 

1.3 Impact on traffic flow and parking ............................................................. 39 

1.4 Access to Harbour .................................................................................... 52 

1.5 Competition and Opportunities ................................................................. 56 

1.6 Community upliftment ............................................................................... 59 

1.7 Impact on character and culture of Struisbaai harbour ............................. 71 

1.8 Pollution of the Environment ..................................................................... 96 

1.9 Impact of Climate Change and natural forces on development ................ 97 

1.10 Impact on fauna, flora and natural processes ......................................... 103 

1.11 Impact on view and property value ......................................................... 104 

1.12 Cumulative impact .................................................................................. 106 

1.13 Needs and desirability ............................................................................ 108 

1.14 Impact on safety and security ................................................................. 115 

1.15 Sustainability .......................................................................................... 116 

1.16 Impact on tourism ................................................................................... 119 

2 Construction phase impacts ........................................................................... 121 

3 Process .......................................................................................................... 123 

4 Consideration of alternatives ......................................................................... 166 

5 Opposition to the proposed development ...................................................... 173 

6 Support for the proposed development .......................................................... 177 

7 General comment .......................................................................................... 178

EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: 

CRR 

There were 186 responses submitted during the comment period 9 October 2009 to 17 

November 2009 and comments received after this period were included and are responded to 

in this comments and responses report. The comment period was for I&APs to comment on 

the Draft Environmental Impact Report. Table 1 below lists the Interested and Affected Parties 

(I&AP) that submitted comments during the period stated above. 

Table 1: List of I&APs that submitted comments 

Name 

Ref 

Date 

Organisation 

No. 

received 

Method 

Michelle Vermeulen 1 12/10/2009 Fax 

Werner Vermeulen 2 12/10/2009 Fax 

Jannie H Momberg 3 12/10/2009 Fax 

Petrus Jurgens 

4 15/10/2009 Fax 

Visser 

Marthinus J.H. Wiese 5 16/10/2009 Fax 

Valerie Wiese 6 16/10/2009 Fax 

M.J. Edwards 7 16/10/2009 Fax 

Mnr Edwards 8 16/10/2009 Fax 

Mari Rabie 9 19/10/2009 Fax 

Jan Rabie 10 19/10/2009 Fax 

Leonie da Luz 11 19/10/2009 Fax 

Jacobus J.D. 

12 19/10/2009 Fax 

Havenga 

Paul M. De Kock 13 20/10/2009 Fax 

Mark Murtz 14 Moya Manzi Guest 22/10/2009 Fax 

House 

Johan Van Zyl 15 Southern Staying 13/10/2009 Email 

Eldalene Bruwer 16 22/10/2009 Fax 

Anton Louw 17 Anton Louw Projects 23/10/2009 Fax 

Barend J. Viljoen 18 23/10/2009 Post 

Hendrik Andreas 19 23/10/2009 Email 

Kotze 

Carel V. van der 20 26/10/2009 Fax 

Merwe 

David McKinstry 21 26/10/2009 Email 

& 

13/11/2009 

Louise Louw 22 27/10/2009 Fax 

A.S. Lourens and 23 27/10/2009 Email 

others 

Evan Matthee 24 28/10/2009 Fax 

Jonine Mostert 25 28/10/2009 Email 

Anneke Kloppers 26 31/10/2009 Hand 

Hans Swart 27 31/10/2009 Hand & 

Email 

Johan D Van der 28 Suidpunt Diepsee 31/10/2009 Hand 

Walt 

Marlene C. Ellis 29 30/10/2009 Hand 

Rene Swart 30 31/10/2009 Hand 

Evan Meirion 

Williams 

31 31/10/2009 Hand 

I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\CRR IV FEIR ~ 26042010 [FINAL].doc 2 of 193



Eric Consani 32 1/11/2009 Fax 

Etienne Jay Van Wyk 33 03/11/2009 

17/11/2009 

Chris & Ria Reynolds 34 03/11/2009 Post 

Rhus Van Wyk 35 03/11/2009 Post 

Gaston C. Van Wyk 36 03/11/2009 Post 

Hennie F. Mostert 37 Sasol 03/11/2009 Fax 

Post & 

Email 

Gerry Pienaar 38 Gerry Pienaar & 04/11/2009 Email 

Associates (Pty) Ltd 

Johan van der 

39 05/11/2009 Fax 

Westhuizen 

Emmarentia 

40 05/11/2009 Fax 

Hesseling 

Leon Lotter 41 06/11/2009 Email 

Rita Van der Walt 42 07/11/2009 Email 

Chris Van der Walt 43 07/11/2009 Email 

Robin Green 44 05/11/2009 Fax 

MP Loubser 45 09/11/2009 

& 

11/11/2009 

Email 

SW Meyer 46 09/11/2009 Fax 

Julian G. Williams 47 11/11/2009 Fax 

Meg Cowper-Lewis 48 Suidpunt 

12/11/2009 Email 

Environmental Alliance 

Ley E Kempthorne 49 12/11/2009 Fax 

Andrea M Buys 50 12/11/2009 Fax 

Paul Buys 51 12/11/2009 Fax 

Minnie Le Roux 52 13/11/2009 Email 

Gwen Claasen 53 13/11/2009 Email 

Ian W. Hurst 54 13/11/2009 Email 

Anna Aletta M. Le 55 13/11/2009 Email 

Roux 

G.J. Pienaar 56 13/11/2009 Email 

Johan and Celia 57 16/11/2009 Email 

Janse Van Rensburg 

Frances Pienaar 58 16/11/2009 Email 

Johan Liebenberg 59 13/11/2009 Email 

Jack P. Smith 60 16/11/2009 Fax 

Lindie A Snyman 61 16/11/2009 Fax 

Olive Knobel 62 16/11/2009 Fax 

Stephen Gerber 63 13/11/2009 Email 

D.G. and J.L. Falck 64 16/11/2009 Email 

Chris Moll 65 16/11/2009 Email 

Abrie Bruwer 66 16/11/2009 Email 

A.F. & J.H. Tooke 67 16/11/2009 Email 

H Du Plessis 68 16/11/2009 Email 

Kobus Viljoen 69 16/11/2009 Email 

Dawid & Christelle 

Kriel 

Neville van der 

Westhuizen 

70 17/11/2009 Email 

71 17/11/2009 Email 




Dirk de Jongh 72 Struisbaai Home 16/11/2009 Email 

Owners Association 

Dorel van der 

73 16/11/2009 Email 

Westhuizen 

Louis Nell 74 16/11/2009 Email 

Jeanette Bruwer 75 16/11/2009 Email 

Gawie Bruwer 76 17/11/2009 Email 

Mariana Swart 77 16/11/2009 Email 

Johann Venter 78 17/11/2009 Email 

Michele Bruwer 79 17/11/2009 Email 

Grant McKinstry 80 17/11/2009 Email 

Sanli Zietsman 81 17/11/2009 Email 

Ignatius Petrus 

82 17/11/2009 Fax 

Lourens 

Erla Rabe 83 17/11/2009 Email 

Rochelle Lourens 84 17/11/2009 Email 

Ian and Cheryl Heyns 85 17/11/2009 Email 

Martoinette La 

86 17/11/2009 Email 

Grange 

Karin Van Niekerk 87 Bellandia Pty Ltd 17/11/2009 Email & 

Fax 

Emmerentia De Kock 88 Agulhas National Park 17/11/2009 Email 

Andre Morgenthal 89 Wines of South Africa 17/11/2009 Email 

Grant van der 

90 17/11/2009 Email 

Westhuizen 

Les C. Freese 91 17/11/2009 Email 

Brenda Benton 92 17/11/2009 Email 

G.R. Youldon 93 17/11/2009 Email 

Jenny Groenewald 94 17/11/2009 Email 

Sulmor Swartz 95 17/11/2009 Email 

Louis du Pisani 96 17/11/2009 Email 

Justine Sweet 97 DLA Cliffe Dekker 17/11/2009 Fax 

Hofmeyr Inc 

Francois Theron 98 Titan Financial 

17/11/2009 Email 

Services (Pty) Ltd 

Cistiana Viljoen 99 17/11/2009 Email 

Saroline Duminy 100 17/11/2009 Email 

Ilse Saunders 101 Springfield Estate 17/11/2009 Email 

Braham Coetzee 102 17/11/2009 Email 

Hanje van Zyl 103 17/11/2009 Email 

John Butler 104 17/11/2009 Email 

W.J. & S.N. Wilken 105 16/11/2009 Fax 

Nelda Basson 106 Entrepeneur 16/11/2009 Fax 

Amaria Erasmus 107 16/11/2009 Fax 

H.F. & H.L. Conradie 108 16/11/2009 Fax 

Lois Albertyn 109 17/11/2009 Fax 

Tiaan P. Lourens 110 Cachalot Fishing 17/11/2009 Fax 

Ken Hogde 111 KA Hodge Land 17/11/2009 Fax 

Surveyors 

Lynne M Shield 112 17/11/2009 Fax 

Glynn D. Shield 113 17/11/2009 Fax 




Dirk C. Kleinschmidt 114 17/11/2009 Fax 

Louise Knobel 115 17/11/2009 Fax 

Margaret Wippich 116 17/11/2009 Email 

Johannes P. Albertyn 117 17/11/2009 Fax 

Hellen Rabe 118 17/11/2009 Fax 

Robert A.N. Nell 119 17/11/2009 Fax 

Johnny S. Edwards 120 17/11/2009 Fax 

Gideon A. Pitzer 121 17/11/2009 Fax 

Lorinda Jacobs 122 17/11/2009 Fax 

Jacobus Joaan 123 17/11/2009 Fax 

Odendaal 

Mariska Brand 124 17/11/2009 Fax 

Ricardo Reichert 125 17/11/2009 Fax 

Michelle L. Loubser 126 17/11/2009 Fax 

Andrea Theron 127 17/11/2009 Fax 

Anelda Van Zyl 128 17/11/2009 Fax 

Renate‟ Reichert 129 17/11/2009 Fax 

Mia Loubser 130 17/11/2009 Fax 

Koos Scheepers 131 17/11/2009 Fax 

Pauli Bester 132 17/11/2009 Fax 

Anina Theron 133 17/11/2009 Fax 

Wentzel A. Van 134 17/11/2009 Fax 

Renen 

Wayne D. Meiring 135 17/11/2009 Fax 

Verlasety A. Meiring 136 17/11/2009 Fax 

Stephen Knobel 137 17/11/2009 Fax 

Gert J. Groenewald 138 17/11/2009 Fax 

A.J. Vlok 139 17/11/2009 Fax 

Henri R. Du Plessis 140 17/11/2009 Fax 

Jacobus J.R. Du 141 17/11/2009 Fax 

Plessis 

Brian Knobel 142 17/11/2009 Fax 

Bob P. De Groot 143 17/11/2009 Fax & 

Email 

Katherine C. Drake 144 17/11/2009 Fax 

Andre M. Van der 145 17/11/2009 Fax 

Berg 

John W. Newman 146 17/11/2009 Fax 

Adriaan Grandfield 147 17/11/2009 Fax 

Adriaan Newman 148 17/11/2009 Fax 

G.G. Newman 149 17/11/2009 Fax 

Lynn Steenkamp 150 17/11/2009 Email 

Neil Kroese 151 17/11/2009 Email 

Gillian Vermaak 152 17/11/2009 Email 

Rina Hendricks 153 Gerry Pienaar & 17/11/2009 Email 

Associates (Pty) Ltd 

Bernhard 

154 17/11/2009 Email 

Munzenmaier 

Julius Herfurth 155 17/11/2009 Email 

J.B. Smith 156 17/11/2009 Email 

Marian Huyser 157 17/11/2009 Email 




Liesa Schwarzenbek 158 17/11/2009 Email 

Marie-Lou Roux 159 17/11/2009 Email 

Andreas Griebel 160 17/11/2009 Email 

Rhona de Groot 161 17/11/2009 Email 

Peter Wesselsky 162 17/11/2009 Email 

Hannes and Erica 163 17/11/2009 Email 

Pienaar 

Michael Inselmann 164 17/11/2009 Email 

Carel Schaap 165 17/11/2009 Email 

Yvonne M. Burke 166 13/11/2009 Post 

Kyra Muenzenmaier 167 13/11/2009 Post 

Dirk de Jongh (Jnr) 168 17/11/2009 Email 

Frederick J. Janse 169 17/11/2009 Email 

Van Rensburg 

Johan Burger 170 17/11/2009 Email 

Stuart Du Plessis 171 17/11/2009 Email 

Bertus Hayward 172 Agulhas Municipality 20/11/2009 Fax 

C.J.H. Van Wyk 173 17/11/2009 Email 

M.M. Van Wyk 174 17/11/2009 Email 

G.C. Van Wyk 175 17/11/2009 Email 

Prof Eng 176 17/11/2009 Email 

C. Williams 177 17/11/2009 Email 

L. Van Wyk 178 17/11/2009 Email 

R.R.M Van Wyk 179 17/11/2009 Email 

I.J. De Villiers 180 17/11/2009 Email 

N.M. Sanders 181 17/11/2009 Email 

S. Spies 182 17/11/2009 Email 

Anna-Marie 

183 17/11/2009 Fax 

Groenewald 

Juliana Van der 184 17/11/2009 Fax 

Merwe 

Anneke Groenewald 185 17/11/2009 Fax 

Gerda Groenewald 186 17/11/2009 Fax 

Comments and Responses Themes 

Note that the figure in brackets behind the respondents name refers to the 

Reference Number in the list of submissions above. 


EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: CRR 

No 

Name Issue Response 

1 Operational phase 

impacts 

1.1 Planning concerns 

1.1.1 

1.1.2 

1.1.3 

1.1.4 

1.1.5 

Johan Van Zyl (15) 

Anton Louw (17) 



Emmerentia 

Hesseling (on 

behalf of 4 tax 

payers) (41) 

Successful zoning applications would result 

in an extension of the business area into an 

area that includes an ecological sensitive 

system. 

The site for the proposed development is 

very small for such an over-bulked 

development. No mention in the draft EIA 

report about the size (in square meters) of 

the proposed building. 

No provisions have been made for any kind 

of public open space on the site and such 

calculations don't even form part of the draft 

EIA report. Calculations of this nature are 

relevant to ascertain the density and bulk of 

this site. 

One would expect that the zoning scheme 

of the relevant authorities would have to 

form part of the draft EIA Report to see 

what the guidelines are for planning such 

development. 

I wish to know exactly how much support 

you have for this so-called “multi-level 

alternative”. According to my knowledge, 

the Struisbaai community is against the 

development as it would be out of place. 

There are no buildings higher than two 

storeys in Struisbaai. 

According the spatial development framework 

erf 848 is positioned in the Secondary 

Business Node 

Please refer to Section 2.4 and 2.5 of the 

FEIR 

The site is private property and thus does not 

accommodate public open space. Please 

refer to Section 2.4 and 2.5 of the FEIR for 

bulk factor 

Please refer to Sections 1.3.8, 2.6 and 2.7 of 

the FEIR 

Public participation processes within the 

environmental legislation are aimed at 

ensuring that issues and concerns are voiced 

by the interested and/or affected parties. As 

such, it is not a support poll for particular 

options or developments and frequently those 

in favour of a proposal will not even 

participate as they have no issues to raise. 

The multi-level alternative was the 

proponent‟s response to the initial issues 

raised by the public during the early phases of 

the EIA. It should be noted that the Tides has 

been confirmed to exceed 2 storeys. 

Planning 

Planning 

Planning 

Planning 

Planning 



1.1.6 

1.1.7 

1.1.8 

1.1.9 

1.1.10 

1.1.11 

Julian G Williams 

(47) 

E. Ley Kempthorne 

(49) 

Frances Pienaar 

(58) 


(58) 


(58) 

David McKinstry 

(21) 

1.1.12 David McKinstry 

(21) 

1.1.13 


(21) 

The proposed development will encroach 

the 100m from high water mark building 

restriction. 

The EIA Report mentions six different 

alternatives, four of which are rejected as 

being not accepted by the broader public 

and only two alternatives were considered 

in detail. The preferred alternative is not in 

line with the planning regulations in the 

area, namely 70% coverage and a height of 

only 2 stories, this option is clearly an 

attempt on the developer's side to maximise 

profits. 

The site is not zoned for a residential or 

hotel development. 

Four storey buildings are not allowed under 

the regulations in place. 

The proposed building will cover more than 

the regulated ground coverage allowances. 

The proposed building is in contradiction 

with the Spatial Development Plan for the 

area which allows for a limit of two stories 

and this should be enforced. 

The Tommy Brummer report is essentially a 

proposal to circumvent by application or 

negotiation substantive issues of coverage 

as well as height e.g. street access, loading 

bays and of course, site coverage. 

Apart from the fact that the proposed 

building would cover the whole site, the 

developer and his agents want to 

appropriate public land. They want to build 

on a servitude and access their 

development over public parking. 

This is one of the factors that triggered the 

basic assessment listed activities of R386. 

Refer to Section 1.3.1, Table 1.1. 

Please refer to Sections 2.6 and 2.7 of the 

FEIR. 







A new SDF has been passed in accordance 

with the Municipal Systems Act as of 

December 2009. The 2009 CAM SDF 

promotes development within the urban edge, 

of which Erf 848 is located. Please refer to 

Section 1.4 and 2.7 of the FEIR 

The Tommy Brummer report provides detailed 

information in terms of the proposed process 

that would be applied for to secure the 

requisite zonation & amendment of certain 

title deed restrictions 


the FEIR. Unless the servitude restriction 

amendment is approved, the proponent is 

required to respect the rights maintained in 

the title deeds regarding the servitude. The 

formalization of erf 921 for public parking and 

access as well as an entry/exit point was 

provisionally granted in accordance with the 

CAM letter in Annexure A of the FEIR. 

Planning 

Planning 

Planning 

Planning 

Planning 

Planning 

Planning 

Planning 



1.1.14 

1.1.15 

1.1.16 

1.1.17 

1.1.18 

1.1.19 


(21) 


(21) 


(21) 

Evan Meirion 

Williams (31) 

Dirk de Jongh on 

behalf of Struisbaai 

Home Owners 

Assosciation (72) 



Home Owners 


There is an existing right of way for the 

public. The fact that additional land has 

been reclaimed from the sea in front of erf 

848 does not entitle the developer or 

anyone else to appropriate the existing right 

of way for their own purposes. They have 

no more right to that ground than I have! 

Erf 848 in Struisbaai was not planned to be 

a residential property rather as a fish 

handling facility with later modifications to 

allow for the Pelican restaurant operation. 

It would be reasonable for the proponent to 

re-develop the current site within the current 

regulations and planning guidelines 

including height and coverage restrictions to 

accommodate other food and small shop 

facilities 

A high rise building for whatever purpose on 

the most prominent and most visited 

position on the unspoiled seafront of 

Struisbaai is ridiculous. 

The proposed development would violate 

many legal issues and I am sure the Cliffe 

Decker submission will cover this. 

Referring to the Need and desirability”. The 

statement that “strategic documents such 

as the Spatial Development 

Framework……….support the development” 

is not true. The current SDF (2005), as well 

as the 1992 Structure Plan for Struisbaai, 

does not provide for this type of high density 

development. 

The SDF is currently being revised. None of 

the suggestions made by consultants in the 

review document makes provision for the 

type of development planned for erf 848. In 

fact, the document notes that coastal 

developments must adhere to national 

requirements, including that developments 

must take place based on the capacity of 

municipal infrastructure 

Please refer to Section 1.1.13 of this 

Comment and Response Report. 

As there were amendments to cater for 

Pelicans so to would further amendments be 

required to the title deeds. Please refer to 

Sections 1.4, 2.6 and 2.7 of the FEIR. 

Your concern is noted. Please refer to Section 

2.7 of the FEIR. 

The final development would need to comply 

with all legislation. Please refer to Sections 

1.3, 1.6, 2.6 and 2.7 of the FEIR. 

Please refer to Sections 1.4 of the FEIR. A 

new SDF has been passed in accordance 




of which Erf 848 is located. 

Please refer to Section 1.3.5, 1.3.8, 1.4, 2.6, 

2.7 and 7.5 of the FEIR. 

Planning 

Planning 

Planning 

Planning 

Planning 

Planning 



1.1.20 

1.1.21 

1.1.22 

1.1.23 

1.1.24 

1.1.25 

1.1.26 

1.1.27 

Glynn D. Shield & 

Lynne M. Shield 

(113 & 112) 



(113 & 112) 



(113 & 112) 


(112) 

Louis Pisani (96) 



Lorinda Jacobs 

(122) 

The coverage of Erf 848 must not exceed 

the municipal regulation, should be the 

same as for the surrounding properties. 

The ground floor should not exceed 700mm 

above car park on the northern side. 

The maximum length of the floors for the 

proposed development must be the same 

as the surrounding properties and must 

conform with the municipal regulation 

Parking must be in accordance to Municipal 

regulations 

On which basis has the zoning of the erf 

being changed from an industrial zoning to 

allow commercial and residential usage of 

the erf-or has it not been changed. 

On which basis was the footprint increased 

to 75% of the erf? 

If it is true that the total height of the 

building from natural ground level is to be 

16 meter it is really not acceptable, 

especially taking the location of the stand 

and present building regulations in 

consideration. 

Erf 848 in Struisbaai was not planned to be 

a residential property rather is for landing, 

processing, storing and selling of fish. 


the FEIR. 

Please refer to Section 5.2.8 of the FEIR. 

Stauch Vorster (pers comm.) has stated that 

the clearance needs to be a minimum of 2.1m 

from basement level to ground level. 



Correct, refer to Section 5.2.2 for the 

proposed alternatives for consideration. 





Your concern is noted. Please refer to 

Sections 2.6, 2.7 and 5.2.5 of the FEIR. 

Your concern is noted. The current zoning is 

dealt with in Section 2.7 of the FEIR and the 

proponent plans to apply for an amendment to 

this zoning as discussed in Section 2.7 

Planning 

Planning 

Planning 

Planning 

Planning 

Planning 

Planning 

Planning 



1.1.28 

1.1.29 

1.1.30 

1.1.31 

1.1.32 

1.1.33 

1.1.34 

D.G. & J.L. Falck 

(64) 


(49) 

Gideon A. Pitzer 

(121) 

Gawie Bruwer (76) 


Dirk de Jongh (Jnr) 

(168) 

Bob P. De Groot 

(143) 

It should be noted that a spatial 

development plan does not infer or take 

away any rights to a property. The fact that 

the proposed development is “supported by 

the Cape Agulhas Spatial Development 

Plan” is therefore of little significance. Any 

similar commercial or residential 

development of lower density and smaller 

footprint will also be supported by this 

spatial plan. The biggest problem with the 

approval of this development it will set a 

precedent for the approval of more rezoning 

and multi-level buildings. That would result 

in the subsequent loss of views and the law 

suits. 

Granting rights for the proposed design 

would lead to a dangerous precedent being 

set in terms of height which would change 

the nature and the character of the area 

The proposed development will set 

precedent which was also created in 

Gordons Bay or Hout Bay 

The four storey building is illegal according 

to local Municipality building regulations (i.e. 

two storeys only). The proposed building 

exceeds 75% of the surface area of the plot. 

The land is intended for a fish-processing 

plant. You do not indicate any intention to 

adhere to this nor show the area of the 

building for this purpose. 

The development proposes a maximum 

height of four storeys (


1.1.35 

1.1.36 

1.1.37 

1.1.38 

1.1.39 

1.1.40 

1.1.41 

Marie-Lou Roux 

(159) 


(159) 

Gillian Vermaak 

(152) 

Brian Knobel (142) 



Koos Scheepers 

(131) 

The developer has bought an industrial plot 

and is now proposing to build a residential 

building on it. Can this be done without a 

formal rezoning process? 

The proposed 16 meter building will 

transgress the height restriction by two 

storeys and will occupy more than 75% of 

the plot. 

according to the municipal planning 

regulations for the area, the height of the 

buildings should not be more than two 

storeys and should be a maximum of 10 

meters 

The purpose for this erf is found in the 

restrictions of the title deed i.e. it shall be 

used only for the erection of a building to be 

used for the cleaning, salting, storing of 

fresh fish in refrigerated rooms (page 2(b) of 

the title deed) 

The change of land use for this erf would 

mean that fisherman are being chased out 

of the harbour. 

Every plot in Struisbaai has to abide by 

building regulations and title deed 

restrictions. The proposed development will 

cover the whole plot and totally ignore the 

regulation that ordinary home owners or 

ratepayers have to abide by. 

The proposed development does not take 

into consideration the building height 

restrictions of the area 

















Erf 848 is private land and the fisherfolk 

should be independent of it. The proponent 

would however attempt to accommodate them 

where he can. The operations within the 

harbor are comtrolled by MCM and 

Department of Public Works, of which the 

proponent has no influence. Please refer to 

Annexure O of the FEIR. 

The site is currently not- and will not be zoned 

as residential. Please refer to Sections 2.6 

and 2.7 of the FEIR. 







Planning 

Planning 

Planning 

Planning 

Planning 

Planning 

Planning 



1.1.42 

1.1.43 

1.1.44 

1.1.45 

1.1.46 

1.1.47 

1.1.48 


(131) 


(131) 

Pauli Bester (132) 

Yvonne M Burke 

(166) 

Kyra Muenzenmaier 

(167) 

Stephen Knobel 

(137) 


(137) 

The building coverage of the area is too 

large 

Erf 848 is for processing of fish and 

therefore is not suitable for a residential 

development. 

The proposed development does not 

comply to local height restrictions for 

buildings 

Two storey building above basement is 

preferably for the proposed development to 

have a positive impact on Struisbaai. 

Only a two storey building is allowed to be 

constructed in Struisbaai. 

Erf 848 stretches to the high water mark 

and the purpose of this plot is clearly in its 

title deed (Page 2(b): Copy of Title deed 

obtained from CAM office, Struisbaai. 

Title deed restrictions of erf 848 should be 

adhered to and be viewed with great 

importance and should not be altered. 








Sections 2.6 and 2.7 of the FEIR. 







Your comment is noted; however Annexure O 

provides the proponent‟s argument for why a 

two storey alternative is not financially feasible 

for them. Also refer to Section 2.4.6 of the 








The realignment of the high water mark is 

being made to the Surveyor General due to 

the land reclamation; however the total area 

of Erf 848 would remain 3,804m 2 . Please 

refer to Sections 2.6 and 2.7 of the FEIR. 

Your concern is noted however planning 

legislation allows for landowners to undertake 

a legal process to alter such restrictions which 

may or may not be granted. Please refer to 

Sections 2.6 and 2.7 of the FEIR. 

Planning 

Planning 

Planning 

Planning 

Planning 

Planning 

Planning 



1.1.49 

1.1.50 

1.1.51 

1.1.52 


(137) 


(64) 


(64) 


(64) 

Referring to Page 126, there's a gap in your 

historical background with regards to when 

the Coloured fishermen who resided in 

harbour are were removed to make a way 

for the white, current day settlement. 

Please investigate if there are no links 

between this event and the peculiar title 

deed restriction. 

The design of the building is fairly formal, 

and will inhibit the holiday feeling the 

harbour and Erf 848 currently has. This is 

further enhanced by the fact that a wall is 

planned between the harbour and Erf 848 – 

a sure way of creating a psychological and 

physical boundary between the property 

and harbour and their respective uses 

The proposed building is not in line with 

existing buildings in the area, nor is it‟s 

proposed usage. It can therefore not be 

approved. 

Up to now, all buildings in Struisbaai have 

been fewer storeys than what is planned. 

The fact that a two storey development is 

not feasible should not be a reason to 

extend zoning parameters to more levels, 

this is a town-planning issue not an 

economic concern. Should the economic 

concern outweigh the town-planning 

concerns, I can probably request to have 

more buildings on my residential plot, so 

that my tenants can share in my bond 

repayment costs - clearly this is not a 

legitimate argument for a four storey 

development being approved! 


Your comment is noted. The proposed design 

does not have a boundary wall planned on the 

north and west side of the development. 

Your statement is noted. Please refer to 

Section 2.7 of the FEIR. 

Noted. The proponent has been required to 

motivate the height of their design and this is 

included in Annexure O & Annexure P of the 

FEIR. Please refer to Sections 1.4, 2.6 and 

2.7 of the FEIR for a discussion of this matter. 

The SDF has a two storey height restriction 

for the area and thus Cape Agulhas 

Municipality and the competent authority 

would be required to make a decision whether 

or not this development could be exempted 

from this restriction and to what extent. 

Planning 

Planning 

Planning 

Planning 



1.1.53 

1.1.54 

1.1.55 

1.1.56 

1.1.57 

1.1.58 

1.1.59 


(64) 

Jeanette Bruwer 

(75) 

Hannes and Erica 

Pienaar (163) 

Grant McKinstry 

(80) 

Carel Schaap (165) 

Bertrus Hayward 

(172) 

Jack Smith (60) 

How a new sectional title development will 

change this is beyond me, except of course 

if the development‟s proposed market is not 

South African? The concern posed relates 

to the market for foreign tourists that the 

sectional title deed units would attract, the 

comment follows. This also links up with the 

price of units, which may place it outside the 

local market. It will be a sad day if 

Struisbaai becomes “Struis Bay” because of 

the make-up of owners here. 

The developer must adhere to the building 

restrictions of erf 848. 

When the plots were bought and the houses 

were built the harbour area was not 

supposed to be rezoned as a residential 

area. 

Building height that is greater than two 

stories is not allowed in Struisbaai. 

Everyone has to adhere to these 

regulations for so many years. 

I find it strange to note that the fact that the 

applicant owns Erf 848 be used as 

justification for an application for change of 

use ("only land available to"). Why did he 

purchase it in the first instance, and why not 

a more suitable erf? Were we all born 

yesterday? 

The height of the proposed building is a 

concern 

I don‟t have objections to the development 

of the property, however I do object to the 

proposed four storey development that 

apparently exceeds certain building 

regulations and would put additional strain 

on municipal services. 

Please refer to Section 2.4.6 and 2.8 of the 

FEIR regarding Feasibility Assessment as 

well as needs and desirability detailed in 

Section 7.4. 



Noted however planning legislation allows for 

landowners to undertake a legal process to 

alter such restrictions which may or may not 

be granted by the authorities. 







The proponent bought Erf 848 because of its 

unique qualities to build the proposed 

development on it and therefore does not wish 

to consider other location alternatives. 


5.2.6 of the FEIR and Section 1.1.95 of this 








Planning 

Planning 

Planning 

Planning 

Planning 

Planning 

Planning 



1.1.60 

1.1.61 

1.1.62 

1.1.63 

1.1.64 






The property size is indicated as 3 805 m 2 

(page 3 of the Executive Summary) and on 

page 4 the soil surface area of the 

development is indicated as 3 659 m 2 . 

Thus, 96% of the property will be 

developed, which to my knowledge is 

against the building regulations. To my 

knowledge building areas are restricted to 

75%. 

What other building regulations will be 

infringed upon? There is no reference in 

your documents regarding these 

transgressions. 

The following comment on page 3 doesn‟t 

ring true: “As the site is limited in size (3 805 

m 2 ), maximum use is proposed for the site 

for the project to be financially optimized. 

Site layout alternatives are thus limited. Site 

layout alternatives have been considered in 

the design iterations. Only one feasible 

layout is therefore assessed.” This is an 

unacceptable excuse. Restrictions should 

have been investigated beforehand. The 

developer should not try to play on people's 

feelings and argue there are limited 

alternatives. 

Did the developer receive approval 

beforehand from the municipality to exceed 

the building regulations? 

General opinion: “Design buildings to 

optimize on natural energy, i.e. North facing 

and windows shaded in summer”. What 

about winter months? 









The proponent bought the site with the view to 

develop it in such a way to ensure that it is 

economically sustainable. The competent 

authority would need to make a final decision 

on whether the proposal is acceptable. 

The developer was advised that due process 

needed to be followed as standard practive. 



North facing is particularly important for winter 

months. 

Planning 

Planning 

Planning 

Planning 

Planning 



1.1.65 

1.1.66 

1.1.67 

Mr. and Mrs. 

Hendrik/ Helen 

Conradie (108) 

Mr. and Mrs. 



Mr. and Mrs. 



The photo on page 2 of the executive 

summary clearly shows that proposed 

alternative 6 will replace our much loved 

harbour area with a particularly large 

building that will dwarf everything else. This 

photo shows the northern and western front 

of a five storey building and not four as 

mentioned elsewhere in the report. Are you 

trying to soften us up to acceptance when 

the parking level will not be constructed 

below ground anymore due to the water 

level issues? Furthermore, the development 

covers the full length of the seafront of the 

erf, impacting, to my opinion, completely on 

the view and accessibility. 

With every presentation we strenuously 

objected to this development that ignores all 

building regulations very clearly. We cannot 

believe that the authorities would knowingly 

approve this despite the fact that the 

building limitations are ignored or that you 

believe you will get approval. 

The developer should have known before 

buying the property whether this 

development has a chance to be 

successful. Your argument that you have 

the right to develop the property into a 

viable waterfront complex with a hotel, 

sectional title flats, informal restaurants and 

retail shops despite the building regulations, 

as well as your arguments that this is the 

only suitable property, cannot be true. 

Your concern is noted. The EIR 

documentation attempts to clearly represent 

and independently assess the facts of the 

proposal. Regarding the basement please 

refer to Section 5.2.8 of the FEIR. Regarding 

the height of the building, please refer to 

Sections 5.2.5 and 5.2.6 of the FEIR. 

The public comments and objections are 

included in the EIA documentation and must 

be considered by the competent decisionmaking 

authorities. The competent authority 

may decide not to approve the proposed 

development. Regarding the restrictions, a 

new SDF has been passed in accordance 











Section 1.4 and 2.7 and Annexure L & U of 


Planning 

Planning 

Planning 



1.1.68 

1.1.69 

1.1.70 

1.1.71 

1.1.72 

Lois Albertyn (109) 

W. J. and S.N. 

Wilken (105) 


Wilken (105) 

Frederick Janse van 

Rensburg (169) 

H du Plessis (68), 


Kriel (70) 

During the construction of the construction 

of the Nostra, it was necessary to demolish 

existing buildings only to find that there 

wasn‟t any foundation. What guarantee is 

there for construction on erf 848? 

We vehemently object to proposed attempts 

to change the existing building regulations 

by allowing construction of a building that 

would cover more than 75% of the property 

– even up to 100%. 

Object to: Making allowance to change 

height restrictions for the proposed new 

building. It‟s misleading to compare the 

development with other height violations 

and cannot be used as examples. This is a 

new project that has to get approval. 

If necessary, rather upgrade existing 

commercial buildings. 

While reading the information provided to 

homeowners in the Agulhas Municipal area, 

I got a strong impression that the opinions 

and needs of homeowners are not 

respected or considered during the planning 

of this development. 

The building would be built in accordance with 

National Building Regulations and the 

foundations would be inspected by the 

municipality. A geotechnical assessment was 

undertaken to determine what foundations 

would be necessary based on the existing 

substrate conditions. Please refer to Annexure 

L of the FEIR. 

Your objection is noted however planning 

legislation allows for landowners to undertake 

a legal process to alter such restrictions. Such 

an application may be granted or refused by 

the authorities. A new SDF has been passed 

in accordance with the Municipal Systems Act 

as of December 2009. The 2009 CAM SDF 



Section 1.4 and 2.7 of the FEIR. 

Agreed, the proposed project must abide by 

the legal requirements applied to it by the 

relevant authorities, who may refuse 

applications for amendments to the 

restrictions. It should be noted however that 

the comparative assessment was simply 

aimed at identifying whether comparative 

heights within Struisbaai. A new SDF has 

been passed in accordance with the Municipal 

Systems Act as of December 2009. The 2009 

CAM SDF promotes development within the 

urban edge, of which Erf 848 is located. 

Please refer to Section 1.4 and 2.7 of the 


The proponent is exercising their right to apply 

for the development of Erf 848. 

The EIA process has gone to great lengths to 

accommodate I&APs. Please refer to Chapter 

3 of the FEIR. Further to this the public 

comments and objections are included in the 

EIA documentation and must be considered 

by the competent decision-making authorities. 

Planning 

Planning 

Planning 

Planning 

Planning 



1.1.73 

1.1.74 

1.1.75 

A. J. Vlok (139) 

Andre van der Berg 

(145) 

Justine Sweet (97) 

High water mark and setback lines – the 

background image notes that buildings 

would be approximately 9 m above the 

average sea level and alternatively 5 m 

above the natural ground level. Thus earthmoving 

activities to raise the ground level 

would have to do so by 5 m. In other 

words, the total presentation is wrong as the 

development‟s height would vary between 3 

to 5 storeys, a situation that is not 

acceptable. Thus, we have to ask the 

question if this mistake was made on 

purpose. 

The buildings are too high and do not fit into 

the rest of Struisbaai 

Although it is not so zoned, the site is 

presently regarded as a public space [We 

note that although the property is not zoned 

"public open space", in our view, it is 

arguable (and in fact, environmentally and 

socially appropriate) that a more extensive 

public participation process should be 

conducted as a result of the significant 

public rights granted in respect of this 

property and the concomitant potentially 

negative impacts on the public if the 

proposed development goes ahead. We 

have elaborated on this argument below] 

(in line with the extensive rights of way and 

other public use rights imposed on the 

property). Bordering the harbour, it is much 

used by local fishermen and the general 

public and, although it is in some state of 

disrepair, the rights attaching to the property 

are generally considered a significant public 

asset [the question of expropriation has 

been raised by at least, John van Niekerk. 

In addition, during a telephone discussion, a 

representative of the DEA&DP queried 

whether it should ever have been privately 

owned given its proximity to the harbour 

and immediate benefit to the public]. 

Please refer to Sections 5.2.5 and 5.2.6 of the 

FEIR for a description of the height. With 

reference to page 2 of the Executive 

Summary that you are referring to, please 

note that these heights are relative only to the 

existing buildings and not that of the proposed 

Langezandt Quays. 

Your comment is noted. Please refer to 


Erf 848 is private property and the proponent 

is exercising their right to apply for the 

development of the erf. Current usage does 

not alter the private status of the property. The 

property is outside of the designated harbour 

area although adjacent to it. 

The applicant desputes the notion that the site 

“is plesently regarded as a public space”. It is 

noteworthy that the comment to which this 

response relates cites no authority for the 

proposition. 

Erf 848 cannot be regarded as public open 

space since the western, southern and 

eastern boundaries of the erf have been 

fenced off for a number of years. The only 

perceived public open space is relevant to the 

right of way servitude on the northern 

boundary of Erf 848. 

The EIA process has been extensive and has 

gone to great lengths to accommodate I&APs. 

Please refer to Chapter 3 of the FEIR for the 

public participation process undertaken. 

Planning 

Planning 

Planning 



1.1.76 

1.1.77 

1.1.78 




At present, the preferred proposed 

development alternative includes a mix of 

two and four storey development which 

includes a retail, hotel and residential 

component [p. 48 of dEIR]. The 

development proponent has entirely 

disregarded a two storey development [this 

is, and the consequences thereof, are more 

fully discuss elsewhere in this objection]. 

The preferred proposed development 

alternative of four storeys remains 

incompatible with surrounding land uses 

and development trends. Given its size 

(particularly compared with the existing land 

uses), it would significantly detract from the 

sense of place (and peace) created by the 

harbour. Essentially, it would be a 

development entirely out of context with 

Struisbaai 

The proposed development includes 

residential and hotel units as well as shops 

and restaurants [p. 52-53 of the dEIR]. This 

is not permitted in terms of the title deed 

restriction which stipulates that the site 

"shall be used only for the erection thereon 

of a building to be used for the cleaning, 

salting and storing of fresh fish in 

refrigerated rooms."[B.6(b)] . It is also not 

clear why this restrictive condition is not 

mentioned in the draft EIR; 

The basement will have a plan area of 

3 659m² (equivalent to the surface area of 

the proposed development) [p.52 of the 

dEIR]. This plan area exceeds that 

permitted in terms of the title deed 

conditions which do not permit more than 

three-quarters of the site to be built upon [p. 

53 of dEIR]; and 

The two storey development was not 

assessed as the proponent has provided 

motivation in Annexure O as to why they 

would not consider such an alternative viable. 

Only reasonable, feasible alternatives should 

be provided to the environmental authority for 

consideration. The proponent has indicated 

that they would not develop a two storey 

development if it was approved as it is not 

financially feasible. Therefore only viable 

alternatives have been provided in the 

reporting on which to make a decision. The 

environmental authorities may reject the 

proposed alternative. Refer to Section 2.4.6 

and Annexure P or the FEIR. 


FEIR regarding the title deed restrictions and 

the proponent‟s intention to apply for the 

removal of these restrictions. Please refer to 

Annexure Q of the FEIR for a copy of the title 

deeds. 

With reference to the appointed architects, 

this requirement applies only to natural 

ground level and above and therefore 

excludes below natural ground level. 

Planning 

Planning 

Planning 



1.1.79 

1.1.80 

1.1.81 

1.1.82 

1.1.83 






The site is located within the secondary 

business node in terms of the SDF. 

According to the SDF, buildings within the 

secondary business node may not exceed a 

height of 2 storeys and the total built 

footprint may not exceed 1.5 times the erf 

size. Residential development to a 

maximum density of 30 units per hectare is 

permitted [p.22 of dEIR]. Hotels and 

residential units are not specifically provided 

for [p.22 of dEIR]. 

The proposed development will contravene 

the SDF in a number of ways: 

It will exceed the two storey height limit [our 

client's specific objections relating to this 

and other SDF contraventions are dealt with 

under the heading "alternatives" below]; 

It will exceed the total allowable built 

footprint area - the erf size is approximately 

3 805m² [according to title deed 

T000078946/2000] while the proposed total 

floor area, including the basement will be 12 

320m² with a bulk of 7 332m²; and [p. 53 of 

dEIR] 

The maximum residential density will also 

potentially be exceeded in that the 

proposed development caters for 28 

residential units and 70 hotel units. 






Section 1.4 and 2.7 of the FEIR. 















Please refer to Sections 1.4, 2.6 and 2.7 of 


Planning 

Planning 

Planning 

Planning 

Planning 



1.1.84 

1.1.85 



It is submitted that due to its failure to 

conform to the town-planning 

considerations alone, the proposed 

development should be refused. In this 

regard, we refer to the Department of 

Environmental Affairs and Development 

Planning's letter ("DEADP") [p. 48 of dEIR] 

to the development proponent which 

required that it consider a development 

which falls within the parameters outlined in 

the SDF (which instruction, the 

development proponent has failed to 

adequately abide, if at all). 

The site is currently zoned Industrial Zone 1 

in terms of Section 8 of the Scheme 

Regulations in the Land Use Planning 

Ordinance ("LUPO") [15 of 1985]. Various 

land use restrictions within this zone are 

stipulated which will be contravened by the 

proposed development unless an 

application for rezoning is made. The 

development proponent has indicated that it 

intends to apply for a rezoning of the site to 

Special Zone.[P. 56 of dEIR] It is therefore 

somewhat confusing that the development 

proponent positively refers to the current 

zoning of the site and specifically to the fact 

that the current zoning does not impose 

height restrictions, when it is well aware that 

its proposed development requires a 

rezoning application. 





of which Erf 848 is located. Regarding the title 

deed restrictions and the proponent‟s intention 

to apply for the removal of these restrictions 

please refer to Section 1.4, 2.6 and 2.7 of the 


EAP response: 

Thank you for highlighting this possible 

confusion. We have requested the proponent 

to clarify its intent and wording. Sections 2.6 

and 2.7 of the FEIR have been revised to 

clarify this matter. 

Proponent response: The text was referring 

to what is acceptable in terms of the current 

zoning scheme and is expecting this to be 

considered when rezoning. 

Planning 

Planning 



1.1.86 

1.1.87 



Reference is made to the second draft [it is 

interesting to note that the development 

applicant seeks to rely on this draft whereas 

it simply disregards the Integrated Coastal 

Management Act, which, although not yet 

enforce, is no longer in draft format] of the 

Cape Agulhas Municipality Integrated 

Zoning Scheme which would permit the 

development proponent to apply for a 

rezoning to Business Zone [p. 57 of dEIR]. 

Various restrictions are imposed in terms of 

this zoning, including a floor factor of 2. The 

development proponent makes no 

reference to this restriction when it is 

alleged that the "proposed 

development…conforms to the 

requirements as per Business Zone 

definition."[P. 58 of dEIR] 

Our clients are of the view that the site is 

not suitable for the purposes of a hotel, 

particularly due to the proximity to the 

harbour with the concomitant noise created 

by the local fishermen at very early hours. 

Our clients are also of the view that there is 

insufficient demand for 70 hotel units within 

Struisbaai. 

Please note that Section 1.3.5. of the FEIR 

has been revised to include the requirements 

of the Integrated Coastal Management Act as 

that statute became operastive on 1 

December 2009. 

Please refer to Sections 2.5 of the FEIR for a 

description of the bulk of the proposed 

development. It appears to be within the 

limits as described in Section 2.7 c. 

Please note that issue relating to noise was 

addressed in Section 5.2.8 of the DEIR. With 

regard to the demand for 70 hotel units, an 

assessment was commissioned post the 

public participation meeting which took place 

on the 31 October 2009 to confirm the 

proponents‟ concept/vision as per Annexure 

O. Please refer to Annexure U of the FEIR for 

a market study. We note that your clients 

views are effectively unsubstantiated. 

Planning 

Planning 



1.1.88 

1.1.89 

1.1.90 




Our clients would likely not object to a 

development which is proved to be feasible, 

which is consistent with the prevailing townplanning 

requirements and which takes the 

public rights relating to the property into 

account. Such development could include 

an upgrade of Pelican's restaurant and 

Harbour Catch could also be included as 

well as the provision of additional shops and 

restaurants, as envisaged in the 

development applicant's proposed 

development. It is our clients' submission 

that this alternative would be met with far 

less resistance from other interested and 

affected parties because it would be 

consistent with the surrounding land uses 

and would complement the current 

character of the harbour. 

Accordingly, our clients propose an 

additional activity alternative comprising low 

rise buildings of not more than two and half 

storeys, which comprise two storey 

buildings with a loft and a pitched roof, on 

the south-west portion of the site and one 

storey buildings on the remainder of the 

site. This option ensures that the character 

and architectural style of the harbour is 

maintained [the present proposed 

development's architectural design is not in 

keeping with prevailing designs and 

cottages. 

On the development proponent's own 

concession, the height of the proposed 

development may detract from the allegedly 

"aesthetically pleasing" quality of the 

development from certain vantage points [p. 

122 of dEIR.] However, the development 

proponent has refused to consider a two 

storey development based upon the 

findings contained in its feasibility study. 

Your suggestion is noted. Reasonable and 

feasible alternatives have been assessed and 

Alternative 6 has been shown to be 

economically and socially feasible in the 

context of this comment. 

Applicants response: 

The aplicant is not willing to pursue such a 

development as it is not financially feasible 

and does not deliver broader goals such as a 

community trust, upliftment and a tourism 

anchor. Please refer to Section 2.4.6 and 

Annexure P of the FEIR. 


Comment and Response Report. Please refer 

to a description of the present architecture in 

Section 5.2.5 b of the FEIR. 

EAP response: Please refer to Section 2.4.6 

and Annexure P & R of the FEIR. 

Applicants response: The applicant is not 

willing (nor legally obligded) to pursue a two 

storey development as it is not financially 

viable nor does it meet the social objectives 

and benefits. Accordingly this alternative, 

objectively viewed, is neither reasonable nor 

feasible. 

Planning 

Planning 

Planning 



1.1.91 

1.1.92 

1.1.93 

1.1.94 

GJ Pienaar (56) 



(21) 

Johan Liebenberg, 

Dorel Van der 

Westhuizen, Kobus 

Viljoen, Abrie 

Bruwer, Chris Moll, 

Stuart Du Plessis, 

G. R. Youldon, 

Johan Venter (59, 

73, 69, 66, 65, 172, 

93, 78) 

1. The buyer of land zoned for business 

purposes should be aware of the local 

government‟s development conditions for 

that particular property. Should changes be 

made to these conditions at a later stage, 

adjacent property owners as well as the 

original plans of the local government will 

be negatively impacted. 

It is highly questionable whether the 

development of erf 572 will be beneficial to 

Struisbaai. It is definitely not to the 

advantage of the homeowners in the 

harbour area. 

Struisbaai area has a history of 

unsuccessful hotel operations viz. the 

Agulhas Hotel which was converted to 

apartment and the Struisbaai Motel to be 

developed into up market accommodation 

with a rental pool. In addition Golden Falls 

and Langezandt Quays already has an 

approved hotel site in his Langezandt 

Fisherman‟s Village development which the 

web site and promotional literature 

promises will be developed into an “up to 40 

room boutique hotel”. Why would the 

developer want another hotel in the area 

when his current plans have not been 

completed? 

It is illegal to build a residential building on 

an industrial plot 

The proponent is exercising their right to apply 

for the development of the erf and the 

amendment of restrictions. These applications 

may not be successful. The Spatial 

Development Framework however makes 

provision for several aspects of the proposed 

development. Please refer to Section 1.4 of 

the FEIR. Your concern is however noted. 

Please note we areassessing Erf 848 not Erf 

572. Your comment is however noted in 

relation to Erf 848. 

From research it appears that both the 

Agulhas Hotel and Struisbaai Hotel/Motel got 

to the end of their structural lifecycle and 

presented better opportunity to a complete redevelopment, 

confirming the growth demand 

for tourism and leisure related products.The 

Fishermen‟s Village concept does make 

provision for a “Boutique Hotel” however the 

proposed development is catering for a 

different market and grading (5 star). 



Planning 

Planning 

Planning 

Planning 



1.1.95 

1.1.96 

1.1.97 

1.1.98 

1.1.99 


Dorel Van der 







73, 69, 66, 65, 172, 

93, 78) 


Dorel Van der 







73, 69, 66, 65, 172, 

93, 78) 


Dorel Van der 







73, 69, 66, 65, 172, 

93, 78) 

Jannie Momberg (3) 



(113 & 112) 

It is illegal to have a building that is more 

than two stories in an area where there is 

height restriction of two storeys. 

You also imply that for 2000 years the 

Xoisan has lived here and at that time it was 

a heritage but since the holiday makers and 

local farmers have erected dwellings, it is 

now a free for all. It can also be argued that 

cities constructed high rise when they ran 

out of land. In Struisbaai, 50% of land is 

undeveloped (4 000 electricity accounts vs. 

8 000 plots), thus the two storey building 

restriction. Just that is an attraction by 

itself. There is also an undeveloped hotel 

site. 

It is illegal to construct the building that will 

occupy more than 75% of the plot. 

The proposed development will close the 

only swimming place left as other swimming 

areas already destroyed. 

The public servitude on eastern side of the 

property must remain, it should not be for 

Municipality to decide nor for the developer 





of which Erf 848 is located. Regarding the title 

deed restrictions and the proponent‟s intention 

to apply for the removal of these restrictions 

please refer to Section 1.4, 2.6 and 2.7 of the 


Development of this nature needs to be taken 

through certain procedures and processes 

which include, but are not limited to EIA 

regulations and LUPO. 

Regarding other alternative sites please refer 

to Section 3.1.51 of this Comment and 

Response Report. 



Disagree. Access to the harbour will not be 

restricted. Control of the harbour remains 

vested with MCM and the proposed 

development will not alter the harbor 

infrastructure. Please refer to Section 1.4.1 of 

this Comment and Response Report. 

Please refer to Section 1.4.1 of this Comment 

and Response Report. Access to the harbour 

will not be restricted. 

Planning 

Planning 

Planning 

Servitude 

Servitude 



1.1.100 

1.1.101 

Louise Louw (22) 


There is no provision for a public open 

space on the property that would be 

suitable for a high density development as 

the one planned. 

Various title deed restrictions exist which 

were imposed in the public interest given 

the site's proximity to the harbour. These 

conditions, it is submitted, were imposed in 

order to ensure that the beneficial use of the 

harbour and concomitant public right of 

access to the harbour and other marine 

resources were retained. 

Erf 848 is private property, not public open 

space. The centre courtyard will however act 

as a communal area for all visitors to the 

proposed development. 


FEIR. The public‟s right of access to the 

harbour would not be infringed by the 

proposed development in anyway. 

It is ultimately M&CM‟s responsibility to 

ensure that resources required by the 

fisherfolk are provided as is reasonable, not 

the adjacent private land owner. Please refer 

to Annexure O: Proponent‟s Vision regarding 

accommodating the public. 

Design 

Title deed 

restrictions 

1.2 Impact on municipal 

services 

1.2.1 

1.2.2 

1.2.3 

1.2.4 

Michelle Vermeulen 

(1) 

Werner Vermeulen 

(2) 

Jacobus J.R. Du 

Plessis (141) 


Water and electricity is already not sufficient 

Water and electricity is already not sufficient 

during the holiday period 

There are a number of assumptions that is 

not doable, e.g. electricity supply, water 

shortages, sewerage costs. 

Throughout the report the impact on 

municipal services are referred to as 

medium, which I doubt is true. 


5.2.1 of the FEIR. 




Noted. Please refer Chapter 4 of the FEIR 

regarding methodology used to determine 

rating. 

Municipal 

services 

Municipal 

services 

Municipal 

Services 

Municipal 

Services 



1.2.5 

1.2.6 

1.2.7 



A.F. & J.H. Tooke 

(67) 

The draft EIR refers to significant 

infrastructure improvements [Incl. the drilling 

of boreholes, the upgrade of the town 

centre substation and the upgrade of the 

existing sewage oxidation ponds] being 

required in order for the proposed 

development to take place. At this stage, 

no service level or other agreement has 

been concluded with the municipality (or our 

clients have not been provided a copy) and 

once again, we submit that the 

environmental impact assessment process 

is premature and should be postponed 

pending further information and studies and 

the conclusion of an agreement in terms of 

which the impacts of the proposed 

development can accurately be considered. 

According to the economic specialist report 

[Ann. H] although developments such as 

the proposed development, can result in net 

increases in rates and other income, they 

can also place greater strain on services 

and lead to negative impacts on municipal 

finances. The report concludes that it is not 

possible to determine with a high degree of 

confidence whether this balance would be 

positive or negative for the proposed 

development. 

Bulk municipal services (water, electricity, 

sewage and stormwater) mitigation 

measures are inadequate. To suggest that 

staff and guests would be asked to use 

water sparingly is unrealistic. Likewise to 

ensure energy saving technology is used 

i.e. LED and CFL bulbs is optimistic as 

these will be privately owned residential 

units. 

The municipality is not willing to enter into a 

Service Level Agreement unless the proposed 

development is approved (NEMA/LUPO). 

Regarding the supply of water refer to 

Annexure A of the FEIR for a letter from CAM 

dated 23/09/2009. The process that CAM will 

need to undergo to achieve the drilling and 

delivery of water is independent of the EIA 

process being undertaken by the proponen. 

The Economic specialist report goes further to 

say that this burden will occur:” more likely for 

developments that occur outside urban 

edges” and “likely to be found in rapidly 

growing communities”. Neither of which 

applies in this case. 

It is recommended that the energy saving 

devices would need to be designed into the 

building during the construction phase and 

clients would be informed of minimum 

requirements rather than simply retrofitting 

normal fixtures. Although not as effective as 

one would like they are important to 

encourage and cannot be excluded. Any other 

feasible ideas would be welcomed. 

Muncipal 

Services 

Municipal 

services 

Municipal 

Services 



1.2.8 

1.2.9 

1.2.10 

1.2.11 

1.2.12 

1.2.13 

1.2.14 

1.2.15 


(67) 

Jannie Momberg (3) 

Mari Rabie (9) 


Jacobus J.D. 

Havenga (12) 

Jacobus J.D. 

Havenga (12) 

Jacobus J.D. 

Havenga (12) 

Paul De Kock (13) 

The mitigating measures of storm water 

management and solid waste are 

unrealistic as well, to recommend that keep 

outside surfaces clear of solid waste to 

prevent them blowing and/or washing into 

storm water systems is unrealistic, the 

beach and the surrounding areas are 

strewn with litter, why would behavior 

change? 

There isn‟t enough water available for an 

efficient sewerage system as required for 

this type of project. 

Where will more water be obtained? 

Rates and tax and electricity will be very 

high 

What guarantee do you have that the 

provincial government will provide the 

necessary infrastructure? If the pressure 

gets too much, then we have to pay the tax. 

Can you unconditionally assure me that the 

municipality and provincial administration 

will provide Struisbaai with necessary 

service infrastructure for future 

developments? I don't believe though if it 

would be their priority due to the current 

resident composition etc. It is already a 

major problem to get water and electricity 

during holiday seasons. 

What difference will the upgrading of one or 

two boreholes make in the long term? 

The proposed development will put a lot of 

pressure/ stress on water resources and 

sewage services. The mitigation measures 

proposed do not provide sufficient solutions 

with regards to the water and sewage 

issues. 

The proposed development would be 

controlled with a specific waste storage area, 

thus minimizing the potential for litter. 





Noted 

Please refer to Section 5.2.1 of the FEIR with 

regard to service agreements. Refer to CAM 

letter in Annexure A of the FEIR. 

Please refer to Section 5.2.1 of the FEIR with 

regard to service agreements. The electricity 

supply is a national concern and would be 

unaffected directly by the proposed 

development as there is an existing 66kV 

power supply from the Bredasdorp substation 

which was assessed by the infrastructural 

engineers to be sufficient to provide for the 

proposed development. Please refer to the 


There would be adequate water to service the 

proposed development. The CAM letter in 

Annexure A of the FEIR states that a 

hydrological assessment was undertaken by 

the CAM and that sufficient water is available 

but the number of boreholes to access the 

water should be increased. 

Please refer to point 1.2.14 above of this 

comments and response report. 

Municipal 

Services 

Municipal 

services 

Municipal 

services 

Municipal 

services 

Municipal 

services 

Municipal 

services 

Municipal 

services 

Municipal 

services 



1.2.16 

1.2.17 

1.2.18 

1.2.19 

1.2.20 


B.J. Viljoen (18) 

Hendrik Andreas 

Kotze (19) 



No provisions have been made for any 

public ablution facilities that are already a 

problem in this area. 

Referring to Chapter 6 of the EIR, I have 

serious doubts about the outcome (with/ 

without mitigation measures) of the impact 

of electricity supplied by the municipality. 

Did you consider the requirements of the 

National Regulator as stipulated in 

legislation regarding the reduction of 

electricity? 

Impacts on electricity, storm water and 

water supply can be discussed with relevant 

authorities as there are few residents, 

outsiders or other commentators whose 

contribution in this field can be based on 

sound knowledge and recent facts. 

There is no clear explanation about 

sewerage management. Currently the 

taxpayers have been paying for years to 

receive sewage services, but so far there 

has been no development from any 

municipal sewage system. What is the 

meaning of having a sewage pump on the 

property? If the property will have one large 

cellar, how do you plan to remove sewage 

seeing that Struisbaai‟s sewage is managed 

via septic tanks? 

The report mentions desalination of water 

from an existing borehole. Where is this 

borehole located? How big is the area 

required for the borehole 

equipment/infrastructure and where would it 

be installed? To my knowledge all 

boreholes and desalination plants need to 

have permits that require separate 

environmental impact assessments. 

Please refer to Section 2.4.8 of the FEIR 

where public ablution facilities are noted as 

being provided. Furthermore the existing 

ablution facility on Erf 921 may be relocated to 

a more suitable location such as the MCM 

offices on Erf 1394. 

This issue is not clear, however a 66kV power 

supply is available from Bredasdorp which is 

sufficient to supply the proposed development 

as well as Struisbaai. The Struisbaai 

substation however requires upgrading to 

accommodate the proposed demand. Please 

refer to Section 5.2.1 of the FEIR. 

Applicants response: The design of the 

building ensures minimum electricity usage 

from the grid as well as to supplement the 

supply electricity with renewable energy 

resources. 

The CAM has been consulted by an 

independent specialist (Sutherland, Annexure 

F) to determine the supply of bulk services. 

Please refer to Section 5.2.1 and Annexure I 

of the FEIR. 

Please refer to Section 5.2.1 and Annexure I 


The CAM would decide on the infrastructure 

required for the requisite boreholes. The 

CAM would have to undergo any EIA and 

apply for any required Water Use Licence if it 

does not have existing authorisation to extract 

and treat the water appropriately. 

Municipal 

services 

Municipal 

services 

Municipal 

services 

Municipal 

services 

Municipal 

services 



1.2.21 

1.2.22 

1.2.23 

1.2.24 

1.2.25 

Etienne Jay Van 

Wyk (33) 

Rhys R.M. Van Wyk 

(35) 

Gaston C. Van Wyk 

(36) 

Gerry Pienaar (38) 


I'm a Struisbaai property owner and a 

holiday maker for 32 years and we're 

constantly threatened with fines over the 

festive times by the Municipality who claim 

that the infrastructure is struggling to 

support the masses of people who spend 

time during the holidays. How can then the 

Municipality approves one development 

after another under these circumstances? 

There is lack of service delivery from the 

Municipality, yearly there are water 

restrictions in Struisbaai even before the 

peak times. How can the municipality 

approve one development after the other on 

such conditions? Perhaps if the residence 

can burn tyres to demonstrate their 

complaints, the municipality may be 

convinced. 

I'm a Struisbaai homeowner and every 

December, even before we went for our 

annual holiday, the municipality is 

constantly notifying us of water restrictions 

and threatening us with fines. How the 

municipality can approve one development 

after another without being able to provide 

their tax payers with basic services such 

water and electricity? 

Water is a huge problem in the Western 

Cape and Struisbaai is not different. 

Residents who arrive for their annual 

holiday in December are restricted in the 

use of water. 

The letter from Agulhas Municipality 

(Annexure A of DEIR) regarding the 

availability of Municipal Civil Engineering 

Services is misleading. What is the 

meaning of “sufficient water ground water 

exist but it's situated on the private land”, 

and what procedures need to be put in 

place before access to this could be 

obtained. Certainty of water supply can 

only be attained once the drilling process 

has been completed and the required 

pumps are installed. 




Electricity supply is a national concern and 

although the current infrastructure suffices 

load shedding is out of the control of the CAM. 


The proposed development would not be able 

to proceed until service agreements have 

been reached between the CAM and the 

proponent regarding bulk services. Please 

refer to Section 1.2.20 of this Comment and 


Municipal 

services 

Municipal 

services 

Municipal 

services 

Municipal 

services 

Municipal 

services 



1.2.26 

1.2.27 

1.2.28 

1.2.29 

1.2.30 

1.2.31 

1.2.32 

1.2.33 

1.2.34 

1.2.35 



Rita Van der Walt 

(42) 

Chris Van der Walt 

(43) 


(47) 

Andrea Buys (50) 

Paul Buys (51) 


(58) 


(58) 



Home Owners 

Association (72) 

How much is the developer going to 

contribute with regards to sourcing water 

and how much is expected of the tax payers 

to contribute? 

The Municipality had admitted that the 

sewer treatment works located very close to 

Struisbaai North and is not adequate and 

will need upgrading, when will the upgrade 

of the sewage works be undertaken? Who 

will be responsible for payment of additional 

expenses for the upgrade? Can the ordinary 

taxpayer in Struisbaai afford this? 

Certain vital needs such as provision of 

water during peak seasons and sewage 

services first needs to be addressed. 

We already have trouble with water 

provision and there is no sewage system. 

Water and electricity are under existing 

pressure and any further development will 

aggravate this situation for all those 

concerned. 

Struisbaai‟s infrastructure would not be able 

to support the proposed development, 

especially the sewage system. 

There's currently lack of infrastructure such 

as sufficient water and sewage 

management in Struisbaai. 

Water restrictions are already being 

imposed on residents during the hot 

summer season; this development will 

further aggravate the lack of municipal 

water 

The sewerage system is not adequate to 

absorb any additional flows 

Objections submitted by this Association 

regarding insufficient water and electricity 

infrastructure for the proposed 

development, as well as the absence of a 

sewage system, are still relevant 

The required development levy and other 

costs to the proponent will be determined in a 

service agreement by the CAM. Please refer 

to Section 5.2.1 and Annexure I of the FEIR. 










Please refer to Section 5.2.1 of the FEIR and 

point 1.2.23 of this Comment and Response 

Report. 

Municipal 

services 

Municipal 

services 

Municipal 

services 

Municipal 

services 

Municipal 

services 

Municipal 

services 

Municipal 

services 

Municipal 

services 

Municipal 

services 

Municipal 

services 



1.2.36 

1.2.37 

1.2.38 

1.2.39 



Home Owners 




Home Owners 


Louis Nell (74) 


One of the most essential requirements for 

a community is the provision of sufficient 

water. The current situation cannot be 

rectified by using one or more additional 

boreholes. Expensive infrastructure (i.e. 

pipelines, electricity, reservoir, etc.) will be 

required to get water to households. There 

are not enough funds for the construction of 

electricity and water infrastructure for luxury 

developments when taking into account 

government‟s current shortage of money for 

social development and upliftment (housing 

developments, poverty alleviation, etc). 

We're concerned about the absence of 

infrastructure for the proposed 

development; and 

Regarding water supply, the geohydrological 

features of the aquifers feeding 

the Struisbaai/L‟Agulhas basin are under 

severe strain. Fear has been expressed by 

the Town Engineer that further exploitation 

of this resource may cause permanent and 

irreversible damage to the source. Further 

boreholes into the same resource can only 

exacerbate the situation. I cannot find any 

mitigation measures in your report 

regarding this. 

The holiday sewage loads of the towns of 

Struisbaai/L'Agulhas are already strained to 

the limit. So much so that tankers had to be 

borrowed from neighbouring towns to cope 

with the load. A pumped system from the 

harbour would alleviate the situation but it is 

not sufficiently covered in the report. 

The provision of services to the community is 

the CAM‟s responsibility and they have 

provided official comment with regard to the 

proposed development as per the letter in 

Annexure A of the FEIR. 


This is a separate process that the CAM 

needs to undertake and may require a 

separate EIA process. According to the CAM 

letter in Annexure A of the FEIR a 

hydrological assessment was undertaken and 

it was determined that sufficient water exists 

to service Struisbaai. 


Municipal 

services 

Municipal 

services 

Municipal 

services 

Municipal 

services 

1.2.40 


I'm having a serious doubt whether the 

existing municipal infrastructure can cope 

with the impact of the proposed 

development. The proposed road changes 

will directly affect residents in Kusweg Oos. 

Owners have invested to own a piece of 

land with certain attributes i.e. a quiet road. 


Your concern is noted regarding quiet roads, 

please refer to Section 5.2.2 of the FEIR . 

Municipal 

services 



1.2.41 

1.2.42 

1.2.43 

1.2.44 

1.2.45 

1.2.46 

1.2.47 

Johannes P. 

Albertyn (117) 

Johannes P. 




(168) 


(152) 


(152) 

Jan Momberg (3) 

I'm concerned about the disposal of 

sewerage; there must be no bad odour and 

pipes leading to the sea. 

There should be adequate fresh water 

supply throughout winter and summer. 

General problems with a high-density 

developments like sewage, electricity and 

parking is not adequately addressed 

Bulk municipal impacts such as water 

sewage and storm water aren‟t dealt with 

sufficiently in your EIA. Struisbaai has had 

problems with especially water supply and 

storm water management. We know that 

the municipality does not have the funds to 

address these issues currently and will 

neither be in a position to do so with the 

proposed development and its demand on 

this resources and infrastructure. 

Because the influx of additional visitors will 

impact on the already strained municipal 

service systems, solar power must be 

considered and the cost of desalination of 

current boreholes must be borne by the 

developers 

Sewerage and solid waste management 

must be dealt with from the onset of the 

project, at the developers‟ cost. Not dumped 

into the sea. 

I own a holiday home in Struisbaai and I 

believe that the town's infrastructure such 

as water and sewage is not sufficient for 

such development. 

Agreed. Please refer to Section 5.2.1 of the 

FEIR. The only pipes that would lead towards 

the sea would be for natural storm water from 

the site. 

This is the CAM‟s responsibility and they have 

indicated that they are able to fulfill their 

obligation. Please refer to Section 5.2.1 of the 


Disagree, all these issues have been 

assessed. Please refer to Section 5.2.1 of the 

FEIR for sewage issues. Bulk services have 

been addressed in detail in Section 5.2.1 as 

well as Annexure I of the FEIR. Regarding 

parking please refer to Section 5.2.2 of the 


Disagree, please refer to Section 5.2.1 of the 

FEIR. A independent specialist was appointed 

to determine the viability and availability of 

bulk services. The CAM has also committed 

to the supply of bulk services in terms of the 

CAM letter contained in Annexure A of the 


Regarding bulk services and solar power, 

please refer to Section 5.2.1 and 7.2.1 of the 

FEIR. The required development levy and 

other service costs to the proponent will be 

determined in a service agreement by the 

CAM. 

Strongly agreed. Please refer to Section 5.2.1 


Noted. Please refer to Section 5.2.1 of the 


Municipal 

services 

Municipal 

services 

Municipal 

services 

Municipal 

services 

Municipal 

services 

Municipal 

services 

Municipal 

services 



1.2.48 

1.2.49 

1.2.50 

1.2.51 

1.2.52 

1.2.53 


(64) 


(64) 


(64) 


(75) 


(75) 


(172) 

We have been regular visitors to Struisbaai 

for the past 20 years, and have witnessed 

the deterioration of services over this period 

and we cannot see how can a new 

development of this magnitude be approved 

if the existing developed properties do not 

have enough water? Even the additional 

boreholes is in our opinion an easy way out, 

and not sustainable. 

The proposed development in Struisbaai 

will put further pressure on already 

stretched water resources, the resultant 

financial burden will far outweigh the initial 

financial benefits and this will only be to the 

detriment of existing and future property 

owners! 

Sewage management is also a problem in 

Struisbaai. At present, Struisbaai uses 

septic tanks. With the location of the 

property adjacent to the coast, and only 

about 5m above the natural water table, one 

can only imagine the effect the sewage 

system will have on the harbour, the 

seawater and the area in general. The 

consequences of poor planning and 

inadequate measures are too terrible to 

even contemplate. 

There is no system in place to handle the 

sewage from the proposed development. 

The tax payer cannot be accountable to 

fund this. 

Water availability is already rationed in high 

season 

Municipal services such as water, electricity, 

sewage and solid waste management are a 

concern. 


Section 1.2.20 of this Comment and 


Please refer to Section 5.2.1 and Annexure H 


Strongly agreed with regard to poor planning 

and associated environment impacts. A 

specialist was appointed to assessment the 

sewage delivery for the proposed 

development. Please refer to Section 5.2.1 of 


Please refer to Section 5.2.1 of the FEIR for 

more detail. 




Regarding electricity please refer to Section 

1.2.23 of this Comment and Response 

Report. 

Municipal 

services 

Municipal 

services 

Municipal 

services 

Municipal 

services 

Municipal 

services 

Municipal 

services 



1.2.54 

1.2.55 

1.2.56 



Mr. and Mrs. 



The impact on the provision of water should 

be indicated as “High Negative”. We have 

had water restrictions for the past few years 

during December/ January holidays. The 

proposed development will only put more 

pressure on water provision services. 

Proposed mitigation measures are very 

general. The report mentions that a 

contribution (“Contributing to costs…”) will 

be made, however neither the extent of the 

costs are indicated or the financial impact of 

the development on other tax payers. 

Numerous suggestions are made on how 

pressure on municipal services will be 

alleviated, however what guarantee do we 

have that these will be incorporated into 

plans. General opinion: “Reduce the 

demand for water by using various water 

demand management techniques and 

design.” General opinion: “Encourage staff 

and guests not to dispose of hazardous 

chemicals or solid waste into sewage 

system.” General opinion: “Avoid disposing 

of hazardous substances or solid waste into 

stormwater systems.” 

In your presentation you have numerous 

easy solutions to the water availability 

problem, the additional load on Struisbaai‟s 

already fragile electricity lines, as well as 

the problems associated with the sewerage 

system and removal and storage of solid 

waste. This will not be sustainable. It is 

impossible to constantly monitor and 

motivate obedience to your saving rules. 

Please refer to Section 5.2.1 of the FEIR. The 

municipality will enter into a service 

agreement with the proponent should the 

proposed development be approved. This 

agreement would detail the development levy 

and any specific tariffs levied to offset the 

requisite bulk services. 

This is an essential mitigation measure. 


proponent has agreed to certain essential 

mitigation measures please refer to Annexure 

T of the FEIR. Furthermore certain mitigation 

measures would be enforced by the 

Environmental Authorisation decision. 

Applicants response: Our commitment to 

the mitigation measures are clearly stated in 

Annexure T of the FEIR. 

Your concern is noted. Bulk services were 

assessed as a medium negative impact which 

is significant and thus appropriate measures 

need to be taken to ensure delivery and 

sustainability. It is the obligation of the 

relevant authorities to ensure compliance to 

any conditions of authorisation or approvals 

granted and they have the power to take 

punitive steps should the conditions not be 

met. Please refer to Section 5.2.1 of the FEIR. 

Municipal 

services 

Municipal 

services 

Municipal 

services 



1.2.57 

1.2.58 

1.2.59 

1.2.60 

1.2.61 

1.2.62 



Wilken (105) 


Wilken (105) 

H du Plessis (68) 


Kriel (70) 

Wentzel van Renen 

(134) 

Struisbaai‟s infrastructure is inaccessible 

during the holidays. How will sufficient 

services be provided? Considering the 

development‟s close proximity to the ocean, 

how do you plan to address sewage 

management, water- and electricity 

provision? There is no sewage treatment 

facility. How will you address this problem? 

Sewage Costs: Additional costs resulting 

from the project should be made available 

at this stage. Interested parties, including 

residents and tax payers, should also be 

made aware of these costs. 

The provision and availability of water is a 

very large, existing problem that will only 

get bigger should the project proceed. 

The negative impact of the development on 

municipal services, as well as the additional 

financial obligations to taxpayers has 

already been mentioned. Currently 

electricity and water provision are under 

very much pressure during the peak 

seasons. We ask that you please consider 

our arguments. 

The negative impact of the development on 

municipal services, as well as the additional 

financial obligations to taxpayers has 

already been mentioned. Currently 

electricity and water provision are under 

very much pressure during the peak 

seasons. It doesn‟t make sense not to 

consider these aspects. 

Not enough water (provision). We have had 

for the past two years water restrictions 

during the summer holidays. 

Your concern is noted. Bulk services were 

assessed as a medium negative impact which 

is significant and thus appropriate measures 

need to be taken to ensure delivery and 

sustainability. It is the obligation of the 

relevant authorities to ensure compliance to 

any conditions of authorisation or approvals 

granted and they have the power to take 

punitive steps should the conditions not be 

met. Please refer to Section 5.2.1 of the FEIR. 




These concerns have been noted and 

addressed. Please refer to Section 5.2.1 of 

the FEIR. Regarding electricity supply Please 



These concerns have been noted, considered 

and addressed. Please refer to Section 5.2.1 

of the FEIR. Regarding electricity supply 


Comment and Response Report 


Municipal 

services 

Municipal 

services 

Municipal 

services 

Municipal 

services 

Municipal 

services 

Municipal 

services 



1.2.63 

1.2.64 

1.2.65 

1.2.66 

A. J. Vlok (139) 



(49) 


Dorel Van der 







73, 69, 66, 65, 172, 

93, 78) 

Concerns with regards to infrastructure, the 

proposed mitigations measures regarding 

water restrictions is not workable. 

Furthermore, seen in the light of 

Struisbaai‟s existing water availability issue, 

the construction of high density 

accommodation should not be considered 

at all. In addition your mitigation measures 

regarding sewerage management is in 

reality not possible. 

We understand [from the Struisbaai 

Residents Association Chairman] that there 

are no final arrangements regarding the 

municipal upgrade of water supply services 

(including the drilling of additional 

boreholes). This will presumably entail its 

own feasibility study and will require, at 

least, the upgrade of water pipelines and 

the electricity supply system which feeds 

the pumps. It is not envisaged that this 

infrastructure will be in place until at least 

2011/2012. 

The basement parking proposed for the site 

is extremely expensive given the need for 

dewatering and waterproofing that would be 

required due to its the close location to the 

sea front and the risks due to possible rises 

in sea levels. Pumping might be required 

and that would greatly increase the need of 

electrical services on site and that would put 

a strain on already compromised municipal 

services. 

I suggest that the empty promises stated in 

the DEIR should be evicted i.e. Promise of 

financial aid to desalinate boreholes; and 

Promise of financial aid for sewerage pipe 

to Struisbaai Noord evaporation system. 

The mitigation measures are derived from an 

independent engineering consultant 

(Sutherland, Annexure F) as well as based on 

the commitments made by the CAM in the 

letter contained in Annexure A of the FEIR. 

According the the engineering assessment 

the mitigation measures proposed are feasible 

and applicable for the proposed development. 

Please refer to Section 5.2.1 of the FEIR. It is 

unlikely that the services would be required 

before 2012. 


Your concern is noted however mitigation 

measures are frequently included into the 

environmental authority‟s decision making 

them legally binding. 

Municipal 

services 

Municipal 

services 

Municipal 

services 

Municipal 

services 



1.2.67 

1.2.68 


Dorel Van der 







73, 69, 66, 65, 172, 

93, 78) 


Dorel Van der 







73, 69, 66, 65, 172, 

93, 78) 

I further object to the assessment of 

sewage as being medium, there is no 

system in place to handle the sewerage 

from the development. A line of +- 6km has 

to be installed at the significant cost to the 

tax payer, this will have a very high impact. 

Water supply is already rationed in high 

season without this development, and this 

should be rated as high impact, as do 

fishing and associated activities “(repair 

jetty closed)”. Bait and ice has to become 

MCM responsibility. 


Please refer to Chapter 4 of the FEIR to 

determine how the ratings were achieved. 

Municipal 

Services 

Municipal 

Services 

1.3 Impact on traffic flow 

and parking 

1.3.1 

1.3.2 

1.3.3 


Visser (4) 



There won't be enough parking. 

The proposed development would attract 

more people, more businesses and a 

congested traffic, and therefore is not 

required. 

The parking allowed for on the adjacent erf 

will be insufficient or the design should 

allow parking of all the fishing trailers over 

the peak periods. 

Disagree, please refer to Section 5.2.2 of the 


Development would attract more people and 

assist in providing a practical traffic solution to 

accommodate the current congestion as well 

as any future congestion caused by 

development in the harbour precinct. Please 



Public parking is the CAM‟s responsibility and 

traffic alternative 4, as a product of this EIA, 

was deemed by the traffic specialists to the 

most appropriate traffic solution for the 

area.Parking bays have been purposely 

angeled to accommodate boats with trailers. 

Traffic flow & 

Parking 


Parking 


Parking 



1.3.4 

1.3.5 

1.3.6 




Kotze (19) 

I'm also concerned about the Impact of 

parking and traffic in the harbour area 

during peak seasons. These two impacts 

(electricity and parking) need to be 

considered together due to their close 

relation from a planning perspective. 

According to your assessment the impact 

would be low to very low. The person who 

conducted the study definitely haven‟t 

visited Struisbaai over a weekend when the 

Geelstertfees takes place or even over a 

normal weekend when the geelstert/geelbek 

starts to bite. 

The report does not mention the congestion 

of vehicles in the harbour or in streets 

surrounding the harbour due to the parking 

shortage. Where will these vehicles be 

accommodated in the future? When these 

vehicles arrive or leave, traffic within the 

harbour area comes to a complete standstill 

up to the crossing at the existing shopping 

centre. This is due to the existing street 

design and width which did not originally 

take into consideration the current traffic 

requirements. 

Parking at the harbour area is little during 

the peak periods and should be restricted to 

pedestrians, except for boat launching 

vehicles and for those who are 

handicapped. There is sufficient public 

parking space close to the harbour directly 

south of it. 


assessment is based on the Traffic alternative 

4 which reduces the impact of traffic flow 

within the harbour and Erf 921. 

Congestion and lack of parking in the harbour 

area is an existing problem, which would only 

marginally be exacerbated by the proposed 

development should the proposed traffic 

mitigation occur. The municipality is 

responsible for dealing with the root causes 

outside of the harbor and the Department of 

Public Works within the harbor. Please refer 

to Section 5.2.2 of the FEIR. The proposed 

development does include a basement 

parking area that caters for 130 bays. 

Public parking and traffic outside of the harbor 

is the CAM‟s responsibility. Please refer to 

Section 5.2.2 of the FEIR which discusses the 

steps which the proposed development would 

need to take due to its effect on traffic and 

parking. 


Parking 


Parking 


Parking 



EAP response: Thank you for your 

suggestion. Please refer to Section 5.2.2 of 

the FEIR for the revised layout. Angeled 

parking bays have been allowed for with the 

intent to accommodate vehicles and trailers. 

1.3.7 

1.3.8 

1.3.9 


Johan van der Walt 

(28) 

Evan Meirion 

Williams (31) 

During the holiday season, the parking area 

(that they are planning to upgrade) is mostly 

used for motorboat-trailers that take a lot 

more space than normal vehicles. The new 

layout does not provide enough parking for 

the high number of trailers and vehicles. 

Concerned about the provision of a area for 

parking of boats and trucks in the harbour 

as well as the open municipal parking area. 

Parking access is a problem 

Traffic specialist (iCE Group) comment: 

This is a valid point. Parking bays at other 

harbours (Gordon‟s Bay, Yzerfontein and 

existing Struisbaai parking) measures 

between 12,5 and 13 metres in length. It is 

recommended that parking on the harbour 

land should be reserved for boats and trailers, 

with the second access as shown on the 

drawings, but also that bays on at least one 

row of parking on Erf 921 should be enlarged 

to accommodate trailers. The turning circles 

are being checked and will be revised if 

necessary. 

Please refer to Section 1.3.6 and 1.3.7 of this 


Please refer to Sections 1.3.6 and 1.3.7 of this 



Parking 


Parking 


Parking 

1.3.10 

1.3.11 

1.3.12 




The report is using outdated traffic 

information gathered in 2005 and an 

escalation rate of 3% per year to come to its 

conclusions. How can this be accurate? 

It is inaccurate to say that the Main Road/ 

Malvern Drive intersection is already 

operating at an unacceptable service level 

during the holiday period 

Referring to Page 2 of TIA: I do not believe 

that statement on Struisbaai Harbour 

access is accurate 

Traffic specialists (iCE Group) comment: 

The traffic growth rate is the accepted 

standard for traffic engineers and was 

checked by comparing recent counts in 

Bredasdorp and Agulhas with the 2005 

counts. 


We are confident that this information is 

sufficiently accurate for planning 


We are confident that this information is 

sufficiently accurate for planning. 


Parking 


Parking 


Parking 



1.3.13 


The TIA is also mentioning that the traffic 

volume in the morning would be 465 

vehicles per hour and 470 vehicles per hour 

in the evening, we assume that this is not 

during a good fishing day. 


Rural roads and intersections are designed for 

the 30th highest hour, which means that the 

capacity of the road will be exceeded for 30 

hours per year. This is a national standard 

and was determined based on economic 

evaluation of the cost of delay to vehicles and 

the cost op providing more capacity on roads 

and at intersections. 


Parking 

1.3.14 

1.3.15 

1.3.16 

1.3.17 




(47) 


(49) 

It is also inaccurate to suggest that the road 

will still operate well below capacity, which 

was calculated at approximately 1100 

vehicles per hour, that relates to 18,3 

vehicles per minute, what standard was 

used to calculate the capacity? Is it London, 

Los Angeles, New York or Hong Kong? 

As a mitigation measure in the report, it is 

suggested that a road will be built across 

the parking area that will essentially link in 

Kusweg North and Kusweg East with a 

dangerous 3-way stop on a corner, may I 

remind you that the reason for making a 

substantial investment by the present 

residents and property owners of this area 

is to specifically to get away from traffic 

congestion and dangerous intersections. 

There is already an acute parking problem 

in summer and any new development will 

worsen the traffic effect. 

Nowhere has the expense risk been 

mitigated and there is the danger of the 

basement not being constructed after 

planning permission has been provided 

which would put a strain on limited parking 

resources and would increase the overflow 

to the existing municipal parking facility, 

which during peak season is already at 

capacity. 


We used the United States Highway Capacity 

Manual, but the formulas have variables for 

road width, shoulder width, percentage 

passing zones, percentage heavy vehicles, 

percentage unfamiliar traffic (first time users), 

topography and more. The exact variables for 

Struisbaai roads were used in the calculations 

to ensure a true reflection of the local 

conditions. The service level standards are 

widely used in South Africa. 

Your concern is noted. The stop at this 

intersection was designed specifically to slow 

down vehicles that currently exceed optimal 

speed limits on Kusweg Oos and therefore 

this mitigation is designed to reduce the 

current hazard. 



Please refer to Annexure R of the FEIR 

regarding expense risk. Please refer to 

Section 5.2.2 of the FEIR regarding parking. 


Parking 


Parking 


Parking 

Traffic & 

parking 



1.3.18 

1.3.19 

1.3.20 

1.3.21 

1.3.22 



Home Owners 




Home Owners 


Ken A. Hodge (111) 


(58) 


(21) 

The size of the proposed development is so 

large that it will not allow for parking on the 

site, except for in the basement. As a result 

it was necessary to investigate the option of 

providing parking at the adjoining public 

area. The developer is also proposing to 

use this property as the entrance to the 


A public area that is very important for 

parking during the summer months when 

ski-boats arrive from elsewhere for fishing, 

as well as during the peak summer holiday 

season, have been targeted for the 

proposed development. According to the 

draft EIR this is seen as a benefit to the 

community! 

Another concern is the formal parking area 

as proposed on erf 921 where overflow boat 

trailers are presently parked that it will no 

longer be able to accommodate the trailers. 

Traffic in and around the harbour area is 

already under pressure during the holiday 

season. This development will exacerbate 

the traffic congestion 

It is unacceptable to have a vehicular 

entrance on Erf 921 from Kusweg Oos. It is 

already a dangerous corner and such 

access will in effect create a short cut 

between Kusweg Noord and Kusweg Oos. 

It will be a racetrack and Erf 921 is 

designated for parking, not for a roadway. 


regarding the use of parking and the access 

road. 


regarding the use of parking and the access 

road. The benefit to the community is a 

holistic solution to the bottle-neck effect 

experience during peak periods at the harbour 

entrance as well as the parking of vehicles on 

Harbour Road, Kusweg Noord and Kusweg 

Oos. 


regarding accommodating trailers. 



Your concern is noted. The stop at this 

intersection should reduce the hazard. The 

traffic flow would only be from Kusweg Noord 

towards Kusweg Oos i.e. 1 – Way. Please 


Traffic & 

parking 

Traffic & 

parking 

Traffic & 

parking 


Parking 


Parking 

1.3.23 

1.3.24 

John Butler (104) 

Johnny S Edwards 

(120) 

The development will cause extreme 

parking and traffic congestion. The 

proposed underground parking is totally 

unfeasible, a similar project on the site of 

the old hotel found water a few meters 

below the surface 

The proposal does not give enough 

attention to the parking problems that 

always arise in December. 


regarding basement design. 

Disagreed, please refer to Section 1.3.6 of 



Parking 


Parking 



1.3.25 

1.3.26 

1.3.27 

1.3.28 

1.3.29 

1.3.30 

1.3.31 

1.3.32 

1.3.33 


(168) 

Katherine C. Drake 

(144) 

Verlasety A. Meiring 

(136) 

Henri R. Du Plessis 

(140) 


(152) 

Pauli Bester (132) 


(166) 


(166) 


(166) 

Parking is another concern as it would 

congest the harbour and surrounding roads. 

Parking access to Erf 921 for hotel 

residents and restaurant patrons would 

reduce access for other people as well. 

The proposed development would result in 

traffic congestion 

Parking in the harbour and the surrounds 

are not addressed satisfactory in the Draft 

EIA 

I'm concerned about traffic in and out of the 

harbour for boat owners as well as old 

residents via Kusweg Oos 

Traffic through and around the development 

must be planned and controlled from the 

outset 

The proposed development will cause 

further traffic congestion in the harbour 

area. 

I'm concerned about traffic congestion on 

tourist buses and also during the 

construction phase on Kusweg North as 

we're also experiencing difficulties in getting 

to and from our residences during the 

holiday season. 

Kusweg North Road is not suitable for the 

amount of heavy traffic and with many 

pedestrians and children using this road 

could be endangered. 

I suggest that buses and trucks to use the 

Main and Harbour Roads for access to the 

proposed development. This matter should 

be discussed with the Municipality and 

traffic departments. 


Access would be increased as there would be 

a number of exits on Erf 921. 


Extensive assessment was undertaken to 

ascertain the potential impact of the proposed 

development to traffic flow and parking within 

the harbor precinct. Please note that parking 

within the harbor boundary is managed by the 

Department of Public Works. 



Agreed. Please refer to Section 5.2.2 of the 




Section 1.3.6 and 1.3.7 of this Comment and 

Response Report. Please refer to the 

construction phase impacts in Section 5.3 and 

refer to the EMP in Annexure Q of the FEIR. 


and Response Report. It was stated in the 

EMP (Annexure Q) that the main access by 

construction vehicles would be Harbour Road. 

Your point has been noted and referred to the 

proponent for consideration. Please refer to 

Section 5.3.2 of the FEIR. 


Parking 


Parking 


Parking 


Parking 


Parking 


Parking 


Parking 


Parking 


Parking 



1.3.34 


(137) 

The impact of fishing activities focused on 

parking problems and the EIA does not 

address the conflict that is going to arise 

between the proposed development and the 

activities of fishermen 


and Response Report. 

iCE Group comment: 

The Erf 848 entrance and Erf 921 parking 

area layout were specifically designed to 

relieve congestion at the harbour entrance 

and to provide additional parking for fisherfolk. 


Parking 

1.3.35 

1.3.36 


(137) 


(75) 

Parking is an important issue and is 

covered in 20 pages of EIA. How can you 


even contemplate proposing less parking 

than the recommended national average of 

6 per 100 m 2 

Traffic flow rating reflected on the report is 

unreasonable. Traffic congestion is 

experienced everyday and with commercial 

and recreational fishing trailers occupying 

the parking space on good weather. Where 

would occupants and visitors of the 

proposed development park? Kusweg Oos 

and Harbour Road will change from a safe 

road for children and animals to a much 

busier road. 

The rate of 6 bays per 100 m 2 is used for 

shopping centres such as Somerset Mall or 

Tyger Valley. A rate of 4 bays per 100 m 2 is 

generally used for line shops. 






Parking 


Parking 

1.3.37 

Martoinette la 

Grange (86) 

The development will cause traffic 

congestion and disturb the tranquility of this 

holiday destination. 


The traffic analysis indicates that the only 

existing problem is at the Malvern Drive / Main 

Road intersection and measures were 

proposed (roundabout) to address this 

problem. The proposed Langezandt Quays 

development will add traffic, but intersections 

will continue to operate at satisfactory service 

levels 


Parking 



1.3.38 

1.3.39 


(80) 


Having an Entrance/Exit from the Kusweg 

Oos and Kusweg Noord sides of the parking 

lot will mean that people will use this as a 

shortcut, and create increased danger for 

pedestrians who are walking on ERF 921. 

The Entrance/Exit on the Kusweg Oos side 

of ERF 921 is also on a dangerous „blind‟ 

corner. The actual road surface on Kusweg 

Oos is not designed to withstand any 

additional amount of traffic. This road used 

to be a dirt road and was simply covered by 

tar. This is just another example of how 

„shallow‟ the planning for this development 

has been 

The proposed use of Erf 921 for parking to 

support this development has significant 

implications regarding current use (overflow 

temporary storage of boat trailers, 

particularly large ones that cannot be 

maneuvered within the harbour confines) as 

well as future commercial expansion 

potential of the harbour and therefore its 

future commercial viability. 

Please refer to the revised Section 5.2.2 of 

the FEIR. Erf 921 would only have one exit to 

Kusweg Oos.Regarding the condition of 

Kusweg Oos it is the CAM‟s responsibility to 

ensure that roads are properly designed and 

maintained, however the proponent may 

initially construct the roads required as per 

traffic Alternative 4. 

iCE Group: 

a) It is recommended that a raised pedestrian 

crossing should be provided at both 

entrances, as a continuation of the sidewalks. 

This should discourage through traffic and will 

improve pedestrian safety. 

b) The sight distance problem will be 

addressed through the provision of a threeway 

stop as shown on the plans. 

c) If that is the case, the road may have to be 

reconstructed. 

The development is expected to have minimal 

impact on the parking area and is attempting 

to improve the efficiency of the parking area. 




Parking 


Parking 



1.3.40 

1.3.41 


(67) 


(67) 

Traffic Management Option 4 proposes 

using erf 921 for parking and buses, there 

are also intentions to open an additional 

access point to the existing erf 1394 

harbour parking and to extend this harbour 

parking on the north side along Kusweg 

Noord. During holiday period, the traffic flow 

along Kusweg Noord is exceptionally high, 

and this has created a very dangerous 

situation for young children living in the 

houses along Kusweg Noord. A solution 

would be to close off Kusweg Noord at the 

harbour end to force the traffic using the 

harbour to use Harbour Road access only. 

This will vastly improve the safety of young 

children who walk/ cycle/ play along the 

Kusweg Noord. 

The schematic diagram in the summary 

indicates enlargement of the parking area 

on erf 1394, into what is presently fynbosrich 

public open space. The proposed 

routing of traffic via this parking area will 

result into chaos during high season when 

recreational fishermen maximally use the 

parking area for vehicles and trailers whose 

combined length exceeds 12 meters. It is 

likely for a dangerous traffic congestion to 

occur at the harbour. 



Disagree, the schematic does not indicate 

public open parking extending into fynbos. 

The schematic only shows the boundary of 

the erf not that actual parking size. Please 




Parking 


Parking 



Please refer to Section 5.2.2, and Annexure J 


1.3.42 

1.3.43 

1.3.44 

1.3.45 

1.3.46 



(67) 




In respect of parking, we note that the 

calculation of the size of the bays is wholly 

inadequate given the fact that the parking 

bays will be required to accommodate boats 

and trailers as well. A rough calculation 

indicates that these bays should measure at 

least 14 m in length. Moreover, no 

provision is made for the large turning 

circles required in harbour areas where 

boats are being transported on trailers. 

The public also enjoy the use of public open 

space, and also as a playground for small 

children and more importantly access to the 

harbour by pedestrians occurs via this traffic 

area. 

Public parking is already available. 

Other businesses in the area would also 

benefit from this type of development. 

I, as the owner of erf 649 in Heidelaan, am 

not in favour of giving pardon to the owner 

of erf 572 of having to adhere to his duties 

for the following reasons: 

3. Erf 572 is too small to meet the parking 

requirements of a business property. 

The preferred traffic alternative 4 has been 

amended to make allowance for vehicle/boat 

trailers as this was highlighted at the Public 

Meeting (31 October 2009). Further 

amendments have been undertaken to 

accommodate a range of queries which were 

raised to contribute to a traffic alternative that 

meets the needs of the I&APs, 

Traffic consultants ( iCE Group) response: 

This is a valid point. Parking bays at other 

harbours (Gordon‟s Bay, Yzerfontein and 

existing Struisbaai parking) measures 

between 12,5 and 13 metres in length. It is 

recommended that parking on the harbour 

land should be reserved for boats and trailers, 

with the second access as shown on the 

drawings. 

It is assumed that reference is made to Erf 

921. This is public open space under the 

control of the CAM who are supportive of the 

concept to formalize Erf 921 into public 

parking. Please refer to the CAM letter in 

Annexure A of the FEIR. 

Agreed, however not formalized which is 

required to curtail the congestion experienced 

during peak periods. 

Your comment is noted. 

Please note we are assessing Erf 848 not Erf 

572 for development and Erf 921 for public 

parking. Your concern is however noted in 

relation to Erf 848 and Erf 921. Refer to 

Section 5.2.2 * which deals with proposed 

parking provisions. 

Traffic & 

parking 


Parking 


Parking 


Parking 


Parking 


1.3.47 

1.3.48 

1.3.49 

1.3.50 

1.3.51 

1.3.52 

1.3.53 

1.3.54 

1.3.55 

1.3.56 









Wilken (105) 

4. The entrance to the erf is in Heidelaan. A 

restaurant or other businesses will result in 

unwanted additional parking in Heidelaan in 

front of my, as well as other people‟s 

property. No provision has been made for 

this. 

5. Even if the entranceway to erf 572 is 

moved to the parking area, there will still be 

a overflow of vehicles in the summer peak 

season that will park in the Heidelaan. This 

has happened in the past, as well as during 

the past week up untills 3 February 2008. 

This situation will only get worse should the 

parking conditions be removed. 

6. The institutions who gave their personal 

approval to the project will not be impacted 

directly, unlike Struisbaai and the involved 

homeowners. 

7. It can set precedent for guest houses, 

etc. to follow suit, should parking on the 

plain receive approval, be hired out or sold. 

8. By allowing the deviation of the parking 

conditions in the business sector on its own 

merits is understandable. However, other 

factors play a role in the harbour area. 

It will be necessary to construct 

underground parking that will have to be 

fitted with pumps to remove groundwater. 

How will you address oil leaks? 

Parking – Traffic – Access: We foresee 

many problems with regards to parking and 

traffic for local residents, fishermen and 

vacationers. 


regarding parking. 

Please note we are assessing Erf 848 not Erf 

572 for development and Erf 921 for public 

parking. Your concern is however noted in 

relation to Erf 848 and Erf 921.Please refer to 

Section 5.2.2 of the FEIR for parking facilities. 

Your concern is noted. The application for 

environmental authorisation will only be 

submitted during 2010. 


development has proposed its own 

underground parking for a capacity of 130 

bays. 


development is proposed to have its own 

parking 


regarding basement parking. 


Erla Rabe (83) Traffic will only get worse. Please refer to Section 5.2.2 of the FEIR. 

Hans Swart (27) 


Quality of life: (1) Increase in traffic volume 

toward the harbour; (2) Higher levels of 

traffic noise due to the proposed access 

point in Kusweg-Oos. 

The unavoidable impact on traffic and 

parking would also be enormous. 


Section 1.3.5 of this Comment and Response 

Report. 



Report. 


Parking 


Parking 


Parking 


Parking 


Parking 


Parking 


Parking 


Parking 


Parking 


Parking 



1.3.57 

1.3.58 

1.3.59 

1.3.60 

1.3.61 



A. J. Vlok (139) 

Karin I Van Niekerk 

(87) 


Dorel Van der 







73, 69, 66, 65, 172, 

93, 78) 

The approval of the deviations in 1995 was 

done without the knowledge of the involved 

landowners. 

The statements about the congestion during 

peak periods which are rated "Low 

Probable" to "Very Low Probable" can only 

originate from a totally uninformed 

researcher. When the Geelstert "runs", 

factory trucks and all other conceivable 

vehicles and trailers jam-pack the harbour 

entrance all the way back to Main Street. 

Fights between truckers and boat owners 

who want to launch are commonplace are 

common. At peak times such as these, 

access to the hotel and all other facilities in 

the complex will come to a complete 

standstill for days on end. 

Parking – we are of the opinion that the 

suggestion to have parking underground 

would be foolish when considering the 

floods experienced on erf 848 from time to 

time. This is also why a decision hasn‟t 

been made yet regarding parking on nearby 

Municipal land and no public process has 

been undertaken for tenders or hiring to 

residents. 

Development at the harbour will cause 

major congestion in an area which is used 

for recreation during the season mostly by 

fisherman and parents with small children 

Formalizing the parking area in front of the 

harbour entrance will not ease the 

congestion to the harbour as there is one 

entrance to the harbour to service boat 

trailers, pedestrians, sightseers and now 

buses. 

Your point is noted but this pre-dates the 

applicants ownership of the property. 

Your point is noted. The traffic alternative 4 

however would allow for multiple entry/exit 

points and thus the proposed development 

would have adequate accessibility. Traffic 

alternative 4 also makes provision to improve 

the traffic flow within the harbour (Erf 

1394/854) 


regarding basement parking. This is public 

open space under the control of the CAM who 

are supportive of the concept to formalize Erf 

921 into public parking. Please refer to the 


The problem of serious congestion in the 

harbour already exists, particularly when the 

holiday season co-incides with the fish runs, 

and may be marginally exacerbated by the 

development. It would be MCM‟s 

responsibility to control activities in the 

harbour if harbour activities are compromised. 


and Response Report regarding congestion. 

This EIA has not addressed the formalization 

of the parking area to the north of Erf 848. 

The formalization of parking specifically 

relates to Erf 921, Erf 854 and Erf 1394. 


Parking 


Parking 


Parking 


Parking 


Parking 



1.3.62 

1.3.63 


Dorel Van der 







73, 69, 66, 65, 172, 

93, 78) 


Dorel Van der 







73, 69, 66, 65, 172, 

93, 78) 

Opening an entrance to the parking lot from 

Kusweg Oos does not address the problem 

of one entrance to the harbour 

Further the proposed Kusweg Oos 

intersection is on a blind corner to two sides 

and is dangerous. Kusweg Oos asphalt 

surface is crumbling as it is, for it was 

merely an asphalt screening on the existing 

gravel road. It was never designed for 

buses or high density traffic. 


and Response Report regarding congestion. 

Regarding the blind corner Alternative 4 of the 

Traffic Report ( Section 5.2.2) two stop signs 

are proposed which will make this intersection 

safer. 

Regarding the poorly designed road, it is the 

CAMs responsibility to ensure that municipal 

roads are properly designed and maintained. 


a) The sight distance problem will be 

addressed through the provision of a threeway 

stop as shown on the plans. 

b) If that is the case, the road may have to be 

reconstructed. The municipality may request 

the developer to do the construction in lieu of 

a portion of bulk service contributions. 


Parking 


Parking 




and Response Report and please refer to 


1.3.64 

81, 79, 95, 85, 84, 

90, 160, 162, 164, 

154, 155, 156, 157, 

158, 153, 150, 151, 

116, 102, 103, 101, 

99, 100, 98, 92, 94, 

163, 174, 175, 176, 

177, 178, 33, 179, 

180, 181, 182 

The development will cause major traffic 

congestion entering and leaving the harbour 

and the planned new entrance via Kusweg 

Oos will disturb the peace the residents of 

that road have paid a high price for. 


a) Entrance on Kusweg Oos: Erf 921 is 

undeveloped municipal land earmarked for 

parking and there was always the chance of it 

being formalised. The parking area has two 

entrances and two exits so that traffic volumes 

will be split and have less of an impact. 

b) Congestion: The traffic analysis indicates 

that the only existing problem is at the 

Malvern Drive / Main Road intersection and 

measures were proposed (roundabout) to 

address this problem. The proposed 

Langezandt Quays development will add 

traffic, but intersections will continue to 

operate at satisfactory service levels. 


Parking 

1.4 Access to Harbour 

1.4.1 

1.4.2 

1.4.3 


Visser (4) 


(168) 


(152) 

Access to the harbour for local people will 

be limited or not available 

The harbour is currently the lifeline for 

fishermen that are dependant on this 

access point to the sea. The local 

fisherman and the local people would be 

restricted to access the harbour, there 

would increased tourist activities and the 

proposed development would restrict the 

working harbour and there is no alternative 

harbour for use in the whole of 

Struisbaai/Agulhas area. 

The local residents and fishermen living in 

Struisbaai for most of the year must be well 

catered for, when planning access to the 

harbour area 

Access to the harbour would not be restricted. 

Please refer to Sections 1.4.1 and 1.5.8 of this 


Applicants response: Disagree; we have no 

say in the operations regarding access to or 

from the harbor. 


Harbour 

access 

Harbour 

access 

Access 



1.4.4 

1.4.5 

1.4.6 

1.4.7 

1.4.8 


Kotze (19) 


Kotze (19) 

Carel Van der 

Merwe (20) 

Anneke Kloppers 

(26) 


(28) 

All ski boats and rubber ducks operating 

from Struisbaai slipways should be able to 

access the harbour and no other problems 

are foreseen with the development of the 

harbour area. The recently introduced and 

growing chartering business should benefit 

immensely from a nearby hotel and tourist 

centre. 

Access to the jetty for strolling and kiddy 

angling should not be compromised by the 

development as the developer has no 

jurisdiction associated with the jetty. The 

jetty is affecting young and old and is even 

accessible to the handicapped and often 

life-long memories result from this ideal 

training ground for the future anglers. 

Alternative routes and rules may be 

required to control access and activities and 

that is the responsibility of local authorities. 

No mention of any effect of the proposed 

development has been made regarding 

access to this existing quay. Unless this will 

be addressed in the EIA Report, very limited 

impact is made on the traditional access 

and not all impact areas have been 

addressed. Traditional access to the 

breakwater quay has been unrestricted with 

parking very close by. This is an extremely 

popular area over a holiday period with 

large numbers of people accessing the 

structure. 

Who will have right to access the harbour? 

Who will have preference? The fisherfolk 

who are trying to make a living or the 

holidaymakers? 

Access to harbour wall with large truck for 

fuel and chakkies repair area is also a 

concern 

Your point is noted. (Please refer to Section 

5.2.6 of FEIR) 



No impact to the existing quay is envisaged. 




and Response Report. The harbour will 

continue to be controlled by Marine and 

Coastal Management and not the adjacent 

landowner. 



Harbour 

access 

Harbour 

access 

Harbour 

access 

Harbour 

access 

Harbour 

access 



1.4.9 

1.4.10 

1.4.11 

1.4.12 

1.4.13 

1.4.14 

1.4.15 

1.4.16 



(47) 

Gwen S. Claasen 

(53) 


Les C. Freese (91) 


Wayne D. Meiring 

(135) 

G.R. Youldon (93) 

The Draft EIA Report does not address the 

effect of the higher volume of seagoing craft 

that will be clogging up the harbour. The 

higher volume of people who will own a 

fractional title apartment and hotel guests 

that will need to be entertained will result in 

an influx of their own equipment to use on 

the water 

The proposed development will place 

adverse pressure on existing boats that until 

today have enjoyed their activities on 

harbour facilities without being disturbed. 

I'm concerned about the fishing activities at 

the harbour, harbour will not as accessible 

as it used to be, it will be restricted. 

It is totally unacceptable to have restricted 

access to the harbour and the small beach 

in the interest of paying guests of the hotel. 

It is historical fact that fishermen and their 

families currently living in Struisbaai Noord 

once lived in close proximity to the area 

surrounding the harbour. It is also a matter 

of historical fact that they were forcibly 

removed due to the dictates of the apartheid 

regime. Their heritage and livelihood is 

encapsulated in the various activities which 

take place in that harbour. The harbour is in 

fact their last remaining link with their lives 

pre forced removals. 

The most significant financial injection to the 

harbour is from sport-fisherman. The slipways 

and general congestion already cause 

severe restriction in the harbour. I see 

neither plans nor regulations to ensure 

adequate entry and control of this area. 

Fishermen will be excluded and will 

eventually not be able to gain access to the 

harbour 

Access to the harbour of the local 

community due to the proposed 

development would not be allowed though it 

should be enhanced. 

There may be a marginal increase in crafts as 

a result of the development. This is however 

likely to increase with increased tourism 

whether the development is approved or not. 

It is MCM‟s responsibility to control these 

activities. 



Disagree. Please refer to Section 1.4.2 of this 


Access will not be restricted. Please refer to 


Report. 

Your concern is noted. 

Applicants response: The heritage and 

livelihood of fishermen will not be affected. 

Control of the harbour remains vested with 

MCM. Please refer to Section 1.3.60 of this 



restricted. Please refer to Section 1.4.1 of this 


Access to the harbour will not be restricted. 



Harbour 

access 

Harbour 

access 

Harbour 

access 

Harbour 

access 

Harbour 

access 

Harbour 

access 

Harbour 

access 

Harbour 

access 



1.4.17 

1.4.18 

1.4.19 

1.4.20 

1.4.21 


(172) 

Lindie Snyman (61) 


John W. Newman 

(146) 


I'm concerned about access to the harbour. 

Leave the harbour untouched. There are 

very few places left where children can 

swim within the harbour. Our harbour is 

unique. 

Currently the site is occupied by a rustic 

tourism and fishing development. In what 

way will the development impact on 

accessibility to the harbour for informal and 

social fishermen and vacationers? 

The harbour development is an outrage and 

my access to it will be limited in the future. 

This has happened before in the Cape and 

at Gordon‟s Bay. 

These factors could lead to the 

disenfranchisement and alienation of the 

local fishermen which is contrary to the aims 

of the Fishing Harbours Transition Project, 

[www.deat.gov.Branches/MarineCoastal/pro 

ject] which requires proclaimed harbours to 

be maintained primarily for their core 

activity, namely fishing. According to Mr 

Marinus, the person in charge of this project 

at the Department of Environmental Affairs, 

developments within proclaimed harbours 

cannot be dominated by tourism or 

recreational activities. Access by local 

fishermen and particularly, any previously 

disadvantaged communities, to these 

proclaimed harbours is also critical to this 

Project. Despite the applicant's bald 

assertion that its proposed development is 

in line with the Fishing Harbours Transition 

Project, [p. 47 & 60 of dEIR] it is clear that 

the effects of the proposed development will 

in fact go against the key aims of that 

Project. 




The proposed development will not alter the 

harbor infrastructure or swimming 

arangements. Erf 848 is within the harbour 

precinct, however private property adjacent to 

the existing harbour. 


Control of the harbour remains vested with 

MCM. Please refer to Section 1.4.1 of this 




vested with MCM. Please refer to Section 

1.4.1 of this Comment and Response Report. 

Erf 848 is private property and not part of the 

proclaimed fishing harbour and is thus not 

required to contribute towards fishing 

activities. However due to its proximity to the 

harbour, the proposed development does 

contribute towards promoting and 

accommodating tourism which is part of the 

Transition Project. Please refer to Sections 

1.6.51 and 1.6.30 of this Comment and 

Response Report. A meeting was held at the 

MCM offices in Cape Town on the 26 May 

2009 to table the proposed development and 

it was stated at that meeting that the proposed 

development complies with the Harbour 

Transition Project. Please refer to Annexure A 

of the FEIR for a copy of the follow-up 

correspondence sent to MCM [post 26 May 

2009 meeting] 

Harbour 

access 

Harbour 

access 

Harbour 

access 

Harbour 

access 

Harbour 

access 



1.4.22 

1.4.23 

1.4.24 

1.4.25 




(64) 

Adriaan Newman 

(148) 

It is clear that the proposed development, 

which envisages an upscale hotel, shops 

and residential units, could alienate the 

local fishermen and eliminate their 

livelihood as well as their convenient source 

of fishing-related services currently provided 

by Harbour Catch. 

The ICMA also stipulates requirements in 

respect of applications for environmental 

authorisation for coastal activities [Section 

63(1)]. A competent authority may not 

issue an environmental authorisation if the 

proposed development is situated within the 

coastal protection zone and is inconsistent 

with the purpose for which a coastal 

protection zone is established [Section 

63(2)(b)]. Although there are certain 

exceptions to this requirement, for example 

if the proposed development will provide 

important services to the public when using 

coastal public property [Section 63(3)(b)], 

this is clearly not applicable to the 

development proponent's proposed 

development which, as set out in detail 

below, will in fact hinder access to coastal 

public property. 

Struisbaai residents enjoy themselves in the 

harbour and it is one of the very few places 

(if not only) on the Southern Cape Coast 

where one can do so and is part of the 

ambience of the area. If the developer does 

not assure us that such activities will not 

change, who can allow sandy feet and wet 

bottoms on his restaurant. We do not want 

to loose the very important part of our 

holidaying. 

As a resident of Struisbaai and a fisherman, 

the development will prevent me from 

accessing the harbour. 

Please refer to Sections 1.6.51 and 1.6.30 of 

this Comment and Response Report 

regarding assistance for the fisherfolk. 

EAP response: Access to the coastal public 

property will not be hindered in any significant 

way, by the proposed development. The 

proposed design has not detailed any 

restriction to the public. The right of way 

servitude is under question as it has to date 

not been amended to reflect the current state 

in relation to the actual high water mark. 

As a matter of fact, the public access adjacent 

to the high-water mark is simply not impinged 

upon or otherwise limited, by the proposed 

development. 

Your concern is noted. The proponent‟s 

vision is to make provision on the ground floor 

for the public to be casually dressed (includes 

the sandy feet concept) on the ground floor as 

it is with Pelicans at present. 



vested with MCM. Please refer to Section 

1.4.1 of this Comment and Response Report. 

Harbour 

access 

Access 

Harbour 

access 

Harbour 

access 

1.5 Competition and 

Opportunities 



1.5.1 

Marthinus Wiese 

(5) 

The existing businesses including the 

fishing and restaurants are already 

struggling and are closing. 



Competition 

1.5.2 


Many of the residents rent their homes for 

holiday accommodation and in order to 

generate income. As it is quiet during the 

off-peak season, the proposed development 

would take away clients that would have 

made use of private accommodation, 

causing residents‟ income to decrease and 

less job opportunities. 

Economic Specialist comment: 

The level of competition with those that rent 

out homes is likely to be somewhat less than 

in the case of B&Bs as what is being offered 

by those that let out homes is quite different to 

that which will be offered at Langezandt 

Quays. In both cases, however, the kind of 

accommodation on offer at Langezandt Quays 

would be relatively differentiated and should 

therefore not result in high levels of 

competition. 

The proponent‟s developments are not 

excluding other developments and can thus 

not be regarded as a monopoly. 

Competition 

1.5.3 

1.5.4 



Kotze (19) 

The developer has so much control for this 

area based on what he owns and what he is 

proposing to do. This should not be about 

the developer as a person but about the 

impact that has been and will be made on 

the area by developer's activities. Any form 

of monopoly is unhealthy, even more so for 

a small town such as Struisbaai. Our 

request is that the town and its heritage stay 

in the hands of its people. 

Tourism can only benefit from the proposed 

development; it has replaced fishing, 

construction and the realty sector long time 

ago, as the only overwhelming contributor 

to the economy of Struisbaai. 


It would be correct to say that the proponent 

would have a relatively dominant position in 

the market but not a monopoly. Given the size 

of places like Struisbaai, this kind of situation 

happens more easily particularly when larger 

investors such as the proponent are willing to 

take the risks involved in investment. These 

larger investments can yield particularly large 

benefits. On the other hand, market 

dominance can entail risks of its own and its 

very hard to predict the balance of outcomes 

in the market. Nevertheless, relative 

dominance is certainly not grounds to withhold 

approval for the development. 

Your point is noted. Please refer to Section 

5.2.3 of FEIR 

Competition 

Competition 



1.5.5 

1.5.6 

1.5.7 

1.5.8 

1.5.9 


Kotze (19) 

Evan Matthee (24) 

Chris & Ria 

Reynolds (34) 


(49) 

Meg Cowper Lewis 

(SEA) (48) 

Commercial fishing is declining i.e. chakkie 

industry is technologically outdated and on 

the way out. Development of the harbour 

area will neither destroy nor sustain the 

chakkie industry. Four or three of modern 

diesel-driven commercial ski-boats who are 

operating in a seemingly financial viable 

way at present, may continue to be 

accommodated on an equal footing as 

dozens of recreational boats launched at 

the harbour slipways 

I'm definitely sure that the proposed 

development is competing with the present 

business and the resident's way of living. 

Your proposal might promise economic 

development, however it could result in the 

total and fatal destruction of the existing 

balance in Struisbaai. 

The socio-economic survey undertaken in 

2008 also notes that more than 20% of the 

people employed in Ward 5 are employed in 

the fishing industry. The current 

development could create a friction for the 

fishing sector, a fact that was acknowledged 

in the economic report. The fishing 

activities could create a threat to the 

proposed hotel and residential activities due 

to fishing smells, noise, times of noise and 

parking. The mitigations proposed do not 

adequately address how these frictions 

could be mitigated. The solution of double 

glazing seems naive especially given other 

associated impact such as air conditioning 

that might result due to its mitigation factor 

The disadvantaged will clearly be the 

indigenous fisher folk who run the risk of 

losing their historic and cultural harbour 

when being edged out by luxury yachts, jet 

skis and high-powered motor boats for the 

up market residents and their guests. 


5.2.3 of FEIR 





With increased tourism there would inevitably 

be an increase in competition for scarce 

resources whether the development goes 

ahead or not. It would be up to the CAM and 

MCM to manage this competition and ensure 

that resources are shared equitably as they 

relate to the harbour and the coast. Please 

note that air conditioning is likely to be 

provided irrespective of noise limiting 

suggestions. Regarding the responsibility of 

the proposed development please refer to 

Section 5.2.3 of the FEIR regarding the 

forming of a sub-committee. 


and Response Report. Control of the harbour 

remains vested with MCM and the proposed 

development will not alter the harbor 

infrastructure. 

Competition 

Competition 

Competition 

Competition 

Competition 



1.5.10 

1.5.11 

1.5.12 



(172) 



Development of Erf 848 for anything other 

than a purpose directly related to harbour 

function precludes expansion of the harbour 

into the stretch of land to the east between 

Kusweg and the coast (the only responsible 

use for this land), and therefore threatens 

the self-sustaining commercial future of 

Struisbaai as it will not develop, i.e. 

becomes economically doomed. This 

economic and social risk to be established. 

Address the Local Economic Development 

Strategy. 

Only a small number of people in the 

harbour will benefit through the residential 

buildings where as the rest of the town will 

get no benefits out of it. 

As Erf 848 is private land, there can be no 

expansion of harbour activities into the erf. 

The erf was however privatized and the 

proponent is proposing to exercising their right 

to develop on Erf 848 should the necessary 

permissions be granted. 


and Response Report and Annexure H of the 


Disagree. Please refer to Section 1.5.8 of this 

Comment and Response Report and 

Annexure H of the FEIR. 

Economic 

Economic 

Economic 

1.6 Community upliftment 

1.6.1 

1.6.2 

1.6.3 

Jacobus J.D. 

Havenga (12) 



Your arguments with respect to economic 

growth, job creation, tourism, etc. are 

incorrect. Existing businesses already find it 

difficult to generate enough income. You will 

have to bring workers from outside 

Struisbaai. 

In addition, the nine permanent staff 

members will all lose their jobs and the nine 

casual employment opportunities created at 

Pelicans as well as the six permanent jobs 

and two to four casual at Harbour Catch 

jobs will all be lost. This important factor is 

not mentioned anywhere in the draft EIR 

despite the fact that Struisbaai is known to 

have a high unemployment rate [p. 107 of 

dEIR.] 

The existing developed Langezandt 

properties create the idea that developers 

are inclusive. It would be more appropriate 

to open the existing development for 

general business opportunities so that the 

developers have the opportunity to establish 

a positive disposition with the community. 


regarding the employment figures. It is 

proposed that the type of development and 

the marketing would make the proposed 

development more sustainable and thus 

provide more employment than is currently 

experienced. 

These staff would have the option to apply for 

employment in the proposed development. 

Please refer to Section 5.2.3 and Annexure H 

of the FEIR regarding employment 

opportunities. Substantially more jobs would 

be offered in the proposed development than 

is currently offered. 

Applicants response: The proposed 

development allows for a number of retail 

opportunities where the community could get 

involved. 

Community 

upliftment 

Employment 

Community 

upliftment 



1.6.4 


(49) 

It is acknowledged that the area is severely 

depressed and that unemployment levels 

are unacceptably high, and this means that 

the development on site is seen as 

desirable, however how much of the current 

development would in fact benefit the 

community? It is unlikely for the local 

community to benefit from the development 

of this scale other than very unskilled 

opportunities, given that the skills levels in 

the area were extremely low and with only 

11.6% of the population having a Matric 

certificate of higher qualifications according 

to 2008 socio-economic survey of this ward. 

Please refer to Section 5.2.3 and 5.3.2 of the 

FEIR for employment opportunities and 

Annexure H: Economic Assessment Report 

for employment figures. 

Applicants response: The contract would be 

awarded to a credible and capable company 

at the time of construction and it is premature 

at this stage to define which company would 

be the successful contractor. 

Community 

upliftment 

1.6.5 


(49) 

A building project of this size is more likely 

to be awarded to a large Cape or National 

firm that has the capacity to build and 

therefore would employ only a fraction of 

locals during the construction phase. 


The possibility for not using local labour is 

certainly there, but I don‟t think anyone can 

really confidently say what the likelihood is of 

this happening. Mitigation measured aimed at 

maximizing benefits for locals have been 

outlined in section 6.5 of the economic 

specialist study. In order to be certain of the 

use of local labour to the optimal degree, clear 

provisions should be drawn up and included in 

the conditions of approval and management 

plan for the project. Bear in mind that it is not 

reasonable to force the proponent to use local 

labour under all circumstances. If, for 

example, a certain local labourer does not 

provide a good service and/or demands 

unreasonably high wages, his/her status as a 

local should not offer unfair protection from 

the normal consequences of actions. 

Community 

upliftment 



1.6.6 

1.6.7 

1.6.8 

1.6.9 


Lourens (82) 

Robert A.N. Nell 

(119) 


(137) 


(137) 

It is obvious that the proposed development 

would not be for the benefit of the greater 

population of Struisbaai but would only 

benefit only a small percentage of them. 

As a member of WESSA and a fisherman, 

the proposed development will have no 

benefit to the community or local fisherman 

Is it possible for the proponent to supply 

proof that he would supply jobs to 

Struisbaai North residents? A list of UIF, 

SARS registered employees, complete with 

addresses and ID numbers would suffice. 

This would enable I&APs to form a more 

informed opinion of the whole proposed 

development. 

The proponent promised 10% share of the 

development to be donated to a community 

trust fund still to be formed. Will this still 

take place as it‟s implied that this is 

dependent on their support? 

Disagree. Based on the findings of the 

economic specialist it is our finding that the 

community could benefit from such a 

development through employment and 

business opportunities as well as a new range 

of commodities and retail stores. 


CRR response 1.6.6. 

This is not a reasonable request at this stage 

to provide of the project such a list as the 

development may not be approved. This list 

would only prove that there are people 

available for employment which is already 

confirmed by the unemployment numbers 

referenced in the FEIR. 

The Environmental Authorisation decision 

may include such a trust as a condition of 

approval if it the proposed development is 

approved. It would then be a legal 

requirement and not fulfilling it would be a 

breach of the authorisation conditions. 

Applicants response: Our support of the 

community is not a payment for favours but a 

genuine contribution to growth and 

development. 

Community 

upliftment 

Community 

upliftment 

Community 

upliftment 

Community 

upliftment 


and Response Report 

1.6.10 

1.6.11 


(80) 


(172) 

The developer claims that local jobs will be 

created. This is what he promised when he 

built his existing development at 

„Langezandt‟, and then broke this promise, 

by bringing in people from outside of 

Struisbaai to do the work 

The social contribution of the proposed 

development to the local people is a 

concern 

Applicants response: We would offer 

employment opportunities to local labour. 

Local labour is defined as Struisbaai and 

surrounds, such as Elim, Napier and 

Bredasdorp. Should they not accept the offer 

or provide poor service then it is not the 

developer‟s responsibility to ensure 

employment. 

It is assumed that the concern is that the 

social contribution will not occur as the nature 

of the concern has not been outlined in the 

submission. Refer to CRR response 1.6.1 

Community 

upliftment 

Community 

upliftment 



1.6.12 

1.6.13 

1.6.14 

1.6.15 

1.6.16 


Dorel Van der 







73, 69, 66, 65, 172, 

93, 78) 

Eldalene Bruwer 

(16) 


Kotze (19) 

Evan Meirion 

Williams (31) 

Johan Van der 

Westhuizen (39) 

It is unlikely that the developer would 

employ local workers and builders, as in his 

previous development of Langezandt, he 

made the same promise and then he only 

used foreign sub-contractors, and one local 

sub contractor was employed and who was 

later fired. The developer cannot claim that 

he will create work for local community. 


detrimental to the fishermen‟s way of life 

It is necessary nor wise to provide fish 

buying facilities in the development to 

compensate for the demolition of the 

present facility. A white elephant may be 

created, as the largest amount of fish are 

bought at cold storage facilities or by means 

of fridge trucks which need not be at the 

harbour permanently. It may be a good idea 

to allow a small retail outlet where the public 

can buy fresh fish directly or soon after it 

comes from the sea, and a fish cleaning 

service may be included. 

I'm concerned about the historical use of the 

harbour, fishing, recreational use and 

boating. 

How can you state that higher prices will be 

paid for fisherfolk? 



Applicants response: The development of 

the Langezandt Fishermens Village employed 

no foreigners, only South Africans (most 

local). 

Disagree. Please refer to Section 5.2.8 of the 


The proponent has identified a need for a 

fresh fish market and has indicated a wish to 

support the local fisherfolk in this way. Please 


The vast majority of the harbour activities 

would not be impacted by the development as 

the development is not part of the harbour, 

though it falls within the harbour precinct. The 

activities that may be impacted could be 

supported in other ways. It has been 

recommended that the proponent form a subcommittee 

to deal with concerns of conflict 

between the fisherfolk and the proposed 

development‟s clients. Please refer to Section 


We assume you are referring to the higher 

prices for the fish. Fish would be marketed 

and handled under hygienic conditions and 

thus be attractive to potential customers. 

Please refer to Section 2.4.8. 

Community 

upliftment 

Fisherfolk 

Fisherfolk 

Fisherfolk 

Fisherfolk 



1.6.17 

1.6.18 



The current site forms a functional part of 

the working harbour area and is recognised 

by the local residents and tourists as being 

part of the harbour [p. 22 & 61 of dEIR]. 

The development proponent alleges that the 

need for the services carried out on the site 

is not clear and that these services could be 

catered for by other businesses and 

premises [p. 61 of dEIR]. Thus, at least, 

the provision of ice, bait and fish handling 

services will not form part of the proposed 

development and the persons involved in 

the provision of these services will likely 

lose their only source of income. 

The development proponent also alludes to 

the fact that the leases for both Harbour 

Catch and Pelicans restaurant may not be 

renewed. It is specifically stated that 

Harbour Catch would likely be closed down 

as a going concern [p. 110-111 of dEIR]. 

This is despite the fact that Harbour Catch 

provides a vital range of fishing-related 

services to the local fishing community. As 

noted by the development proponent itself, 

the location of Harbour Catch is crucial to its 

success due to its close proximity to the 

harbour. Yet the development proponent 

simply states that this issue is not its 

responsibility. 

Although Erf 848 is private property, the 

proponent has made provision for a fish 

market which will provide a facility for the 

selling of ice, bait, tackle and fresh fish. 

Please refer to section 2.4.8 of the FEIR. 

Provision has been made in the proposed 

design as per alternative 6. Although the 

exact services as provided by Harbour Catch 

would not be accommodated i.e. blast freezer, 

opportunity still applies for the sale of fish, bait 

and tackle. Pelicans could be accommodated 

as several shops would be ideally placed in 

the restaurant retail functionality. Please refer 

to section 2.5 of the FEIR. 

Applicants response: Some of the Harbor 

Catch services can be provided in the harbor. 

Harbour/ 

Access 

Fisherfolk 



1.6.19 

1.6.20 

1.6.21 



Dorel Van der 







73, 69, 66, 65, 172, 

93, 78) 

Leon Lotter (40) 

A trend can be noted in many waterfront 

developments in the Western Cape, 

including those at Gordon's Bay, the Strand 

and Simons Town, which results in the 

alienation of fishermen and the sometimes 

complete cessation of fishing activities. It is 

for these reasons that if the development 

were to go ahead, the proposed mitigation 

measures must be imposed as essential 

mitigation measures in order to ensure that 

the attractiveness and appeal of the harbour 

as well as the livelihood of the fishermen 

are guaranteed. It is also noted that the 

proposed development may alienate the 

traditional fishermen from the use of fishing 

and recreational activities [p. 131 of dEIR]. 

It is therefore surprising that the required 

mitigation measure in this regard, namely 

complimentary tourism opportunities 

including the use of fishermen to take 

guests and visitors for fishing trips or tours 

on chukkies, is listed as an optional 

mitigation measure [p. 132 of dEIR]. It is 

our clients' suggestion that this be imposed 

as an essential mitigation measure to 

ensure that the traditional fishermen would 

not be alienated. 

The local fishermen will be alienated by 

high rise timeshare/hotel and tourist bus 

terminals. 

Struisbaai has a fishing harbour, a place 

where fishermen do their work. It is 

therefore important that any development in 

or around the harbour should not interfere 

with these activities. Input from fishers 

should be obtained. 

The management of harbours and slipways is 

the responsibility of MCM. If fishing activities 

have been reduced it is due to MCMs 

management policy, and limitations on 

allowable catches (including bag limits and 

size restrictions). Please refer Annexure T of 

the FEIR regarding mitigation measure 

commitments. 

Applicants response: We cannot force 

fishermen to take tourists out if they choose 

not to, as an example. We will do our utmost 

to provide the opportunity for them to do so. 




Comment and Response Report. The 

proposed development would not impact on 

the operations of the fisherfolk and provision 

has been made to accommodate the sale of 

bait, ice and tackle. 

Fisherfolk 

Fisherfolk 

Fisherfolk 



1.6.22 

1.6.23 

1.6.24 

1.6.25 

1.6.26 

1.6.27 

1.6.28 

1.6.29 


(47) 

Minnie P. Le Roux 

(52) 

Evan Meirion 

Williams (31) 

Evan Meirion 

Williams (31) 

Tiaan P. Lourens 

(110) 

Gideon A. Pitzer 

(121) 

Johnny S Edwards 

(120) 

Mid Loubser (130) 

The proposed development will not increase 

fish prices as claimed in the DEIR, on the 

contrary there will on less fish buying 

concern 

The proposed development might 

negatively influence the activities of the 

fishing community. 

The proposed development will have an 

immediate impact on the fishing community 

both commercial as well as recreational 

activities by imposing a development right in 

the centre of these activities. 

Boat trailer parking and the associated 

noise at all hours due to fishing activities 

etc. will cause friction between residents of 

the new development and the fishing 

community. 

At present, during fishing activities, the 

harbour cannot accommodate all the 

activities as it is not large enough. 

The proposed development would 

negatively influence the fishing community, 

currently the poorest community in 

Struisbaai. 

As a commercial fisherman, I will eventually 

be excluded from offloading my boat due to 

the proposed development. 

The proposed development could have a 

negative impact on the fishing of Struisbaai. 


Comment and Response Report. Sales can 

be improved through appropriate marketing 

and thus an opportunity exists to sell fresh fish 

to both the local community as well as 

tourists/visitors. 











Access to the harbour will not be impacted in 

any way since the proposed building would be 

within the existing boundaries of Erf 848 with 

access via Erf 921 i.e. away from the current 

entrance to the harbor. Please refer to 





Fisherfolk 

Fisherfolk 

Fisherfolk 

Fisherfolk 

Fisherfolk 

Fisherfolk 

Fisherfolk 

Fisherfolk 



1.6.30 

1.6.31 

1.6.32 

1.6.33 

1.6.34 



(137) 


(137) 


(137) 


(137) 

Where will chakkies be maintained and 

repaired? The activities of using or 

generating the sawdust and glass fibre with 

restaurants and hotels in very close 

proximity do not mix well. 

The study of fishing was not thorough and 

wholly inaccurate as indicated on the draft 

EIA. Your assessment finds the conflict 

during the peak season between the 

development and fishermen to between 10 

to 15% per annum and thus reacted 

insignificant. This period though is when 

the fishermen earn most of their profits, and 

actually is of huge significance. 

You also refer to chakkies instead of chugchukkies, 

also quotas and cuts in the 

quotas. This is incorrect, there is no quota 

based fishing in Struisbaai. The Struisbaai 

fishermen are traditional hand-line 

fishermen. 

Development such as these always result in 

the alienation of fishermen, fishing activities 

are curbed, often seizing completely. This is 

in contrast to the claims that such 

developments improve the fishermen's 

livelihood. For example Gordon's Bay, the 

Strand, Simonstown Town, it is a struggle 

for the fishermen to secure the right of 

launching their boats at Oceana Powerboat 

Club, next to Cape Town V&A. 

The EIA does not provide a detailed study 

or a specialist investigation on this trend of 

fishing activities (seizing of fishing activities 

due to the developments such as the 

proposed), though Ninham Shand 

representative assured me that he would 

investigate the matter. 

MCM could provide space for such repairs 

within the harbour or an entrepreneur could 

start a business for boat repairs on adjacent 

land with the appropriate permissions. Erf 

848 is private land and therefore the 

proponent is exercising his right to apply for 

development of the site. 

Applicants response: We agree to assist the 

fishing community with negotiations with MCM 

to secure land for boat repair that would 

benefit all the fisherfolk. 

The competition for resources already exists 

and it is envisaged that it would only increase 

with time and would only marginally be 

increased by the proposed development. The 

CAM and MCM would need to resolve this 

issue as the responsible authorities for the 

harbour and surrounds. 

The DEIR refers to the loss of quotas that 

took place in 2000 and is therefore intended 

to be an indicator that the commercial fishing 

prospects are currently low. Please refer to 


Access to the harbour is not being reduced. 



Applicants response: Fishermen of 

Struisbaai are viewed as an asset to the 



Comment and Response Report and 

Annexure H: Economic Impact Assessment 

and Social Impact Assessments. The reports 

do present the current state. 

Fisherfolk 

Fisherfolk 

Fisherfolk 

Fisherfolk 

Fisherfolk 



1.6.35 

1.6.36 

1.6.37 


(137) 

Abrie Bruwer (66) 

S. Du Plessis (171) 

Your survey finds a remarkable growth in 

fishing sector in terms of job opportunities 

however this is contrary to all your main 

reasons for the desirability of this 

development. 

The developer plans to destroy the fishing 

harbour and that would have a negative 

impact on the traditional fishermen. 

What is the livelihood and heritage of the 

fisher folk worth to the developer? 

Struisbaai Harbour is our last and only 

heritage still left. One needs to see what is 

going to happen to us, our future generation 

of fishermen, our culture and more 

importantly our past. 

The survey finds that adequate opportunities 

for the local fisherfolk are limited due to 

outdated boats and quota limitations. 

Therefore, the proposed development aims to 

contribute positively towards uplifting the 

current operations for the fisherfolk by means 

of a fish market concept. 

Access to the harbour will not be affected and 

the responsibility for the harbour remains 

vested with Marine and Coastal Management. 



Access to the harbour will not be affected and 

the responsibility for the harbour remains 

vested with Marine and Coastal Management. 



Fisherfolk 

Fisherfolk 

Fisherfolk 

1.6.38 


We're still experiencing the effect of forced 

removals‟ during the apartheid era; where 

fishing families was taken away from their 

homes and place 3,2km away from their 

working site. We're also experiencing a foul 

weather and families lay awake at night 

praying that their boats are safe in the 

water. Today we have to stay wake or sleep 

in our vehicles at the harbour, mostly during 

winter and in the middle of the night, to 

ensure that we have a visual on our boats. 

We are constantly being challenged by 

many elements, which include bad weather, 

global warming and climate change that 

influence the arrival of our migrating fish, 

increases in harbour fees and so much 

more, yet none of these can equal the 

destruction of what the developer is about 

to do to the fishing community of Struisbaai 


5.2 of the FEIR. Access to the harbour will not 

be affected and the responsibility for the 

harbour remains vested with Marine and 

Coastal Management. 

Fisherfolk 



1.6.39 

1.6.40 

1.6.41 

1.6.42 

1.6.43 

1.6.44 



(80) 




Dirk Kleinschmidt 

(114) 

We're also faced with a challenge of 

whereby more and bigger boats are leaving 

their original harbours like Gordon‟s Bay, 

coming to moor their vessels in Struisbaai 

Harbour each December holiday. They are 

likely the cause the destruction of the 

„chukkies‟ and will insist on getting the best 

place in the harbour because their vessels 

is of greater financial value. This is 

happening already. As fishermen, our job is 

to fish and ensure that we can put food on 

our tables and cater for our families needs. 

We are not stupid, but we are fearless. 

It is unbelievable to state that this 

development will somehow benefit the local 

fisher folk and people of Struisbaai. The 

development does not provide any 

additional services or facilities for them, and 

in fact is likely to impede their ability to 

freely access, and enjoy their harbour. 

Will interfere and take over the fishing 

industry – “retail component” 

What about the fishermen who are 

depended on fishing for their livelihood? 

What will happen in the future to fishermen 

who are dependent on fishing for their 

livelihoods when considering the fact that 

only the rich will benefit from the 

development? 

Where will fishermen be able to repair their 

boats? 

The following issue that raises questions for 

me is the development‟s impact on 

commercial fishing, chukkies and the water 

traffic within the harbour. I am aware that 

you refer to it, but to me the reference 

seemed very causal. It cannot be allowed 

that the fishermen of Struisbaai‟s livelihoods 

are threatened. 

Your concern is noted. It would be advisable 

to raise this concern with MCM to ensure the 

protection of your rights within the harbor. 


regarding employment opportunities as well 

as Annexure O: Proponents Vision. The 

proposed development would not impact on 

their access. Access is controlled by MCM 

only. It is however recognised that the 

fisherfolk may feel alienated. 

The proposed development would include a 

fish market and retail component. Please refer 

to Section 2.4.8 and 5.2.3 i of the FEIR. 






Applicants response: Current status quo will 

remain. 


Comment and Response Report regarding 

impact on chakkies and Section 1.5.8 

regarding water traffic as well as section 5.2.2 


Fisherfolk 

Fisherfolk 

Fisherfolk 

Fisherfolk 

Fisherfolk 

Fisherfolk 



1.6.45 

1.6.46 

1.6.47 

1.6.48 

1.6.49 

Erla Rabe (83) 

A. J. Vlok (139) 


(145) 

Adriaan Grandfield 

(147) 

G.G. Newman (149) 

I can‟t see how the fishing community will 

benefit from the development. 

Traditional fishing community – no workable 

representations to address this issue was 

made in the draft report. 

I‟ve had to rely on the sea from a very 

young age. My ancestors constructed the 

harbour. 

I live in Struisbaai. The development of 

such nature in the harbour would have a 

negative impact on my livelihood as a 

fisherman. The harbour is definitely too 

small and would not be able to cater for 

such development. 

I make my living of the sea. 


Annexure O: Proponent‟s vision 

Please provide specific concerns that need to 

be addressed or suggestions to strengthen 

mitigation measures. Regarding employment 

please refer to Section 5.2.3 of the FEIR. 

Regarding impact please refer to Section 


Report. 

Your concern is noted. Access to the harbour 

will not be affected and the responsibility for 

the harbour remains vested with Marine and 

Coastal Management. Please refer to Section 


Report. 

As the development adjacent to the harbour 

and within the current boundaries limited 

impact to harbor functionality is envisaged. 

Regarding boat repair please refer to Section 


Report. 

We are of the opinion that will be able to 

continue to do so. Access to the harbour will 

not be affected and the responsibility for the 

harbour remains vested with Marine and 

Coastal Management.Please refer to Section 


Report. 

Fisherfolk 

Fisherfolk 

Fisherfolk 

Fisherfolk 

Fisherfolk 



Your point is noted. Should the proponent not 

be able to alter the servitude delineation, the 

proposed development would need to be 

marginally redesigned. 

1.6.50 


A servitude right of way in favour of the 

public is also registered over the site [p.55 

of dEIR]. The development proponent is of 

the view that the High Water Mark ("HWM") 

has moved as has the boundary of the site. 

As a result, the development proponent has 

indicated that it intends to renegotiate the 

position of the servitude with the council [it 

is submitted that this is ultra vires], which 

would result in a new 40 feet wide servitude 

to be registered over the property to the 

north of the site, alternatively the 

development proponent will apply to have 

that condition removed [p.55 of dEIR]. Our 

clients note that this servitude right of way 

has at all relevant times been used, and 

continues to be used, by members of the 

public. The right of way significantly 

reduces that portion of the site which may 

be developed. 

Tommy Brummer: The servitude right of way 

is 12.19m wide and is measured landwards 

(i.e. inward of) the High Water Mark (HWM) 

which forms the northern boundary of the site 

as depicted on the existing approved 1961 SG 

Diagram for Erf 848. Construction work and 

changes to the harbour over the years 

however resulted in the HWM no longer being 

in the position as shown on the 1961 diagram 

for the property. This is because additional 

land has accreted on what used to be the 

seaward side of the right of way. The position 

of the HWM was surveyed by Tony Spronk 

land surveyor in September 2009 (refer 

topographical survey) with the HWM now 

following the rock wall leading to the pier. The 

re-alignment of the harbour wall has resulted 

in land (not forming part of Erf 848) being 

reclaimed from the sea, which land is now 

available to the public to obtain access to the 

harbour past the property. The only portion of 

the property being affected, is the northern 

portion. A new SG diagram is to be approved 

and the title deed amended to refer to the 

current situation. 

Fisherfolk 



1.6.51 

1.6.52 



The development only envisages a fish 

handling facility [p. 47 of dEIR]. As a result, 

if the development is authorized and 

Harbour Catch is closed down permanently, 

numerous fishermen may be unable to 

obtain certain essential fishing goods and 

services necessary to carry on their 

livelihoods. This is likely to contribute 

towards the permanent elimination of the 

current tourist appeal and existing character 


The draft EIR finds that conflict between the 

fishers and visitors is estimated at 10% to 

15% per annum, during the peak period. A 

local Struisbaai fishing operator [S. Knobel] 

has noted that while the figure appears low, 

this conflict will occur particularly during 

peak fishing season which is likely to 

coincide with peak occupancy at the 

proposed hotel and residential units. This is 

the period in which the fishermen earn up to 

90% of their income. Thus the figure 

quoted in the draft EIR fails to take into 

account the potential consequences which 

these conflicts could have on the earning 

capacity of the local fishermen. 

The proposed development includes a fish 

market where bait, ice and tackle would be 

sold. Please refer to Section 2.4.8 of the 

FEIR. Furthermore the proponent is willing to 

assist the fisherfolk with negotiations with 

MCM to open and manage a kiosk in the 

harbour for bait, ice and tackle should it be 

required by the fisherfolk. 

Please refer to Section 1.6.31 of the 

Comments and Response Report. 


Potential risks to fishers are discussed and 

assessed in section 6.2 of the economic 

specialist study and in somewhat more detail 

in the social specialist study. 

Applicants response: The proposed 

development and parking would operate in a 

selfsufficient and independent fashion from 

the harbor. 

Refer to Annexure H of the FEIR. 

Fisherfolk 

Fisherfolk 

1.7 Impact on character 

and culture of 

Struisbaai harbour 

1.7.1 

1.7.2 


Kotze (19) 


The present location of the harbour and 

infrastructure were decided upon thirty 

years ago, and it would be unreasonable for 

anyone to claim heritage rights or privileges. 

The only true typical Struisbaai icons left of 

the old village, is the church and harbour 

with a few boats, that still give you the 

feeling of a fishers village. Struisbaai is 

surely one of the last few fisher villages left 

in the Western Cape that haven‟t been 

defaced by coastal developments. 

An independent Heritage assessment was 

undertaken and no significant heritage was 

determined. Please refer to the Record of 

Decision issued by Heritage Western Cape 

(Annexure K of the FEIR). 


5.2.6 of FEIR. 

Character / 

Culture 

Character / 

Culture 



1.7.3 

1.7.4 

1.7.5 

1.7.6 

1.7.7 

1.7.8 

1.7.9 

1.7.10 

1.7.11 

1.7.12 

Marlene Ellis (29) 

Hennie Mostert (37) 

Johan Van der 


Olive Knobel (62) 

Evan Meirion 

Williams (31) 




Home Owners 



Lourens (82) 



The harbour should be kept as intact as it 

is, it the only original harbour left 

Struisbaai must be left as intact as it is for 

the benefit of future generation 

Concerned about the impact that this 

development would pose on the heritage of 

the harbour 

I'm a resident of Struisbaai and the 

proposed development would spoil the 

natural beauty of the harbour. 

The proposed development violates the 

essential ambiance and historic heritage of 

Struisbaai which is unique on the South 

African coast 

The proposed development should not 

negatively impact the fishing character and 

convenience of the harbour. 

It is unacceptable to use the current public 

area for the benefits to the proposed 

development. Nevertheless, it would be 

necessary to follow a public participation 

process should the proposed development 

on erf 848 receive authorization. 

Struisbaai harbour is one of the only 

harbours on our coast where there is still 

access to traditional fishing and its related 

activities. 

The proposed development will negatively 

impact the unspoilt character of the harbour 

which is one of the last traditional hand-line 

fisher harbours, it will be destroyed and with 

it is an irreplaceable cultural asset. 

I think that the various shareholders in 

Golden Falls trading should apply their 

minds to “last remaining link” and come to 

the realisation that the inhabitants of 

Struisbaai Noord actually have no other 

tangible interaction of consequence with 

where they used to live. They should 

understand that all that is left of their 

generational history and interaction with the 

sea in Struisbaai proper is the harbour. The 

harbour is their heritage. 

Your point is noted. Your point is noted. 

Please refer to Section 5.2.6 of FEIR. 

Your point is noted. Your point is noted. 


Please refer to point 1.7.1 of this comments 

and response report. 

Noted. Please refer to Sections 5.2.5 and 





FEIR and Sections 1.5.8 and 1.6.30 of this 


Erf 848 is private property, not public land 

other than the existing right of way servitude. 

Please refer to Chapter 3 of the FEIR 

regarding public participation. Erf 921 would 

be formalized into a communal parking area 

and would be maintained by the CAM. 

Struisbaai harbor is one of the remaining 

traditional harbours, however fishermen still 

operate in areas such as Gansbaai. 


Sections 5.2.5 and 5.2.6 of the FEIR and 

please refer to Section 1.6.15 of this 




Character / 

Culture 

Character / 

Culture 

Heritage of 

fishing 

harbour 

Heritage of 

fishing 

harbour 

Heritage of 

fishing 

harbour 

Heritage of 

fishing 

harbour 

Heritage of 

fishing 

harbour 

Heritage of 

fishing 

harbour 

Heritage of 

fishing 

harbour 

Heritage of 

fishing 

harbour 



1.7.13 

1.7.14 

1.7.15 

1.7.16 

1.7.17 

1.7.18 

1.7.19 

1.7.20 


(168) 


(143) 


(159) 


(167) 




Andre Morgenthal 

(89) 

Struisbaai prides itself on the character of 

the town with its fishermen‟s cottages, the 

working harbour which is one of the oldest 

in the country) and even Langezandt, which 

is a perfect example of how development 

should take place in a controlled fashion 

with taking into account the town‟s 

character. 

The quality of life from Struisbaai and the 

Fisherman‟s community would be lost due 

to the proposed development. 

This unsophisticated historic harbour is not 

only the town‟s heritage, but we believe it to 

be of national cultural / historic importance 

therefore a cultural / historic Impact 

Assessment in terms of the SAHRA 

legislation should be fully reported. 

The harbour should be a National 

Monument and should not be destroyed by 

developers to make a profit. 

There are no more harbours like Struisbaai 

on the coast, all traditional fishing harbours 

have been transformed into waterfronts with 

extinction of heritage. 

Struisbaai Harbour is the only heritage we 

have left and changing nor destroying it 

means that it is the end of the traditional 

fisher folk of Struisbaai and also of Arniston. 

Nobody can put a price on a culture, 

heritage or human lives, but more and more 

developers are willing to do so. 

As a regular visitor to Struisbaai, I've got a 

keen interest in preserving the heritage and 

the environment of this pristine harbour 

village. It‟s unique character resonates not 

only with its permanent residents and other 

South Africans, but with Cape Agulhas 

being an international landmark and 

destination, attracts a steady flow of 

international tourists. A development like 

this will detract from the authenticity of the 

destination. 


FEIR, specifically with regard to current 

architecture. 



An independent Heritage assessment was 

undertaken and no significant heritage was 

determined. Please refer to Section 5.2.4 and 

to the Record of Decision issued by Heritage 

Western Cape (Annexure K of the FEIR). 

Please refer to Section 5.2.4 and Annexure K 


Your concern is noted. Please refer to point 

1.7.16 of this comments and response report. 



Heritage Western Cape has been legally 

mandated to make such decisions in the 

national and public interest. Please refer to 

Section 5.2.4 and Annexure K of the FEIR. 


Sections 5.2.5, 5.2.6 and Annexure K of the 


Heritage of 

fishing 

harbour 

Heritage of 

fishing 

harbour 

Heritage of 

fishing 

harbour 

Heritage of 

fishing 

harbour 

Heritage of 

fishing 

harbour 

Heritage of 

fishing 

harbour 

Heritage of 

fishing 

harbour 

Heritage of 

fishing 

harbour 



1.7.21 

1.7.22 

1.7.23 

1.7.24 

1.7.25 

Nelda Basson (106) 


E de Kock (88) 


Werner Vermeulen 

(2) 

Haven‟t we destroyed enough beautiful 

things in South Africa? What are left of 

cultures, heritage and all that goes with it? 

Ask yourself – for how long will you find it 

beautiful? For how long will you be 

satisfied? 

What about the historic facet? 

The harbour is important from a cultural and 

historic point of view for the Struisbaai 

community (a) shipwrecks, (b) fish ponds, 

(c) subsistence fishers. 

Under no circumstances should a second 

Strand shoreline be allowed – again 

because of the cultural-historic aspect. 

Should this development gets approved, it 

will set a precedent and everyone would 

want to build this type of buildings 


Sections 5.2.5, 5.2.6 and Annexure K of the 


Regarding the historical heritage please refer 

to Sections 5.2.5, 5.2.6 and Annexure K of the 

FEIR. Regarding historic fishing activities 



Your concern is noted. Your point is noted. 


Your concern is noted. It is the CAM‟s and 

competent decision making authority‟s 

responsibility to ensure that development in 

Struisbaai complies with relevant legislative 

requirements. 



Report. 

Heritage of 

fishing 

harbour 

Heritage of 

fishing 

harbour 

Heritage of 

fishing 

harbour 

Heritage of 

fishing 

harbour 

Sense of 

place 

1.7.26 

1.7.27 

1.7.28 


(58) 



Visser (4) 

This development has no possibility of 

making a positive contribution to the 

character and ethos of Struisbaai and 

should not be allowed to continue. 

Many residents who bought their property 

because of Struisbaai‟s simplistic charm, 

peacefulness and untouched natural beauty 

would be very happy should the 

development not take place (alternative 5). 

The beauty of the harbour and the peaceful 

atmosphere will be destroyed. 



Noted. Your point is noted. Please refer to 

Section 5.2.6 of FEIR. 



Opinion 

Alternative or 

Sense of 

Place 

Sense of 

place 



1.7.29 

1.7.30 

1.7.31 

1.7.32 



Marthinus J.H. 

Wiese (5) 


The proposed development will materially 

alter the use of the harbour area and 

impacts every permanent resident in terms 

of threatening the future of the harbour as a 

future-sustainable commercial venture, and 

every occasional resident in terms of 

changing forever the atmosphere of the 

town and thereby affecting enjoyment and 

property values. 

I am not against development/progress per 

se but I do think that there should be a 

balanced approach and all factors weighed 

up and not only to consider the potential 

short term gain for the developer and his 

backers. The development of this nature is 

an irreversible process and would result in a 

loss of something that was special to a lot of 

people as well as part of the innate 

feel/ambiance of Struisbaai. 

The peaceful atmosphere of the area will be 

destroyed due to the proposed 

development. 

The development proponent notes that 

unemployment is a major challenge in 

Struisbaai where the unemployment rate is 

23% [p. 106-107 of dEIR]. Tourism and 

fishing appear to be the main economic and 

cultural activities in Struisbaai according to 

the applicant and those impacts were 

assessed [p. 108 of dEIR]. By the 

development proponent's own admission, 

the development would detract from the 

existing tourist appeal of the harbour area 

and would alter the character of the harbour 

area [p. 109-110 of dEIR]. Our clients 

disagree with the impact summary's 

conclusion that the tourist and social 

opportunities outweigh the risk of sense of 

place. 

Please refer to Sections 5.2.5 & 5.2.6 of the 


Applicants response: The harbor 

functionality is controlled by MCM. In similar 

developments, surrounding property values 

have increased substantially. 





Your point is noted. Our findings were 

informed by the various specialist studies 

commissioned for the EIA process.This 

section in particular is a direct quote from the 

Economic Impact Assessment. Subsequently, 

post draft EIR review, a market sustainability 

assessment was undertaken to qualify the 

proposed impact and can be read in Annexure 

U of the FEIR. 

Sense of 

Place 

Sense of 

Place 

Sense of 

place 

Sense of 

Place 



1.7.33 

1.7.34 

1.7.35 

1.7.36 

1.7.37 

1.7.38 

1.7.39 

1.7.40 

1.7.41 

Valerie Wiese (6) 


(75) 



(137) 

Jacobus J.D. 

Havenga (12) 




(16) 


People are visiting Struisbaai because of its 

tranquility and also for recreational fishing. 

It is not reasonable to state that the impact 

of heritage will be very low. The face of 

Struisbaai will change permanently. 

Peace and tranquility of the area will vanish. 

The uniqueness of erf 848 and its history 

has been underestimated by the proposed 

development. 

I bought my property in 1993, and I'm 

visiting it at least three times per year, it was 

due to the peaceful and unspoiled 

environment and council members informed 

then that Struisbaai will stay the same and 

not turn into a second Hermanus. 

An increase in traffic flow, businesses and 

people would violate established customs of 

residents who particularly wanted property 

here due to the peacefulness of the area. 

Struisbaai and Agulhas is a tourist diamond 

that provides jobs and generate income due 

to tourist visiting the area because of its 

unique location and development. Some of 

our best diamonds are showcased 

overseas. We cannot allow South Africa to 

loose another diamond. 

It would disturb the peace as the area there 

will be crowded by many people. 

The proposed development would have a 

negative impact on the heritage of the 

harbour, its surroundings and on Struisbaai 

as a small holiday town with an attractive 

fishing harbour 

Your concern is noted. Regarding the 

character of Struisbaai please refer to 


Considering the hive of activity during the 

holiday season, the development should not 

impact on the tranquility significantly. There 

may be a significant increase in activity out of 

the holiday season (Please refer to Sections 

5.2.2 of the FEIR). Regarding recreational 

fishing please refer to Section 1.6.15 of this 


Please refer to Chapter 4 of the FEIR and 
















Sense of 

place 

Sense of 

Place 

Sense of 

place 

Sense of 

Place 

Sense of 

place 

Sense of 

place 

Sense of 

place 

Sense of 

place 

Sense of 

place 



1.7.42 

1.7.43 

1.7.44 

1.7.45 

1.7.46 

1.7.47 

1.7.48 

1.7.49 

1.7.50 

1.7.51 


Kotze (19) 

Carel Van der 

Merwe (20) 

Evan Matthee (24) 

Jonine Mostert (25) 




Emmerentia 

Hesseling (on 


payers) (41) 

Rita Van der Walt 

(42) 


(43) 

I'm a Struisbaai resident for twenty years 

and about 70% of enjoyment of vacations 

and of being a resident revolves visits to the 

harbour 

Many residents moved to Struisbaai 

(corrected from Langezandt Quays) from 

other areas due to the undeveloped nature 

of the harbour, it would therefore be unfair 

to impose developments on them. 

Besides financial unsustainability of the 

proposed project, it will definitely detract 

from the present peaceful environment 

I think people love to live in Struisbaai due 

to it low tourism industry. 

Struisbaai is also quiet, relatively remote 

from other big cities, clean, relatively safe 

and the "tourism" is normally resulting from 

people that own holidays homes and visit 

over weekends, long weekends and holiday 

season. 

The first concern is with regard to the 

environment. If you look at Europe's coast 

line there are numerous examples of lovely, 

functioning small fisher villages ruined 

beyond recognition due to economic 

development. (Look at the Costa de la Sol, 

or the French Mediterranean coastline.) 

Struisbaai is perfect as it is. It was never 

supposed to be a tourist hub of note. It's a 

peaceful, semi-retirement village. What is 

wrong with that? 

Struisbaai is not Seepunt. There is good 

reason why residents (permanent and 

visitors) stay here. They want to get away 

from the harmful living conditions with its 

“multi-level” structures 

Struisbaai is known for its earthiness and 

being unadorned. The proposed 

development will change all of this. 

The propose development would pose 

danger to harbour character 





Report. 

Regarding financial stability Please refer to 

Annexure R of the FEIR. Regarding 

tranquility Please refer to Section 1.7.33 of 






Report. 



The proximity of Struisbaai to the 

southernmost tip of Africa has a significant 

tourist appeal and therefore attracts 

developments of this nature. 







Sense of 

place 

Sense of 

place 

Sense of 

place 

Sense of 

place 

Sense of 

place 

Sense of 

place 

Sense of 

place 

Sense of 

place 

Sense of 

place 

Sense of 

place 



1.7.52 

1.7.53 

1.7.54 

1.7.55 

1.7.56 

1.7.57 

1.7.58 

1.7.59 

1.7.60 

Robin N Green (44) 


(47) 


(49) 


(SEA) (48) 

Stephen Gerber 

(63) 


(58) 

Louise Knobel (115) 


(87) 


Lourens (82) 

As a concerned friend of residents of 

Struisbaai, the ambiance and charm of the 

village will be destroyed 

The proposed develop will result in a 

destruction of an unspoilt local environment 

of the harbour 

The proposed development would change 

the nature and the character of the harbour. 

It is unlikely for the proposed development 

in its current form to increase the 

attractiveness of the site. 

Page 6 state that the “no-go” option would 

entail maintaining the status quo.” This is 

what the majority of the residents of 

Struisbaai and the surrounding towns would 

prefer. The people want to keep their 

historic, cultural heritage – one of the few 

cultural fishing harbours left on our coastline 

catering for the indigenous and historic 

fishing population, and as yet unspoilt by 

developers with their upmarket schemes. 

What has happened to the democratic 

process in this country? We thought 

democracy meant that people were given a 

voice in situations such as this! 

The proposed development will destroy the 

tranquil and historic fishing harbour 

The proposed development will spoil the 

atmosphere of the harbour and Struisbaai. 

As a resident of Struisbaai, the proposed 

development would spoil the natural beauty 


The harbour is one of the area's main 

attractions, spoiling the harbour will change 

it forever. 

The proposed development will change the 

whole character of the place and would 

therefore change the type of tourists the 

town wishes to attract. 


















Sections 5.2.5 and 5.2.6 of the FEIR. The 

proposed development proposes to retain the 

tourists currently visiting Struisbaai. 

Sense of 

place 

Sense of 

place 

Sense of 

place 

Sense of 

place 

Sense of 

place 

Sense of 

place 

Sense of 

place 

Sense of 

place 

Sense of 

place 



1.7.61 

1.7.62 

1.7.63 

1.7.64 

1.7.65 

1.7.66 

1.7.67 

1.7.68 

1.7.69 

1.7.70 



(168) 


(144) 


(159) 


(152) 


(152) 

Andrea Theron 

(127) 

Ricardo Reichert 

(125) 

Mariska Brand 

(124) 

Mariana Swart (77) 

The proposed development is totally out of 

character with the harbour environment and 

the sense of place and character of 

Struisbaai and surrounds and under no 

circumstances should it be allowed to 

continue. 

The proposed 16 m high building would 

pave a way for private homeowners to build 

higher and therefore reduce the overall 

aesthetics and feel of Struisbaai whose very 

appeal lies in the fact that it is not 

commercialized such as places like 

Hermanus, Mosselbaai, etc. Furthermore 

allowing this development would also pave 

the way for further exploitation by 

developers. 


a change of the atmosphere of a harbour. 

Struisbaai is the last unspoilt commercial 

harbour in the country. Here traditional 

chukkies are moored without yacht marinas 

and constructions, as proposed in the 

application. 

The harbour is visually pleasing and is 

place where one can relax and enjoy. 

The harbour provides entertainment with 

local content, watch the fishing boats 

coming in with their catch of the day Take a 

walk along the boardwalk through the dunes 

and enjoy the simplicity of life 

The proposed development will change the 

scenery and the whole character of the 

Struisbaai harbour. 

The proposed development is too big, it will 

change the character of the harbour. 

The proposed development is too big, it will 

change the character of the harbour. 

The proposed development at the harbour 

will be absolutely detrimental to the 

character of Struisbaai 








FEIR. There are no marinas proposed. 



Your point is noted. Please refer to Sections 

5.2.4 and 5.2.6 of the FEIR. 









Sense of 

place 

Sense of 

place 

Sense of 

place 

Sense of 

place 

Sense of 

place 

Sense of 

place 

Sense of 

place 

Sense of 

place 

Sense of 

place 

Sense of 

place 



1.7.71 

1.7.72 

1.7.73 

1.7.74 

1.7.75 

1.7.76 

1.7.77 


(167) 



(75) 


(75) 



(80) 

Mr. and Mrs. 



The harbour is peaceful and the nature of 

the sea should be kept as natural as it is, 

there are few places like this Harbour that 

still exists. 

The harbour should be undeveloped; 

everyone loves Struisbaai for its unique, 

undeveloped harbour. 

It is not reasonable to state that the 

development will have a positive impact on 

the harbour, the character of the harbour 

will change completely. 

Struisbaai harbour one of the last 

untouched, uncorrupted working fishing 

harbours, its uniqueness has attracted 

many visitors. It's precious character should 

not be changed. 

I bought a plot in Struisbaai because of the 

simplicity of the harbour and its character. 

The Struisbaai harbour was never intended 

to be a hotel or residential block. It was 

intended to be enjoyed by the local people 

and the visitors of Struisbaai especially the 

fisher-folk who depend on the harbour and 

the existing operations within the harbour 

for their livelihood. If the harbour is to be 

developed in any way at all, it should be 

done in such a way that it improves the 

facilities and services that are there today, 

such development must adhere to the 

current rules and regulations, and that the 

rules are not changed or „bent‟ to line the 

pocket‟s of greedy developers. 

It is unthinkable that the very popular 

gathering place and unique feature of 

Struisbaai will be replaced by a modern 

structure that would effectively restrict the 

view and access to the harbour to residents 

and visitors. 





Certain tourists would appeal more to an up 

market development and thus view the 

proposed development as positive. The 

converse is also true. 





Your point is noted. Regarding impact on 

fisherfolk please refer to Section 1.6.15 of this 




Sense of 

place 

Sense of 

place 

Sense of 

place 

Sense of 

place 

Sense of 

place 

Sense of 

place 

Sense of 

place 



1.7.78 

1.7.79 

1.7.80 

1.7.81 

1.7.82 

1.7.83 

1.7.84 

1.7.85 

1.7.86 








Kriel (70) 

Jacobus Johan 

Odendaal (123) 

Renate Reichert 

(129) 

Gert Groenewald, 

Anna-Marie 

Groenewald, 

Juliana Van der 

Merwe, Anneke 

Groenewald, Gerda 

Groenewald (138, 

138, 183, 184, 185, 

186) 

Should the development on erf 848 

proceed, where will there be a harbour left 

that has the same simplistic relationship 

with the fishermen and doesn‟t harm 

nature? Why develop erf 848 when it will 

only result in the defamation of a much 

loved fishing village. 

The harbour‟s uniqueness will be spoiled. 

I am disappointed that a developer from 

Langezandt, who kept in the back of his 

mind Struisbaai‟s history and character, 

came up with such a proposal. This 

development is the opposite of everything 

that lure visitors to Struisbaai. 

Quality of life: Negative impact on long-term 

aspirations of property owners: the owners 

of nearby properties specifically bought 

here for the peace and quietness of the 

area; not for the possibility of a high density 

residential and business development 

The complete change to Struisbaai 

harbour‟s character and nature brought on 

by this development would be entirely 

unavoidable. 

The existing appealing character of 

Struisbaai‟s harbour, as well as the very 

popular swimming place for families with 

you children, will be changed completely by 

a development of this nature. 

The aesthetic value of the harbour would be 

altered. This is not negotiable. 

It will change the ambience of the harbour 

for everyone. 

We all agree to the following objections. 

Negative impact on the tranquil rural 

atmosphere of the harbour. The proposed 

buildings are more suited for a city and will 

not contribute to the tranquility of the 

countryside. 





Please refer to Sections 5.2.3, 5.2.5 and 5.2.6 














Sense of 

place 

Sense of 

place 

Sense of 

place 

Sense of 

place 

Sense of 

place 

Sense of 

place 

Sense of 

place 

Sense of 

place 

Sense of 

place 



1.7.87 

1.7.88 

1.7.89 

1.7.90 

1.7.91 


Anna-Marie 

Groenewald, 


Merwe, Anneke 



138, 183, 184, 185, 

186) 


Anna-Marie 

Groenewald, 


Merwe, Anneke 



138, 183, 184, 185, 

186) 

A. J. Vlok (139) 



Negative impact of the general architecture 

on Struisbaai‟s character. 

Tourists want to get away from cities to the 

uniqueness of the countryside with its 

unique architecture. This building is better 

suited for the Waterfront in Cape Town or 

any other city in the world. The design did 

not consider Struisbaai‟s architecture. 

The harbour as tourist attraction: We are 

still of the opinion that there should be no 

living and/ or high density developments in 

the harbour area as it is a jewel and unique 

to Struisbaai. Thus, buildings should stay in 

their current undeveloped state. 

The small coastal fishing village of 

Struisbaai is situated at the Southernmost 

tip of the African continent. For most of the 

year it is a tranquil little seaside village. At 

least 60 percent of homeowners are holiday 

residents and outside of season, the town is 

mostly home to local fishermen and retirees. 

The proposed development will irreversibly 

change the nature of the harbour. Currently 

the harbour is a key feature to Struisbaai's 

character and the proposed development 

will significantly impact upon that. 





Your point is noted. However, the landowner 

wishes to turn Erf 848 to account, and the fact 

that the buildings are, you put it “current 

undeveloped state” shows that the property is 

being underutilised. Furthermore, the 

CAMSDF (2009) allows densified 

development within the urban edge and 

therefore the proposed development is in line 

with current (and approved) planning 

strategies for Struisbaai. 



Applicants response: As is the high 

unemployment brought by 60% of homes 

standing empty. 



Sense of 

place 

Sense of 

place 

Sense of 

place 

Sense of 

place 

Sense of 

place 



1.7.92 

1.7.93 

1.7.94 

1.7.95 

1.7.96 

1.7.97 





(26) 


Johan Burger (170) 

The proposed development will have a 

medium, negative, definite impact on the 

character and sense of place of the harbour 

to those who prefer the status quo [p. 132 of 

dEIR.] The design of the proposed 

development attempts to mitigate this 

impact by incorporating architectural 

inspiration from the local fishermen's 

cottages [p.128 of dEIR]. However, the 

height of the proposed development will 

negatively impact upon the character of the 

harbour area and may also set a precedent 

for future developments. In this regard we 

reiterate our clients' objection to the 

excessive height of the proposed 

development which, in their view, would 

negatively impact upon the character of the 

harbour. 

Although the beauty and tourist attractions 

[such as the Agulhas lighthouse and the 

southernmost tip of Africa] of Struisbaai 

upon which the development proponent 

relies cannot be disputed (and it is for this 

reason that there is such extensive 

opposition to the proposed development), it 

is submitted that the proposed development 

is entirely incongruous with Struisbaai's 

existing built environment and, if it 

proceeds, will severely affect the very sense 

of place that gives Struisbaai its identity. 


the loss of a harbour character would 

disappear. 

Shouldn‟t the building‟s design fit in with the 

general architecture of Struisbaai? 

I'm a Struisbaai resident for 18 years and 

proposed building is inappropriate in the 

harbour area 

The environment does not allow for this 

type of development. 



Please refer to Sections 5.2.5 & 5.2.6 of the 




Struisbaai does not have a distinctive 

architecture. Please refer to Section 5.2.5 of 






Sense of 

place 

Sense of 

Place 

Sense of 

Place 

Sense of 

Place 

Sense of 

Place 

Sense of 

place 



1.7.98 

1.7.99 

1.7.100 

1.7.101 

1.7.102 

1.7.103 

1.7.104 

1.7.105 


(52) 




A.S. Lourens & 

other 5 Struisbaai 

Property owners 

(23) 




(23) 

A.S. Lourens (23) 


(64) 

As a resident of Struisbaai, the proposed 

development does not fit with the character 

of Struisbaai harbour. 

The harbour is synonymous with Struisbaai. 

This type of development will destroy its 

character. 

I've lived with my family in Struisbaai near 

the harbour for the past 35 years and have 

been visiting Struisbaai for 42 years. During 

this time I have seen how unplanned and 

not well thought architecture have damaged 

Struisbaai‟s character 

The last characteristic buildings that was 

truly part of the new village, was the old 

hotel that was also demolished for new 

developments. 

The development is completely 

inappropriate when looking at Struisbaai‟s 

character. There is currently no building 

higher than two stories 

Struisbaai is not Cape Town and our photos 

indicate that the status quo should be kept 

or allow limited development as explained in 

our previous correspondence. 

I'm a taxpayer, and owns a house in 

Struisbaai. The development does not fit in 

with Struisbaai‟s development character. 

Nowhere are there buildings higher than 

two storeys. I have already submitted 

numerous complaints. 

The approval of the proposed development 

on Erf 848 Struisbaai cannot be supported. 

Not only will it have a negative impact on 

the town‟s quaint and rural character, but its 

economic sustainability and benefits are 

questionable. Should the development be 

approved, it will smack of a lack of 

responsibility towards the local community 

and it‟s long term negative consequences 

will fall on current and future residents. We 

are therefore of the view that this proposal 

should not be approved. 

Your concern is noted. Refer to Section 5.2.6 



FEIR with regard to character. With regard to 

tranquility, please refer to point 1.7.33 of this 


Your concern is noted. Architecture has been 

considered throughout the EIA and is further 

detailed in Section 5.2.5 and 5.2.6 of the 










Please refer to Annexure P, R &U of the FEIR 

regarding sustainability. 

Sense of 

Place 

Sense of 

Place 

Sense of 

place 

Sense of 

Place 

Sense of 

Place 

Sense of 

Place 

Sense of 

Place 

Sense of 

Place 



1.7.106 

1.7.107 

1.7.108 

1.7.109 

Chris & Ria 

Reynolds (34) 


Leonie De Luz (11) 


(SEA) (48) 

Large future developments are not required 

in Struisbaai but rather Struisbaai must be 

preserved. 

High rise building will negatively affect the 

whole area. 


view of the area 

Page 3 of the Executive Summary, 

statement that the architecture would 

respond to the historic fishermen‟s cottage 

milieu. This must be a joke, since there is 

clearly no similarity whatsoever between the 

architecture of the proposed four-storey 

building and the tiny two-roomed homes of 

the indigenous fishers. 

Please refer to Section 2.8, and 7.4 of the 








alternative sites. 

Stauch Vorster: Some elements, not all, of 

the proposed building are based on the 

esthetics of the fishermans cottage, not the 

physical form. For instance the white washed 

walls, the chimneys and the pitched roofs with 

gable walls. 

Sense of 

Place 

Visual impact 

Visual impact 

Visual/ Sense 

of Place 

1.7.110 

1.7.111 


(49) 


Dorel Van der 







73, 69, 66, 65, 172, 

93, 78) 

The proposed design of a Fishermen‟s 

cottage is not accurate, even in terms of 

scale, materials and proposed styles. It is 

composed of a mix of different styles and 

bears no relation to the proposed 

development. The architectural report then 

contradicts itself, mentions the 

contemporary style with flat roofs and 

there's no consistency in the architectural 

design. There's however a good example 

of a fisherman's cottage style right adjacent 

to the site on the Langezandt Estate. 

This harbour is still the place that is being 

used by children and parents for 

recreational purposes, and everyone loves 

the harbour for its quaint and pretty 

tranquility and is shared by all. If this is not 

a town‟s heritage, what is it then? 




Stauch Vorster: Some elements, not all, of 

the proposed building are based on the 

esthetics of the fishermans cottage, not the 

physical form. For instance the white washed 

walls, the chimneys and the pitched roofs with 

gable walls. 



Visual/ Sense 

of Place 

Sense of 

Place 



1.7.112 

1.7.113 

1.7.114 

1.7.115 


Dorel Van der 







73, 69, 66, 65, 172, 

93, 78) 


Dorel Van der 







73, 69, 66, 65, 172, 

93, 78) 


Dorel Van der 







73, 69, 66, 65, 172, 

93, 78) 


Dorel Van der 







73, 69, 66, 65, 172, 

93, 78) 

Kusweg Oos is a tranquil street, where 

people walk their dogs and children play. It 

is therefore unacceptable for the 

development (illegal) to be undertaken on 

this tranquil area. 

Struisbaai harbour is a quaint untouched 

fishing harbour with a fish processing facility 

that caters for traditional fisherfolk and that 

cannot be taken away. 

The proposed development does not fit with 

the character of Struisbaai harbour area. 

The development of heritage activities is 

rated low, the traditional fisherman is 

endangered as it is, and your development 

will be the last straw. 

Please refer to Section 5.2.2 of the FEIR for 

the traffic assessment. 

Noted. Aspects of the existing activities are 

incorporated into the proposed design. The 

idea is not to disadvantage the fisherfolk, but 

rather to maximize the opportunities for them, 

in the context of the proposed development. 




Sections 1.6.15 and 1.13.26 of this Comment 


Sense of 

place 

Sense of 

place 

Sense of 

place 

Sense of 

Place 



1.7.116 

81, 79, 95, 85, 84, 

90, 160, 162, 164, 

154, 155, 156, 157, 

158, 153, 150, 151, 

116, 102, 103, 101, 

99, 100, 98, 92, 94, 

163, 174, 175, 176, 

177, 178, 33, 179, 

180, 181, 182 

This harbour is one of the few remaining 

unspoilt commercial harbours on our 

coastline, it should not be changed. 



Sense of 

place 

1.7.117 

1.7.118 

1.7.119 


(67) 



Since when does a four storey building in 

any way resemble a fisherman's cottage? 

as stated on proposed design. The 

statement that these fisherman's cottages 

once existed is also incorrect, as they still 

exist in the vicinity and are a trademark of 

the Struisbaai area. Their attractiveness is 

directly linked to their simplicity, 

unobtrusiveness and the manner in which 

they blend into the environment with their 

single storeys, white washed walls and 

thatched roofs. They do not have negative 

visual impacts as the proposed 

development. 

Planning of the proposed building is poor 

and will have a negative effect on 

aesthetics. It would stick out like a sore 

thumb in an area that has been developed 

for many years as a unit. Even a two storey 

building will impact negatively on aesthetics 

– in our opinion this is very clear from the 

photos and plans provided. 

The proposed building would impact 

negatively on the view of existing 

properties. It might be wise to consult 

judicature regarding this issue as the 

Supreme High Court has shown to be 

sensitive about the rights of established 

residents, including rights associated with 

aesthetics. 



Stauch Vorster: Some elements of the 

proposed building are based on the esthetics 

of the fishermans cottage, not the physical 

form. For instance the white washed walls and 

the chimneys and the pitched roofs with gable 

walls 





Design/ 

Visual 

Visual impact 

Visual impact 



1.7.120 

1.7.121 

1.7.122 

1.7.123 

1.7.124 

1.7.125 

1.7.126 



Kotze (19) 


Kotze (19) 


Kotze (19) 


Kotze (19) 


Eric Consani (32) 

The proposed development would have 

negatively visual impact from the land to the 

sea and vice versa, thus would have a high 

negative impact on the area and 

surroundings. No paint or light design will 

be bale to hide or diminish this impact. 

The envisaged restaurants, hotel lounges, 

under cover retail outlets, asphalts or 

cobble stone surfaces will constitute major 

improvements in aesthetics, convenience 

and experience (spirit of place). 

The existing commercial fishing store, 

makeshift harbour restaurant and gravel 

surface on the waterfront have a negative 

visual impact, smelly and dusty. 

Visual impact and impact on the character 

of the harbour are very subjective criteria 

and is bound to be equally convincing for 

those in favour and those against the 

development. 

The residents who have a sea view at 

present and whose view may be affected 

have to complain, however the present 

building on the premises is aesthetically so 

unsightly and any new structure will be an 

improvement and beneficial to property 

value. The fact that the new structure will 

obstruct some part of the view of the ocean 

should be accepted as all residents must 

accept the right of any neighbour to affect 

view by legal construction, whether it be 

new buildings or alterations. 

The development would have very large 

detrimental impact on the visual aspect of 

the area and my feeling is that the position 

of the planned building is very awkward. 

I'm a tourist and a frequent visitor of 

Struisbaai and I think that the proposed 

development is too large and it will 

overshadow the current surroundings. 



Your suggestions are noted. Please refer to 


Your concern is noted. The proposed 

development would improve on these. 

Your point is noted. This point is further 

detailed in the impacts table in the FEIR 

(Section 6.1.4, Table 6.4). 







Visual impact 

Visual impact 

Visual impact 

Visual impact 

Visual impact 

Visual impact 

Visual impact 



1.7.127 

1.7.128 

1.7.129 

1.7.130 

1.7.131 

1.7.132 

1.7.133 

1.7.134 

1.7.135 

Etienne Jay Van 

Wyk (33) 

Johan Van der 



(49) 


(SEA) (48) 


(63) 

Ian W. Hurst (54) 


(52) 


(58) 


(21) 

The location of the proposed development 

will have very negative visual impacts on 

the aesthetic beauty of this authentic small 

town harbour, of which very few still remain 

in South Africa. 

Concerned about the visual impact of the 

proposed development on the harbour 

The report states that there's no significant 

visual impact for the development which 

could be argued as untrue. The 

architectural pictures clearly show how the 

building stands out from the surrounding 

environment 

Page 7 (Needs and Desirability) it is stated 

that the visual impact remains one of the 

most challenging aspects and we agree that 

this four-storey proposed development will 

be visually unattractive and will spoil the 

atmosphere of this little fishing harbour 

forever. 

The proposed development will create an 

unsightly oversized building in the area. 

The proposed development should not be 

higher than 6m (2 stories) so as to minimize 

the visual impact. 

The proposed development is too huge, to 

high and will take away our sea view. 

Aesthetically this development will spoil the 

visual character; the attraction to the area is 

specifically because the Struisbaai harbour 

is unspoilt by modern development. This 

quaintness is the attraction and draws 

visitors to the area. 

The proposed development on Erf 848 is in 

front of all the properties of Struisbaai. It is 

the most prominent site on the whole 

Struisbaai coast and the DEIR suggests 

that the negative visual impact can be 

mitigated or negotiated away! Why have 

any regulations? 






FEIR. The visual impact assessment 

concluded that the visual impact is High 

Negative or High Positive (please refer to 

section 6.1.4 of the FEIR. 





Your point is noted, however this option was 

assessed to be financially unviable. Please 








Visual impact 

Visual impact 

Visual impact 

Visual impact 

Visual impact 

Visual impact 

Visual impact 

Visual impact 

Visual impact 



1.7.136 

1.7.137 

1.7.138 

1.7.139 

1.7.140 

1.7.141 

1.7.142 

1.7.143 

1.7.144 

1.7.145 



(168) 

Anina Theron (133) 


(152) 



Anelda Van Zyl 

(128) 

Michelle L Loubser 

(126) 



(137) 

The pictures indicating visual impact are 

misleading and the proposed height of the 

development will be visible from as far away 

as Arniston 

The four storey building would have a major 

negative impact on the area. Not only does 

the proposed development not contribute to 

the harbour character, it also looks out of 

place due to its size and architecture 

The proposed development is too huge, it 

will change the scenery of Struisbaai 

The planned development is not 

aesthetically pleasing and would be more at 

home on the Natal coast. The visual impact 

is overbearing and out of character with the 

Struisbaai coastline 

Property owners view of the harbour and 

surroundings will be totally restricted. 

I've also recommended that visual effect 

mitigation measures be implemented on 

50% of the poles to see the effect if any. 


view of the surrounding properties as well 

would have a negative visual impact on the 

whole harbour area 


negative visual impact on the surrounding 

area and will spoil the view of the properties 

behind it. 

The proposed development would have 

negative visual impact on the quaint and 

picturesque harbour 

The proposed development is always 

shown as a basement plus 4 storeys, why 

is it then compared to 3 stories buildings 

when they clearly consist of a basement 

and two storeys , this should be corrected 

The visual impact was undertaken by a visual 

specialist. Please refer to Sections 5.2.5 and 


The VIA specialist has endorsed these 

pictures as a reasonable depiction of the 

proposed development and thus deems them 

to be accurate enough to use for the VIA. 









Your point is noted. We assume you mean the 

street lights. 







In the examples provided of other houses 

showing three levels, the basement is visible 

above ground and thus constitutes three 

visible levels, which can then be compared to 

the four visible levels of the proposed 

development i.e. the visual impression when 

standing in front of the buildings. 

Visual impact 

Visual impact 

Visual impact 

Visual impact 

Visual impact 

Visual impact 

Visual impact 

Visual impact 

Visual impact 

Visual impact 



1.7.146 

1.7.147 

1.7.148 

1.7.149 


(80) 



(137) 


(137) 

Two cases used to attempt to justify this 

situation where these regulations have not 

been followed, are irrelevant, as the 

buildings are either on sloping ground, or 

are situated against a mountain, and in any 

event, do not interfere with any of the 

surrounding neighbor‟s views. If indeed 

these 2 cases were found to be 

circumventing of the existing regulations, 

then they should be dealt with by the 

authorities outside of this process, and do 

not set precedent for future building 

regulations. 

It is noteworthy that the development 

proponent has sought to include examples 

of the exceptions to the two storey limit 

which already exist in Struisbaai. Those 

exceptions are however, not three storeys 

as indicated. They represent two to two 

and half storey developments, the 

basement of which is excavated. The 

height of these buildings, including the 

Agulhas Guest House, does not exceed 8,5 

m compared with the 16 m height for the 

proposed development. Moreover, the 

setting of these alleged exceptions is also 

against the slope and not within the public 

harbour precinct. In our view these 

comparisons are inappropriate and 

disingenuous. 

The comparison between the heights and 

the depicting of the proposed development 

are definitely not true to scales the 7,5 m 

lamppost at the entrance of the harbour is 

not halfway up your 16m building. The 

middle image on page 131 shows a normal 

house in the forefront to be of almost equal 

size of the proposed development 

The no go option (images on pages 117 to 

120) should be placed alongside each other 

view to enable a more informed opinion and 

for better comparisons and because of the 

abovementioned, many I&APs do not trust, 

and questions the objectivity of this EIA. 



A new CAM SDF dated 2009 has been 

passed in terms of the Municipal System Act 

and no longer makes reference to a two story 

height limitation. 

Stauch Vorster: If looking at the buildings as 

regards to visual impact from street level, 

these buildings are perceived as 3 storey 

buildings as you cannot interpret a full height 

garage door plus structure above as anything 

less than a storey. 

The lamppost you are referring to is in fact 

9.2m above ngl and therefore the scale of the 

proposed development has been determined 

by the architects as acceptable (assuming a 

reasonable degree of standard deviation). 



Your point is noted. We have accommodated 

your request. Please refer to section 2.4 of the 


Visual 

Visual 

Visual impact 

Visual impact 



1.7.150 

1.7.151 

1.7.152 

1.7.153 

1.7.154 

1.7.155 

1.7.156 

1.7.157 

1.7.158 

1.7.159 


(137) 


(137) 


(137) 


(75) 


Grange (86) 


Pienaar (163) 


(80) 


(80) 



(172) 

Mitigation measures such as downward 

facing, low wattage light and matt paint can 

be implemented on half of the structure to 

test their effectiveness. This will then be 

viewed positively and would help to remove 

allegations of hidden agendas and clear up 

animosities between opposing sides. 

How can the high negative visual impact be 

omitted in your conclusions? Visual impacts 

both negative and positive are the highest 

rated issues. 

Please list the numbers of those who prefer 

the no-go option to those who prefer the 

development. The visual impact is 

irreversible therefore needs to be 

addressed very carefully 

A 4 storey building of 16metres in height 

would have a huge negative impact on the 

area in terms height restriction, change of 

land use and would negatively influence the 

character of the area. 

A four storey building will spoil the character 

of this harbour. 

The proposed development would result on 

the loss of the sea view 

The proposed development will restrict the 

view of all people living in the surrounding 

area. 

To state that the proposed development is 

an „eye sore‟ would be an understatement. 

There is no amount of architectural finesse 

that could do a building of the proposed size 

any justice. 

The proposed building will have very 

negative visual impacts to residents of 

Kusweg. 

Visual impact of the proposed development 

is a concern 

It is recognised that these mitigation 

measures will not be nearly as effective as 

reducing the height of the proposed 

development to two storeys. but reducing the 

height is not a viable option as the proponent 

would not consider building such a 

development as viable. Please refer to 

Section 2.4.6 and Annexure R of the FEIR. 

Please refer to Section 6.1.1 and Table 6.4 of 


The quantum of negative responses received 

are viewed as an indicator, however 

experience has shown that I&APs who view 

the impact(s) of a proposed activity as positive 

generally do not submit comment, therefore 

the production of numbers in this regard is 

viewed as a ineffective process. 


5.2.5 and 5.2.6 of the FEIR. The competent 

authority and the municipality would need to 

consider the height restriction in the Spatial 

Development Framework when making a 

decision. 













Visual impact 

Visual impact 

Visual impact 

Visual impact 

Visual impact 

Visual impact 

Visual impact 

Visual impact 

Visual impact 

Visual impact 



1.7.160 

1.7.161 

1.7.162 

1.7.163 



(134) 


(145) 


Quality of life: Questionable aesthetic value 

of the proposed buildings and view of the 

landscape (not the same as visual impact). 

The proposed buildings would take away 

my view. 

Houses close to the development will loose 

their view. 

The proposed building will have negative 

visual impact. 

Importantly, the development proponent 

refused to consider a two storey alternative 

as it is allegedly not financially sustainable 

[p. 48 of dEIR]. The development 

proponent therefore proposes a mix of two 

to four storey buildings notwithstanding the 

SDF two storey limit for buildings within the 

secondary business node. In fact, the 

development proponent seeks to justify this 

proposed contravention by pointing out 

other contraventions within Struisbaai. This 

proposal also ignores the Western Cape's 

DEADP. suggestion in this regard as well 

as the interested and affected parties' 

comments receiving during the Scoping 

Phase which revealed that there would be 

less public resistance to a two storey 

development [p.48 of dEIR]. 







This point was raised at the public meeting 

that took place on the 31 October 2009 and 

as a consequence an independent review of 

the Feasibility Statement compiled by the 

proponent was undertaken. Turner & 

Townsend were appointed to assess the 

financial viability and this can be read in detail 

in Section 2.4.6 and Annexure P of the FEIR. 

Visual impact 

Visual impact 

Visual impact 

Visual impact 



1.7.164 

1.7.165 

1.7.166 




It is our clients' submission that multi storey 

buildings are inappropriate for Struisbaai 

and in particular a multi storey building on 

the site would be inappropriate within the 

existing landscape. The harbour and its 

surrounds have frequently been used as 

photographic subjects by photographers, 

both professional and others, and are 

frequently found in “coffee table” type 

books. The proposed development would 

eliminate the existing, picturesque 

landscape. In addition, it will destroy the 

charm and ambiance which is presently 

found in this area. This loss will be 

irreversible. The visual impact of the 

development has been rated as having a 

high, negative, probable impact for those 

who prefer the status quo [p. 124 of dEIR]. 

Four of the five vantage points illustrated in 

the figures attached to the draft EIR make it 

clear that the development is highly visible 

and represents an intrusion in the existing 

landscape [p. 117-119 of dEIR]. 

It is our clients' view that if a height 

restriction is imposed as an essential 

mitigation measure, the visual impact on the 

harbour area for those who prefer the status 

quo will be vastly reduced. 





Your point is noted, however it is viewed by 

the proponent as an unviable option for the 

reasons set out in the FEIR. Please refer to 


Visual impact 

Visual impact 

Visual impact 



1.7.167 

1.7.168 

1.7.169 


(49) 


Dorel Van der 







73, 69, 66, 65, 172, 

93, 78) 


Dorel Van der 







73, 69, 66, 65, 172, 

93, 78) 

The architectural report also uses other 

existing buildings to illustrate the possible 

visual impact, however these have been 

taken out of context. An example is the 

development of Hoof Weg Erf 673, which is 

located against the mountain thus allowing 

it to blend more easily into the surrounding 

environment, it is also not located on the 

water front and therefore using it for a 

positive argument against negative visual 

impacts is misleading. The existing 

character of sea front properties along the 

Struisbaai and Agulhas coastline are not 

more than 2/3 stories and many of the 

examples given in the document are not on 

the coastline. 

The proponent further has provided pictures 

that in his view are more than 2 storeys and 

are legal, i.e. garages that were excavated, 

with the first storey starts 1,2m above 

ground level, and with the whole building 

not transgressing 8m from the ground. 

Golden Falls then justify their proposed 16m 

and all this inaccurate information is 

included in the report. This is not 

acceptable. The pictures that I have 

provided show the real image and they 

must be included in the report. 

Referring to Page 116(b) of the Visual 

Impact Assessment, the proposed project is 

in breach of 5 points namely high intensity, 

change in land use, a significant change to 

the fabric and character of the area, a 

significant change in townscape and 

streetscape and a possible vision intrusion 

in the landscape. 

The comparative assessment undertaken by 

the architect and reviewed by the visual 

specialist was aimed at stating that certain 

buildings with Struisbaai and its surrounds 

exceed 2 storeys based on the natural ground 

level i.e. road level. Please refer to Sections 

5.2.5 and Annexure O of the FEIR. 



height comparison. 

Stauch Vorster utilised these pictures for 

comparative purposes only, as calculated 

from the road level. 



Visual impact 

Visual 

Visual 



1.7.170 

1.7.171 


Dorel Van der 







73, 69, 66, 65, 172, 

93, 78) 


Dorel Van der 







73, 69, 66, 65, 172, 

93, 78) 

The proposed development will block our 

sea view. 

It is unacceptable to state that the use of 

matt paint (P132 c of EIR) and downward 

directed outdoor lights will mitigate the 

impact of a special character and a sense of 

place. In some places there is a suggestion 

reverence that the development might even 

have a positive impact. With the five points 

above in mind, this statement is beyond 

absurd. 





Visual impact 

Visual 

1.8 Pollution of the 

Environment 

1.8.1 

1.8.2 

1.8.3 

1.8.4 

1.8.5 


Paul Buys (51) 


(63) 


A. J. Vlok (139) 


major pollution due to large number of 

people staying there. 

There is likely to be a danger of 

overcrowding in that part of town for the 

proposed development during holidays and 

could cause pollution. 

The proposed development will damage the 

environment 

This type of development will contribute to 

pollution and noise. Except for during 

construction, how would the proposed 

development contribute to noise? 

The suggestions w.r.t. to the impact of noise 

on residents is inappropriate. 

Please explain what pollution you are referring 

to. Please refer to Section 5.2.1 of the FEIR 

which deals with solid waste and sewage. 

Your point is noted, however the proposed 

development has taken measures to ensure 

all reasonable steps are factored into the 

design to ensure pollution is controlled. 

Please refer to Annexure Q of the FEIR. 

No reference was provided to the damage 

concern raised; however reference to Section 

7.5 of the FEIR applies. 

With regard to tranquility, please refer to point 


Report. With regard to Pollution, please refer 

to Section 5.2.1.of the FEIR. 



Environment 

effect 

Environment 

effect 

Environment 

effect 

Pollution 

Pollution 



1.9 Impact of Climate 

Change and natural 

forces on 

development 

1.9.1 

1.9.2 

1.9.3 

1.9.4 

Carel Van der 

Merwe (20) 


(SEA) (48) 

Neville Van der 



The EIA Report needs to consider the 

problems that the proposed development 

next to Nostras Restaurant has identified 

with the water table for the proposed 

basement parking area below ground level. 

It is highly likely that similar conditions exist 

and that it may not be possible to have 

parking below the development. If this is the 

case, then the impact will be definite high 

negative red with respect to the water table. 

Page 11: “… design the basement level 

adequately to keep water out should the 

water table rise.” Is it possible it is to 

“mitigate” the effects of rising sea levels and 

water tables. This must be yet another 

joke! 

Pumps in the basement will not be able to 

cope with a surge of seawater down the 

ramps into the basement. 

It is not clear whether the specified 

mitigation measures which refer to a water 

extraction system [p. 142 of dEIR] include 

the measures recommended by the 

geologist. In addition, given the potential for 

flooding in the basement, it is not clear why 

the optional measures were not also 

included as essential mitigation measures, 

particularly the implementation of an 

appropriate drainage at the basement exit 

[p. 142 of dEIR] Clarification on these 

issues is requested. 

Please refer to Section 5.2.1, 5.2.8 and 

Annexures L & I of the FEIR. 

Basements can be and frequently are 

engineered to keep water from entering 

through the walls. Please refer to Section 



regarding the probability and severity of such 

a surge. 

The water extraction system would be 

adequately designed to ensure safety for the 

proposed development as well as its 

occupants. The Geotechnical assessment did 

not make any recommendations in this 

regard. Please refer to Section 5.2.8 of FEIR. 

Water Table 

Rise in Sea 

Level 

Water Table 

Water Table 



1.9.5 

1.9.6 

1.9.7 


Chris & Ria 

Reynolds (34) 


(SEA) (48) 

A geologist has recommended that the 

basement be designed above the water 

table and that a pump be installed to 

remove any overflow that may occur as a 

result of a rise in the water table. We are 

advised that the proposed development is 

above the current water table [p. 141 of 

dEIR]. 

The jetty is proof of the actual impact 

human development has had on the 

harbour and by lengthening the jetty, the 

sea level and natural sand movement on 

the ocean floor has been disturbed on a 

massive scale. As a result, the swimming 

beach in front of the Nostra and Bella Luna 

was destroyed – with the rising sea levels – 

this has caused great concern among 

business owners with property that is 

located at sea level. 

Page 11: The report mentions building a 

wall to keep the sea out and devising 

emergency evacuation plans during 

significant storm surges. A storm surge two 

years ago already flooded the proposed 

building site (see accompanying image/s). 

Who would be paying for all these 

measures to be put into place and 

exercised when the sea comes in to claim 

its new high-water mark? The Cape 

Agulhas Municipal ratepayers? We have 

already baled out Nostra - just imagine the 

cost to ratepayers when the seas flood out 

the entire Langezandt Quays? 

According to Stauch Vorster the current 

proposed design would in all likelihood not be 

impacted by the watertable, however a risk 

does apply and therefore appropriate 

engineering initiatives need to be considered. 

Please refer to Section 5.2.8 and Annexure L 




The proponent would be responsible for 

building the re-curve wall around the 

development on the seaward side of the 

development and other site specific mitigation 

measures. Maintenance of harbour 

infrastructure in the event of climate change 

impacts however would be the responsibility 

of government. 

Environment 

effect 

Rise in Sea 

Level 

Rise in Sea 

Level 



1.9.8 

1.9.9 

1.9.10 

1.9.11 


(64) 



Evan Meirion 

Williams (31) 

The EIA notes that the proposed 

development takes into account rising sea 

levels in that a wall will be built around the 

development to reduce the effect of waves. 

The effect of the sea cannot be forecast, 

and this is evident with the Nostra 

development on the main beach. What was 

supposed to be a huge economic injection 

to Struisbaai, has now become an eyesore, 

with pollution from the sandbags used to 

keep the sea back being a major 

contributing factor. It is very difficult to say 

how the sea and coastline in the vicinity of 

Erf 848 will change in the next 100 years. In 

only the last 20 years, a new beach was 

formed next to the harbour wall, where sea 

water was prevalent until the harbour wall 

was constructed in 1989. One of the 

measures mooted to prevent the loss of the 

beach at Nostra is to remove the harbour 

wall (even if only temporarily), so that the 

sand build-up adjacent to it can be 

deposited on the main beach area. How will 

this impact on the development of Erf 848? 

It does not consider climate change (I‟ve 

lived for three years in L‟Aghulas and the 

changes that have taken place to the 

shoreline is concerning). Struisbaai will 

have a second Nostra should this 

development continue, 

The Nostra restaurant is another good 

example of a building that was allowed 

without considering the impacts on the 

environment and character of Struisbaai 

The draft EIA is as much of a farce. 

Anyone doubting this should to look at the 

development of “Nostra” and the pathetic 

design of electrical, water and sewage 

systems. To say nothing of the recent 

flooding of the exact area where the 

proposed development is supposed to be 

built, with underground parking no less. 

Your point is noted. The harbour wall 

provides protection to Erf 848 and the harbour 

facilities such as the MCM offices and 

mooring for the chakkies. If the harbour wall 

is removed, these facilities will all be at a 

substantially greater risk. This does not 

appear to be a realistic proposal as the cost 

would be exorbitant and the resultant impacts 

on the harbour and fishing difficult to mitigate. 


The EIA process has been undertaken to 

allow the impacts to be debated and 

considered in relevant decisions. Please refer 

to Sections 5.2.5, 5.2.6 and 5.2.7 of the FEIR. 

It is understood that the Nostra development 

has its challenges, however please refer to 

the FEIR for the assessment of the 

Langezandt Quays Development. 

Rise in Sea 

Level 

Rise in Sea 

Level 

Rise in Sea 

Level 

Rise in Sea 

Level 



1.9.12 

1.9.13 

1.9.14 

1.9.15 


(SEA) (48) 


(28) 


(64) 


Page 2 of the DEIR Executive Summary, It 

is quite incorrect to state that the buildings 

are approximately 9m above mean sea 

level (amsl.), which equates to +5m above 

natural ground level (ngl.).” Two years ago 

the day before the first public meeting for 

the proposed development was held in the 

Dutch Reformed Church in Struisbaai on 27 

September 2007, the sea flooded the car 

park at the Struisbaai Harbour including the 

exact position of the proposed 

development. Since climate change with its 

dramatic rise of sea levels is now a reality, it 

is unreasonable to even consider building 

any type of structure below the high-water 

mark. 

I'm a resident and also involved in deep sea 

fishing and concerned about noise in 

harbour during the fishing activities 

The proposed development is likely to result 

in a breakdown in relations between the 

property owners in the development and the 

fishing community because of the 

substantial noise due to fishing activities at 

night. Taking into consideration the profile 

of different groups, it has a potential to 

escalate into a bitter racial tension that will 

not bode well for the wider community and 

area. That might eventually lead to the 

closing down of the proposed hotel. 

Any development other than something 

directly related to the function of the harbour 

itself will set a precedent for development of 

land on the coastal side of Kusweg for 

alternative purposes - this has significant 

impact in terms of maintenance of coastal 

vegetation, coast erosion (a significant 

problem in Struisbaai by the way) and the 

existing residents' enjoyment of this 

pristine stretch of coast in general. 

Your concern is noted however mean sea 

level is an average of the sea level and 

includes the full range not just the height 

during storm surges. The statement in the 

Executive summary is therefore correct. 






With regard to setting a precedent please 

refer to section 5.2.6 of the FEIR. With regard 

to environmental effect, please refer to 


Rise in Sea 

Level 

Noise 

Noise 

Environment 

effect 



1.9.16 

1.9.17 

1.9.18 

1.9.19 

1.9.20 

1.9.21 

1.9.22 



Evan Meirion 

Williams (31) 


(SEA) (48) 


(137) 


(64) 


(64) 

Rather develop someplace else where it will 

not cause so much damage. 

Struisbaai‟s harbour and coastline do not 

need any more disturbances. The 

swimming beach has already been washed 

away due to developments directly on the 

coast. 

Sea level and global warming is a concern 

How is it possible that a development of this 

size is attempting to overcome the 

restriction from building within 100m from 

the high-water mark? 

Although the proposed new legislation of 

Coastal Management Act is not enforced 

yet, and with global warming taking place, I 

cannot see how can you rate rising of sea 

levels as a low negative impact 

Sea levels is a further concern. The City of 

Cape Town has adopted a policy where no 

development will be allowed between the 

coast and Baden Powell Drive, near 

Muizenberg, for fear of the effect of rising 

sea levels, however here in Struisbaai a 

development is planned within 5m of the 

water table. 

What would happen to the proposed 

development during the event of a natural 

disaster? 

In terms of environmental damage the 

outcome of this EIA is that the proposed 

development would not cause significant 

biophysical environmental damage. Please 

refer to Section 7.5 of the FEIR. 

Please refer to Section 5.2.8 of the FEIR. Erf 

848 is on the hardened inland area and does 

not have a marine or coastal component and 

therefore no marine disturbance is 

anticipated. 

Agreed which is why a specialist comment 

was included in the reporting. Please refer to 


Development within 100 m of the high water 

mark is what triggered the assessment 

amongst other triggers, hence the 

requirement to undertake an EIA. 

Please refer to the revised Section 1.3.5 of 

the FEIR with regard to Integrated Coastal 

Management Act (ICMA). The ICMA was 

enacted on 1 December 2009 and thus now 

applies. It is rated low more because of its 

localised impact with regard to the 

development. Please refer to Section 4.2 of 

the FEIR which details the assessment 

methodology utilized. Section 5.2.8 of the 

FEIR explains how this assessment was 

concluded as the services of WSP 

Environmental was used to determine the 

potential impact of sea level rise. 

Your point is noted. There is a degree of risk 

attached to this development, however the 

potential environmental impacts have been 

assessed as being acceptable. 

The proposed development like all other 

development will be at risk. Please refer to 


Environment 

effect 

Environment 

effect 

Rise in Sea 

Level 

Rise in Sea 

Level 

Rise in Sea 

Level 

Rise in Sea 

Level 

Rise in Sea 

Level 



1.9.23 

1.9.24 

1.9.25 

Johan Burger (170) 


Anna-Marie 

Groenewald, 


Merwe, Anneke 



138, 183, 184, 185, 

186) 


The sea is reclaiming the beach (high water 

mark). The water level of the waterfront will 

be influenced. 

Environmentally unfriendly – lower than the 

high water mark and should thus not be 

developed. 


situated within 100m of the high water mark. 

It is noted that the predicted sea level rise 

values, which cannot be accurately 

predicted, need to be fully considered 

during the design phase of the proposed 

development [p. 140 of dEIR]. There is the 

possibility of sea water flooding the 

basement and ground floor if the sea level 

rises beyond that predicted by WSP Africa 

Coastal Engineers which would, among 

other things, raise significant safety 

concerns [p. 141 of dEIR]. It is 

unacceptable that the development 

proponent attempts to transfer this 

enormous responsibility to MCM and Cape 

Agulhas Municipality rather than 

undertaking to implement necessary 

mitigation measures itself, such as the 

construction of a "re-curve wall."[p. 141 of 

dEIR]. 





Agreed. The proponent would be responsible 

for building the re-curve wall. The proponent 

has applied for Activity 2 of GNR 386 viz. 

Construction within 100m of the HWM (g) 

infrastructure. The CAM and MCM would 

however have a role to play in maintaining the 

functionality of the actual harbour 

infrastructure. Please refer to Section 5.2.8 of 


Rise in Sea 

Level 

Rise in Sea 

Level 

Rise in Sea 

Level 



1.9.26 


It is clear that the potential risks involved in 

a rise in sea level will be far more severe 

with respect to the proposed development 

in comparison with the existing three single 

storey buildings currently on the site. It is for 

this reason that our clients are of the view 

that the onus to implement the necessary 

infrastructure lies with the development 

proponent. It is not clear whether the 

development proponent intends that the 

essential mitigation measures specified be 

undertaken by MCM and the Cape Agulhas 

Municipality. We seek clarification on this 

point. 

The essential mitigation measures would be 

implemented by the proponent in most cases, 

subject to Annexure T of the FEIR. A copy of 

a letter from the proponent committing to 

essential mitigation measures. The 

Environmental Authorisation decision may 

have further requirements to which the 

proponent must adhere should the proposed 

development be approved. 

Rise in Sea 

Level 

1.10 Impact on fauna, flora 

and natural processes 

1.10.1 

1.10.2 

1.10.3 

1.10.4 

1.10.5 

1.10.6 

Evan Meirion 

Williams (31) 

Amaria Erasmus 

(107) 


(16) 


Chris & Ria 

Reynolds (34) 

Chris & Ria 

Reynolds (34) 

The proposed development will result into a 

destruction of dunes and the coast with the 

backdrop of the Bredasdorp and the 

Riviersonderend mountains is all the skyline 

the people want, not an unsightly, not well 

planned development as it is proposed. 

The main beach has already been disturbed 

due to changes to the dune system. People 

cannot walk, etc. along the beach during 

high tide. 

The proposed development would disturb 

the functioning of the coastal environment. 

The impact that the building would have on 

wind patterns on the area is also not clear. 

If one look at the aerial photo in the 

document, the impact the small harbour wall 

had on the neighbouring bay is very clear. 

Our main concern is the destruction of 

existing marine ecological systems in 

Struisbaai. 

History has shown that it is human nature to 

destroy the environment – in other words, 

more people would deplete Struisbaai‟s 

natural resources and ecology much 

quicker 

The development is to take place within the 

boundaries of Erf 848 and if construction and 

patrons are properly managed should not 

impact on the surrounding vegetation. Please 

refer to Annexure Q of the FEIR with regard to 

construction phase mitigation measures. 

Your concern is noted. This due to the 

harbour wall not the proposed development. A 

dune impact assessment was undertaken and 

can be viewed in Section 5.2.7 of the FEIR. 



Please refer to Section 5.2.7 of the FEIR. No 

marine ecology is envisaged to be impacted. 



Dune 

processes 

Dune 

processes 

Fauna and 

flora 

Fauna and 

flora 

Fauna and 

flora 

Fauna and 

flora 



1.10.7 

1.10.8 

1.10.9 

1.10.10 

Chris & Ria 

Reynolds (34) 




Currently all findings of specialist are on 

paper and these findings are only based on 

human knowledge and NOT on the 

environmental impacts of a development of 

this nature 

What will become of the stingrays under 

these circumstances? 


the disappearance of the stingrays! 

The golf course already destroyed a lot of 

fauna and flora – not even mentioning costs 

such as water usage to maintain the 

development. To my opinion progress is a 

hoax. The most valuable heritage we have 

to give to future generations is the natural 

environment. 

Please refer to Section 4.2, 5.2.7 and Section 


No impact to marine ecology and marine life is 

envisaged as a consequence of the proposed 

development. 

No impact to marine life is envisaged for the 




Fauna and 

flora 

Fauna and 

flora 

Fauna and 

Flora 

Fauna and 

flora 

1.11 Impact on view and 

property value 

1.11.1 

1.11.2 

1.11.3 

1.11.4 


(1) 



Evan Meirion 

Williams (31) 

The value of houses has already 

decreased. 

Property value in the immediate area of the 

proposed development would fall 

dramatically and most likely result in further 

rezoning applications for businesses. 

The municipality will be held accountable for 

any approvals in terms of the Land Use 

Planning Ordinance and the possible 

negative impact it could have on the value 

of private owned property/ guest houses. 

I'm concerned about investment in property 

which is directly related to angling and 

boating interest 


Annexure H: Economic Assessment. The 

current decrease in property value cannot be 

attributed to the proposed development as 

there has been an international slump in the 

property market. 

. Please refer to Section 5.2.6 of the FEIR and 

Annexure H: Economic Assessment. 

Noted. A LUPO process will need to be 

followed for the proposed development. 



Property 

values 

Property 

values 

Property 

values 

Property 

values 



1.11.5 

1.11.6 

1.11.7 

1.11.8 

1.11.9 

1.11.10 

1.11.11 

1.11.12 

Mike P Loubser (45) 


(52) 

Evan Meirion 

Williams (31) 


(168) 




Pienaar (163) 


As the owner of Erf 572 that form part of the 

proposed parking area, I would appreciate 

your guarantee that I would be involved in 

any development from the start. This would 

provide protection against possible 

reduction of my property‟s value. I would 

appreciate if you can provide me with the 

written confirmation with regard to this. 

The proposed development might have a 

negative influence on the value of our 

property 


negative impact on both holiday and 

residential homes which have been 

invested in by those respecting the 

municipal bylaws and building restrictions 

as they stand. 

A 16m high building will result in a loss of a 

sea view by homeowners who invested 

substantially in their respective properties 

and their property value would be lowered. 

The proposed development would result to 

a decrease to the value of surrounding 

properties 

What guarantee does the developer put 

forward so that the value of the surrounding 

plots will not be adversely affected? 

The proposed development would result on 

the loss of property values behind this 

building. 

2. The parking area is surrounded by 

residential property with a high market 

value. My house is 36 years old and the 

building on erf 650 is even older. The 

construction of a business facility or 

restaurants will cause a decrease in the 

market value of my property as well as erf 

648 and other surrounding properties. 

Applicants response: We undertake to 

consult with you at the start of the 

development should it be approved. 















Property 

values 

Property 

values 

Property 

values 

Property 

values 

Property 

values 

Property 

values 

Property 

values 

Property 

value 



1.11.13 

1.11.14 

1.11.15 




Dorel Van der 







73, 69, 66, 65, 172, 

93, 78) 

Secondly, a concise summary of my most 

important objections. My permanent home 

is located approximately 150 m away from 

erf 848. Therefore, the proposed 

development would have a continuing 

negative impact on my residency, as well as 

the following two important aspects: quality 

of life and property value. 

Property in a good location with a view of 

the ocean/ harbour would instantly be 

negatively impacted. Construction of a high 

density development would result in the 

deterioration and fall of surrounding 

property values. Most of the surrounding 

properties are part of testaments and will be 

negatively impacted by the developer‟s 

avarice. The preservation and improvement 

of cultural historic attractions increase the 

value of surrounding properties, whereas 

the destruction of cultural historic focal 

points reduces property value. 


negative impact on the value of our 

property. 


FEIR regarding impact on quality of life. 

Please refer to Annexure H: Economic 

Assessment. 


FEIR regarding impact on quality of life. 

Please refer to Annexure H: Economic 

Assessment. 



Property 

values 

Property 

values 

Property 

values 

1.12 Cumulative impact 

1.12.1 

Jacobus J.D. 

Havenga (12) 

You provide no written guarantees how 

mitigation measures will be complied with. 

The summary sounds very good, but there 

are no written agreements that can be used 

in legal processes should mitigation 

measures not be complied with. 

Please refer to Annexure T of the FEIR for a 

letter from the proponent as to what they 

commit to implementing. Secondly the 

proponent would have to comply with the 

mitigation measures legally stipulated in the 

Environmental Authorisation decision should 

the development be approved and built. 

Cumulative 

impact 



1.12.2 

1.12.3 

1.12.4 

1.12.5 

1.12.6 

1.12.7 

Carel Van der 

Merwe (20) 

Carel Van der 

Merwe (20) 



(49) 




The costs of establishing the effective and 

efficient access road to erf 848 or 921 are 

not addressed in the DEIR. Such costs 

should be exclusively for the developers as 

they will be the beneficiary of this access 

road, it would be unfair to impose any costs 

on the residents through increased rates as 

not all of us are in favour of this 

development. 

Costs for the facilities for buses to drop off 

tourists should similarly be exclusively for 

the developer. 

There is no opportunity for further 

development within the existing harbour due 

to its limited size. Should erf 848 be 

developed to accommodate a hotel and 

timeshare units, there will be no space to 

extend the harbour should the need arise. 

The possible negative impact for 

demand/market share of existing retail 

facilities in the study area has not been 

adequately addressed. Currently the area 

is very seasonal which limits the economic 

feasibility of too much retail. Whilst the 

developer has stated that the nature of his 

proposal are to mitigate this, it is not clear 

how a 60 room hotel and 27 apartments 

would create the estimated demand, even if 

100% occupancy is achieved, which is by 

the way debatable, and for which no 

indication of how this could be achieved has 

been provided. 

All along our coastline there are examples 

of damage to properties that encroach onto 

the Coastal Zone. 

Quality of life: Increasing numbers of nonresidents, 

as well as noise and disturbance 

due to high density accommodation 

CAM would be responsible for the 

construction of a formalized parking area with 

associated road and entry/exit points. The 

proponent would however contribute towards 

this infrastructure through a service 

agreement and agreed development levy and 

relevant tariffs that would apply solely to the 




Erf 848 is private land and does not form part 

of the harbour (in a legal context). Erf 848 is 

acknowledged to be within the harbour 

precinct and in the event that harbour 

expansion is required MCM would not be able 

to develop on Erf 848 as it is private land. 

Please refer to Section 2.4.6, Annexure P and 

Annexure U of the FEIR. This information has 

been produced upon request by I&APs during 

the public meeting conducted on the 31 

October 2009. Therefore, this information is 

new and was not originally included in the 

DEIR. 





Cumulative 

impact 

Cumulative 

impact 

Cumulative 

impact 

Cumulative 

impact 

Cumulative 

impact 

Cumulative 

impact 



1.12.8 

1.12.9 

1.12.10 





Anna-Marie 

Groenewald, 


Merwe, Anneke 



138, 183, 184, 185, 

186) 

Even if I was an irregular holidaymaker, I 

would still object to the proposed 

development for many more reasons than 

already mentioned by other parties to 

Aurecon, e.g. the impact on fishing activities 

and Struisbaai‟s continues functioning of a 

fishing harbour, preservation of the harbour 

area as a tourist attraction, the harbour‟s 

authentic character of and associated 

cultural historic importance, etc. 

The true facts are conveniently omitted: i.e. 

that the property is situated on the high 

water mark and will be prone to periodic 

flooding. With climate change causing more 

severe weather patterns, storm surges 

would become a major concern. 

Negative impact with regards to pollution, 

natural sand dune migration, water 

pollution. Existing developments on the 

coast are causing a lot of problems and will 

only get worse. 

With regard to impact on harbour activities 


comments and response report. With regard 

to tourist attraction and character of the areas 

please refer to Section 5.2.3, 5.2.6 and 5.2.7 


The water and sea levels are critical and has 

not been omitted. It was considered so 

important that specialist comment was 

included in the reporting on these issues. 


With regard to impact on the natural 

environment, please refer to Section 5.2.7 of 

the FEIR. With regard to pollution, please 


Cumulative 

impact 

Cumulative 

impact 

Cumulative 

impact 

1.13 Needs and desirability 

1.13.1 

1.13.2 

1.13.3 

1.13.4 

Marthinus Wiese 

(5) 


M.J Edwards (7) 

M.J Edwards (7) 

This area has no potential for more 

businesses. 

The DEIR does not adequately address the 

real economic impact assessment over the 

medium to long term. This development will 

stifle the harbour as a going concern for 

commercial fishing purposes. The impact of 

a dwindling fishing industry over the next 

couple of decades is concerning and not 

addressed at all. 

The proposed development would be an 

asset to Struisbaai 

The proposed development is protecting 

everybody‟s interest. 


The proponent cannot take responsibility for 

the status of the fishing industry. Please refer 


Response Report regarding assisting the 

fisherfolk for the longer term. 





Needs & 

Desirability 

Needs and 

desirability 

Needs & 

Desirability 

Needs & 

Desirability 



1.13.5 

1.13.6 

1.13.7 

1.13.8 

1.13.9 

Mnr Edwards (8) 


Jan Rabie (10) 

Jacobus J.D. 

Havenga (12) 


The proposed development would be an 

asset to Struisbaai. 

The possible negative impact for 

demand/market share of existing retail 

facilities in the study area has not been 

adequately addressed, if at all. The area 

relies on a seasonal trade. For example, 

the well known Pelicans Restaurant closes 

down for a lengthy period in the winter 

months. Whilst the development proponent 

has apparently considered this in its design, 

this does not appear to be the case. This, it 

is submitted, goes directly to the heart of 

the proposed development's sustainability. 

Development in this area has already 

reached capacity, people who are residing 

in this area have various occupational 

backgrounds and have done their part in 

building and maintaining our country. They 

have earned some peace and quietness 

and don‟t want any more developments. 

This type of development is often not about 

the residents‟ needs, but depends on the 

availability of capital from 

developers/investors and the return on their 

investment. 

It is obvious that the proposed development 

is not required, questions have to be asked 

regarding the argument that the 

development is necessary. 



Please refer to Section 5.2.3 and Annexure H: 

Economic Assessment regarding impact on 

markets and Annexures R, T & U of the FEIR 

regarding sustainability. Please refer to 

Annexure O: Proponent‟s Vision which alludes 

to the proponents marketing campaign to 

attract people all year round. 


The potential financial viability of the 

development has been addressed in section 4 

of the economic specialist study to the extent 

deemed appropriate. It is pointed out that the 

financial viability of the overall development or 

of its components is by no means assured as 

there are risks in any business venture. The 

proponent is, however, well aware of these 

and they are not assessed to be 

unmanageable or so great that they could be 

used to justify the scaling back or rejection of 

the development. 


5.2.3 of the FEIR with regard to development 

capacity. 

Your point is noted. It is in this view that 

alternative 6 (the applicants preferred 

alternative) has been added and assessed in 

terms of the the EIA process. 

Your point is noted. With regard to the need 

for the development please refer to Sections 

2.4.2, 2.4.3, 2.8, 7.4 and 7.5 of the FEIR. 

Needs & 

Desirability 

Need & 

desirability 

Needs & 

Desirability 

Needs & 

Desirability 

Needs & 

Desirability 



1.13.10 

1.13.11 

1.13.12 


Kotze (19) 

Carel Van der 

Merwe (20) 




(23) 

The development of Langezandt 

Fisherman's Village faced similar 

objections, however the project turned to be 

a success that Langezandt was regarded as 

one of the Seven Wonders of the South 

according to an article in a local paper. I 

expect that the present development will 

have similar positive results 

If a referendum of ratepayers was held , it 

would give a clear indication by the owners 

of the town whether this development is 

really wanted or not and whether those who 

prefer more upmarket developments are in 

the majority 

Everyone is against the proposed 

development even the fishing community 

who have used the harbour for many years. 

You mentioned there are “those who 

prefer more upmarket developments”. Is 

this possibly the developer? In order to 

prove this claim (you are purposefully 

creating the impression that there are a 

lot more residents who approve the 

development), please provide feedback on 

how many correspondence you have 

received for and against the development. 

According to my knowledge, all the 

fishermen signed a petition against the 

development – do you agree with this or 

have you other information? Please also 

provide feedback on this with evidence. 



The quantum of I&APs opposed to a particular 

development is generally easy to account for, 

however in the case of I&APs that support the 

development, generally they do not register as 

an I&AP or voice their opinion on the matter 

as it is viewed as a benefit and thus do not 

require to support the initiative via formal 

means i.e. submission of a comments and 

response form or other media such as public 

meetings. 

Copies of all comments received are included 

in the EIA documentation for review by the 

authorities. All submissions are transparent to 

the public. The text did not only make 

reference to people in Struisbaai but those 

who may visit such a facility as well. 

Needs & 

Desirability 

Needs & 

Desirability 

Needs & 

Desirability 



1.13.13 

1.13.14 

1.13.15 

1.13.16 

1.13.17 

1.13.18 

1.13.19 

1.13.20 




(23) 


Chris & Ria 

Reynolds (34) 



(SEA) (48) 

Evan Meirion 

Williams (31) 

Evan Meirion 

Williams (31) 


Your claim that there‟s a need for a hotel is 

untrue. The facts are against you. Years 

back the Agulhas Hotel was converted to 

flats and recently the Struisbaai Hotel was 

demolished. How can you claim there is a 

need for a hotel? 

A four storeys building is not required. 

There is more than enough accommodation 

in Struisbaai and Struisbaai is not 

Mosselbaai, Stilbaai or the Strand 

At least two thirds of property owners within 

Struisbaai and L'Agulhas are not permanent 

residence and these individuals have 

invested a large amount of money to 

acquire property in a place of their choice 

A quaint and perfectly good harbour 

restaurant, and a fish handling facility with 

fish market for the benefit of visitors to the 

area and to the fisher folk, already exists, 

the proposed development is not required. 

The proposed development of a hotel in 

Struisbaai is not needed, there can be no 

reason for the development. 

I have great difficulty in the reason 

/rationale for this development 

This development is not really necessary 

and definitely not in the interest of 

all/majority permanent residents of 

Struisbaai (including Struisbaai Noord and 

any other settlements), the seasonal/holiday 

residents and the tourist trade per se. 

The developments that you are referring to 

were hotels, whereas the proposed 

development would be multi-functional with 

the hotel comprising a portion of the total 

development. The proposed development has 

purposefully been designed to cater for times 

when the hotel trade is low by means of retail, 

fractional title units and the option to cater for 

conferences and weddings in the hotel portion 

of the proposed development. Please refer to 

Annexure U of the FEIR which was added in 

response to the potential market being 

questioned. 




The proposed development is targeting a 

different market to what Struisbaai currently 

offers. Please refer to Annexure U of the 












Needs & 

Desirability 

Needs & 

Desirability 

Needs & 

Desirability 

Needs & 

Desirability 

Needs & 

Desirability 

Needs & 

Desirability 

Needs & 

Desirability 




2.4.2 Needs & 

Desirability 



1.13.21 

1.13.22 

1.13.23 

1.13.24 

1.13.25 

1.13.26 

1.13.27 


(144) 

Verlasety A. Meiring 

(136) 

Wayne D. Meiring 

(135) 





The propose development is not in the 

interest of permanent and seasonal 

residents of Struisbaai and Agulhas. 

The harbour area cannot be developed, it is 

a small working fishing harbour which is 

accessible to everyone. 

The proposed development is not in the 

best interests of Struisbaai residents 

The harbour area cannot be developed, as 

it is not in the best interests of the 

permanent residents nor the tourists 

This harbour, although is small, is of vital 

commercial importance to Struisbaai. It is 

the source of livelihood for other permanent 

residence and the only self-sustaining 

industry that can flourish here. Any 

development which may impact on viability 

and future expansion must be seen as very 

undesirable, and socially very irresponsible. 

The report does not mention the importance 

to the local community 

The purpose of the existing zoning of erf 

848 is the support of the harbour facilities, 

i.e. commercial fishing industry and marine 

support services. Deviation from this 

purpose will adversely affect these 

functions, i.e. may render the harbour 

useless. 

The DEIR does not state why Struisbaai 

needs this type of development exactly on 

Erf 848. There's plenty accommodation and 

we could do with a decent restaurant to 

uplift the Mall. It's nice to eat at the harbour, 

but not vitally important? 




The harbour will remain accessible to 

everyone. 

The proponent is the owner of erf 848 which is 

private land adjacent to the harbour. He is 

lawfully excercising his right to develop erf 

848. 

The proponent is the owner of erf 848 which is 

private land adjacent to the harbour. He is 

lawfully excercising his right to develop erf 

848. 



Furthermore Erf 848 is private property. 


Erf 848 is private property. Harbour functions 

are the responsibility of MCM. The proposed 

development will however be catering for 

some of the activities such as the supply of 

bait, ice and fishing tackle as well as a fish 

market. The proponent has indicated that 

they are willing to assist with negotiations 

between the fisherfolk and MCM to provide 

improved facilities. 

The proponent is the owner of Erf 848 and 

they are exercising their right to apply for 

development ofthe property. 

Needs & 

Desirability 

Access to 

Harbour 

Needs & 

Desirability 

Needs & 

Desirability 

Needs & 

Desirability 

Needs & 

Desirability 

Needs & 

Desirability 



1.13.28 


(67) 

Referring to the Needs and Desirability, it is 

inaccurate to state that there is a lack of 

adequate hotel accommodation though 

there are numerous bed and breakfast 

facilities in Struisbaai, the hotel did exist 

before and was later closed down. The 

spatial development framework plan 

commissioned by the Agulhas Municipality 

makes provision for a hotel only at the 

present site adjacent to the campsite. 

The Bed & Breakfasts are not catering for 

large bus groups as they are having to stay in 

other nearby towns as far as Swellendam. 

The proposed development is more diversified 

than the other hotels and is thus more 

sustainable. 

The financial sustainability inputs for 

Langezandt Quays indicate that the calculated 

risk that the proponent is willing to take is not 

misplaced. Financial sustainability cannot be 

guaranteed. However, the available evidence 

provides no reason to suspect financial failure 

and, as such, provides no clear basis to argue 

against the desirability of the development. 

Needs & 

Desirability 

1.13.29 

1.13.30 

1.13.31 


(67) 


(67) 


The needs and desirability have not been 

argued convincingly, it seems that the only 

party in favour of this development is the 

developer himself. How can the needs and 

desirability result in medium to very low 

environmental impacts, the statement is 

misleading. Needs and desirability cannot 

counteract negative environmental impact. 

The proposed development is not needed 

nor desirable as it will significantly and 

negatively affect the character and sense of 

fisherman's village that is currently enjoyed 

by all residents and holidaymakers of 

Struisbaai. 

With the available information, I cannot 

follow how the development would be 

beneficial to the local fishing community 

(read as previously disadvantaged). The 

argument to support this seems like the 

developer is trying to rationalise the project 

to his personal benefit. 

Please refer to Annexure U of the FEIR. 

Please refer to Section 2.8, 7.4 and 7.5 of the 



Comment and Response Report as well as 

Sections 2.8, 5.2.5, 5.2.6, 7.4 and 7.5 of the 


The proposed development has been 

designed with the proposed benefits as set 

out in the Vision document (Annexure O) of 

the FEIR. Please refer to Section 1.13.26 of 

this Comment and Response Report and 


Needs & 

Desirability 

Needs & 

Desirability 

Needs & 

Desirability 



1.13.32 


The small business centre of Struisbaai was 

developed as per the requirements of local 

councils. The proposed development would 

financially have a negative impact on these 

businesses. It is proposed that the local 

councils continue with the development of 

the business centre that everyone supports. 


Need and 

desirability 

1.13.33 


Kriel (70) 

With the available information, I cannot 

follow how the development would be 

beneficial to the local community. 


and response report. Please refer to section 


Needs & 

Desirability 

1.13.34 

1.13.35 


Dorel Van der 







73, 69, 66, 65, 172, 

93, 78) 


Dorel Van der 







73, 69, 66, 65, 172, 

93, 78) 

Furthermore a bus tourist has never stayed 

in a sea view room in this country as there 

is no Seal Island at Struisbaai, the weather 

is too deciduous, and the sea is too rough. 

Struisbaai is not like Hout Bay where the 

tourists come for the Seal Island rides and 

leave. Mariners Wharf or The Lookout Deck 

does not get one bus tripper as a customer. 

As a Struisbaai home owner, the proposed 

development would not be interest of the 

local resident and fishing community. 

Noted. Please refer to Annexure U of the 

FEIR regarding the marketing potential and 











Your concern is noted. The development 

would however offer long and short term 

employment to both the local residents as well 

as the fisherfolk, which is needed. 

Need and 

Desirability 

Needs & 

Desirability 



1.13.36 

81, 79, 95, 85, 84, 

90, 160, 162, 164, 

154, 155, 156, 157, 

158, 153, 150, 151, 

116, 102, 103, 101, 

99, 100, 98, 92, 94, 

163, 174, 175, 176, 

177, 178, 33, 179, 

180, 181, 182 

Most importantly, this development is not in 

the best interests of the permanent 

residents of Struisbaai or its seasonal 

residents and definitely not in the interests 

of the indigent fishermen earning their living 

from this harbour. 

It is clear from the responses that there are a 

large proportion of those who commented that 

they are opposed to the proposed 

development. Please refer to Annexure D 

and Volume 2 of the FEIR. 

Needs & 

Desirability 

1.14 Impact on safety and 

security 

1.14.1 

1.14.2 

1.14.3 

1.14.4 

1.14.5 



(16) 




Local residents can experience the 

unpleasant times during the holiday season 

when they prefer to stay away from certain 

areas of the beach during specific periods 

of time. The proposed development would 

worsen the problem of alcohol abuse, 

drunken youths, immorality and broken 

glass bottles over festive seasons. It is not 

our duty to protect moral values; however 

the comment has to be seen in the light that 

we have to protect our heritage. 

The proposed development would attract 

criminals and increase theft. 

Additional traffic on the water created by jetskis 

and canoes will interfere with the 

chukkies and fishing boats and will seriously 

compromise the safety of the harbour area. 

This harbour is of importance from maritime 

perspective as it is the only significant sea 

shelter between the harbours of Gansbaai 

and Stilbaai, along a notoriously 

treacherous coast - this aspect is not 

addressed in your report. 

The proposed development is a threat to 

Struisbaai property owners and I cannot see 

how it can be allowed to continue. 

Your concern is noted. Development and the 

potential concomitant crime is inevitable. The 

proponent cannot be held responsible for 

crime in the area. The security of the 

development may however be better than that 

of large homes that are left empty for most of 

the year as it would be occupied year round 

and the vehicles will be more secure in the 

basement if properly monitored. Security 

Guards are likely to be employed by the 

development which will add a degree of 

surveillance for the surrounding property. 



Harbor control remains a function of MCM. 



Could you please explain the relevance of this 

to the proposed development which has no 

maritime component per se? Please refer to 





Safety and 

Security 

Safety and 

Security 

Safety and 

Security 

Harbour 

Safety and 

Security 



1.14.6 

1.14.7 


(SEA) (48) 


As we are aware, the huge gap between 

rich and poor in this country is one of the 

major contributors towards crime. It can 

therefore be expected that crime will 

escalate exponentially should the proposed 


Quality of life: Higher density 

accommodation would be targeted by crime 

activities 





Safety and 

Security 

Safety and 

security 

1.15 Sustainability 

1.15.1 

1.15.2 

1.15.3 

1.15.4 

1.15.5 



Chris & Ria 

Reynolds (34) 

Chris & Ria 

Reynolds (34) 

Gaston C. Van Wyk 

(36) 

The proposed development will not make 

enough business 

Is this economic development and 

temporary job-creation worth the high risk of 

permanent social problems afterwards? 

Struisbaai would get the tourists at the 

detriment of the safety of the permanent 

residents as well as the tourists this 

development so desperately seek? 

Who will be responsible for the ecological 

and marine disturbances once everyone 

has made their profit? 

You and I both know that promises look 

good on paper, but will they be able to 

sustain it after 20-30 years? 

The location of proposed building is 

inappropriate, i.e. right next to the ocean. 

Please refer to Annexure R: Independent 

financial feasibility of the FEIR and Annexure 

U: Marketing Study, Annexure H: Economic 

Study as and Section 5.2.3 of the FEIR. 

Long term employment opportunities could 

also be provided. Please refer to Section 

5.2.3 of the FEIR and Annexure H: Economic 

Assessment. Regarding crime please refer to 



Please refer to Section 5.2.7 of the FEIR. No 

marine impacts are anticipated and limited 

ecological impacts due to the existing 

development on the site. 

Your concern is noted. It is thus important to 

ensure the proposed development is 

sustainable financially and environmentally. 

Please refer to Annexure T of the FEIR for a 

letter from the proponent as to what they 

commit to implementing. Secondly the 

proponent would have to comply with the 

mitigation measures legally stipulated in the 

Environmental Authorisation decision should 

the development be approved and built. 

The proximity of the proposed development to 

the ocean is viewed as insignificant as the 

proposed development is not envisaged to 

impact the ocean in any way, other than 

natural storm water runoff. 

Sustainability 







There are opportunities for retail shops and 

employment which will boost the local 

economy. Please refer to Section 5.2.3 of the 

FEIR. Please refer to Annexure H: Economic 

Assessment. 

1.15.6 


(SEA) (48) 

Page 8 states that the proposed 

development has the potential to contribute 

positively to the economy, we agree with 

that, however the benefits will be for the 

developer to make more profit; whilst the 

economy of the poor and the previously 

disadvantaged will only be negative. 











1.15.7 

1.15.8 


(63) 


(58) 

The proposed development will be of 

marginal benefit to the people of Struisbaai 

and will only benefit the few associated with 

developer. 

There is no mention of the financial stability 

of the developer. What will happen to this 

development if the developer does not sell 

all the units or can not get an operator to 

run the hotel? Will we be left with an 

unsightly white elephant on this sensitive 

site? 

Applicants response: The “poor” will be 

given jobs and benfit from the Cumminity 

Trust. 



It is important that the proposed development 

is financially and economically sustainable. 

Upon request at the public meeting held on 

the 31 October 2009 a independent feasibility 

assessment was undertaken by Turner & 

Townsend. Please refer to Annexure R & 

Annexure U of the FEIR regarding feasibility. 













1.15.9 

1.15.10 

1.15.11 

1.15.12 


(168) 


(168) 

Mr. and Mrs. 




The proposed development would not 

uphold the economic wellbeing of the town. 

Many more opportunities are open to 

developers in Struisbaai and development 

of the harbour is not the only one. There 

are many guest houses, B&B‟s, restaurants 

and other attractions that are developed 

and added on a constant basis that all 

contributes to the economic wellbeing of 

Struisbaai. We do not need a commercial 

town in Struisbaai 

I am in favour of the future development, 

this however needs to happen in a 

controlled manner that is conducive to the 

town‟s character and wellbeing. It should 

not be to the financial benefit of the 

developer and his contractors alone. 

Even worse is the fact that it includes a new 

experimental hotel despite previous failures. 

All that remains of Struisbaai‟s hotel/motel is 

the unsightly demolished site that has been 

available for development for some time. 

Even the hotel at Aghulas was not 

successful and had to be redeveloped into 

sectional title units. 

What impact will the location of the 

development have on insurance? If there's 

no insurance, would the developer make 

sure that future owners have sufficient 

capital for repairs, for example in the event 

a natural disaster occur? 












The proposed development comprises of 

three distinct functions, namely Retail, 

Fractional title Units and a Hotel. The 

feasibility of the hotel portion has been 

confirmed by a Marketing Assessment (refer 

to Annexure U of the FEIR). 









It is envisaged that the proposed development 

would be insured for natural disasters as the 

owners would wish to protect their investment. 








1.15.13 


(114) 

To me there are definite conflicting aspects 

in the project. How do you reconcile the 

stench of fish that hangs over the harbour 

after a good catch or when fish are loaded 

off boats and cleaned with a luxury five star 

hotel on the same property? I have been 

through it! Have the developer ever 

experienced this? 

This has been assessed in Section 5.2.8 of 

the FEIR. The proposed development would 

range between a three – four star 

establishment. 


1.16 Impact on tourism 

1.16.1 


We do not require more shops 

The findings of the retail assessment indicate 

that a retail component of 1,500m² GLA as 

proposed for Langezandt Quays should be 

able to achieve financial sustainability and 

that some needs are undercatered for or not 

catered for at all. 

Tourism 

1.16.2 

1.16.3 

1.16.4 

1.16.5 


(114) 


Chris & Ria 

Reynolds (34) 


(21) 

It‟s a given that water activities in the 

harbour will increase with a luxury hotel that 

are fully booked (hopefully) and flats that 

are all occupied. Vacationers will have toy 

boats, jetski‟s, canoes, etc. I have 

personally experienced the irritation 

subsistence fishers have with vacationers 

and small children who try to fish. 

Struisbaai is only busy in December. 

My honest opinions are that funds should 

rather be invested in the conservation of 

Struisbaai‟s current state, upgrade existing 

businesses and make use of 

advertisements to attract tourists. 

There is a suggestion that fish may be 

collected from the boats. Many commercial 

fishermen now operate from ski boats. They 

offload on the wharf. That activity is part of 

the visitor attraction of the harbour. 




Please refer to Annexure H of the FEIR.The 

proponent argues that vocational ownership 

and marketing is expected to increase the 

occupancy all year round. 

The proponent plans on increasing marketing 

to attract tourists. 

Collecting the fish would not affect this activity 

and provision has furthermore been made for 

the delivery of fish to the fish market for retail. 


Tourism 

Tourism 

Tourism 

Tourism 





1.16.6 

1.16.7 

1.16.8 


(137) 


(137) 


Pienaar (163) 

The proposed development is driven by 

growth in tourism. The bus load tourists the 

developer is referring to are unlikely to use 

a 3 or 4 star accommodation as it would be 

too expensive. 

Traditional fishing activities are also a 

tourist attraction that is best viewed at a 

distance, so that irregular hours kept by 

subsistence fishermen do not disrupt them. 

Struisbaai fishing harbour is one of the main 

attractions of Struisbaai and by destroying it 

with another development for the financial 

benefit of a developer will have serious 

negative effects on tourist attraction of 

Strusbaai. 

A market sustainability assessment was 

undertaken (Annexure U of the FEIR) to 

ascertain the long terms sustainability. The 

proposed development was assessed on all 

three components and an independent 

economic assessment was undertaken to 

ensure objectivity. The proposed development 

was assessed to be sustainable on all three 

components (retail, hotel & fractional 

ownership). 


The development seems to have enough of 

the key elements for the likelihood of success 

to be relatively high. However, financial 

viability is by no means guaranteed. Tour 

operators leading bus groups of overseas 

tourists most often want to stay in one place 

of an acceptably high standard which is why 

the hotel should be appealing to them in 

addition to its picturesque and interesting 

setting. 

Your point is noted. Certain design 

imperatives would need to be implemented to 

ensure adequate reduction of external noise 

to occupants of the proposed development as 

outlined in Section 5.2.8 of the FEIR. 



Tourism 

Tourism 

Tourism 



1.16.9 

1.16.10 

1.16.11 

Mr. and Mrs. 






With regards to the claim that the new hotel 

and associated plans will contribute to 

tourism by making provision for the 

shortage of housing and dining facilities. 

Due to this supposedly shortage, Struisbaai 

have numerous guesthouses and good 

restaurants that provides sufficient 

amenities. These buildings were all 

constructed within the building regulations. 

The result is a fast growing tourism industry, 

incidentally as a result of its traditional 

harbour facilities and the delight of watching 

the arrival, off-load and weighing of the 

days catch. 

There is more than enough 

accommodation. 

Currently the harbour is very popular as a 

swimming place for families and children. 





Your point is noted. The proposed 

development would not impact the harbour 

functioning or beaches in any way or form 

thus the status quo would remain. 

Tourism 

Tourism 

Tourism 

2 Construction phase 

impacts 

2.1.1 

2.1.2 

2.1.3 


(1) 


Visser (4) 


Kotze (19) 

I'm concerned about rape and theft due to 

the proposed development 

Job creation will only be for a short period of 

time. 

Some topics of impacts on DEIR are either 

irrelevant or of little influence on Struisbaai 

and the harbour on the longer run. For 

example, the impact during the construction 

phase represents inconveniences of such 

temporary and logical consequence that 

anyone who has experience of construction 

should accept this as part of the process. 

The developer's track record on Langezandt 

Quays with regards to shifting sand, fighting 

sandstorms, rehabilitation sand during and 

after construction is so exemplary; there 

should be little cause of concern. 




Your point is noted. The EIA process however 

dictates that certain issues need to be 

addressed. The Draft EMP for example is 

required as a key document for both the 

construction and operation phase. 

Social 

Social 




FEIR for employment opportunities and 

Annexure H: Economic Assessment Report 

for employment figures. 

2.1.4 

2.1.5 

2.1.6 

2.1.7 



(26) 


(47) 


The second concern is with regard to job 

creation aspect. More workers will be 

brought into the area to help with the 

construction, and what will happen to them 

after they're done with construction. There 

are no other jobs in Struisbaai. Their 

unemployment would lead to social 

problems with the biggest one in South 

Africa obviously being crime. 

How many of the local youth will get jobs 

from the proposed development? 

Added employment opportunities are 

claimed but outside elements who will be 

attracted by the proposed development 

would pose a serious security risk to all 

existing residents of Struisbaai. 

The natural coastline will be subject to 

building rubble, sewage and construction 

teams moving into the area. What 

measures will be in place to address this? 

Applicants response: The contract would be 

awarded to a credible and capable company 

at the time of construction and it is premature 

at this stage to define which company would 

be the successful contractor. We however 

commit to employ local people as far as 

possible. 


The possibility for not using local labour is 

certainly there, but I don‟t think anyone can 

really confidently say what the likelihood is of 

this happening. Mitigation measured aimed at 

maximizing benefits for locals have been 

outlined in section 6.5 of the economic 

specialist study. In order to be certain of the 

use of local labour to the optimal degree, clear 

provisions should be drawn up and included in 

the conditions of approval and management 

plan for the project. Bear in mind that it is not 

reasonable to force the proponent to use local 

labour under all circumstances. If, for 

example, a certain local labourer does not 

provide a good service and/or demands 

unreasonably high wages, his/her status as a 

local should not offer unfair protection from 

the normal consequences of actions. 


Economic and Social assessments of the 


Please refer to section 2.1.4 of this comments 

and response report. Please refer to 

Annexure T for the pronents commitments 

with respect to employment. 

Please refer to Annexure Q: Environmental 

Management Plan of the FEIR. 

Social 

Social 

Social 

Construction 



2.1.8 


The draft EIR alleges that the proposed 

development would create employment 

during the construction phase totaling 259 

person years of employment over that 

period. Furthermore, the local area would 

allegedly contribute 60% towards the 

construction personnel [p.150 of dEIR]. Our 

clients dispute the accuracy of these 

allegations particularly given the apparent 

level of mistrust among the local community 

towards the applicant [Aurecon draft: public 

meeting detailed notes 31 October 2009 

paragraph 2.1-2.5]. This is based upon the 

community's prior experience with the 

applicant during the construction of the 

Langezandt Fishermen's Village where the 

applicant allegedly promised jobs to the 

local community which never materialised 

[we have raised this point since most of the 

local community do not have the economic 

resources to employ a representative to 

submit comments on their behalf. Our 

clients therefore submit that a greater level 

of public participation should have been 

undertaken to ensure that the local 

community's concerns were adequately 

dealt with and addressed.]. 

The public participation process has been 

extensive throughout the EIA to date. Please 

refer to Chapter 3 of the FEIR. 

Applicants response: Langezandt 

Fishermens Village used a local builder (local 

is defined as Elim, Bredasdorp, Napier). The 

contract was terminated as a result of that 

builder not being adaptable to the market 

recession, which began in October 2008. The 

main contractor was approached to negotiate 

more competitive costs, speciafically a 5% 

reduction in cost. The main contractor i.e. 

locally based builder refused to compromise 

and therefore in light of the economic 

challenges another main contractor was 

appointed to undertake and coordinate the 

sub-consultants, all of whom remained in 

place.The local community was not 

disadvantaged during public consultation as 

the majority of public meetings took place at 

the community library to account for easier 

access. The comment made is therefore 

misleading when accused of not utilizing local 

labour. 

Please refer to Annexure T for the proponents 

commitments with respect to employment. 

Social 

3 Process 

3.1.1 

3.1.2 

Jacobus J.D. 

Havenga (12) 

Jacobus J.D. 

Havenga (12) 

I would appreciate if you could send me the 

CD of the DEIR and other project related 

information. 

Out of curiosity, when was Aurecon 

established? 

A CD containing the suite of information that 

was uploaded on to the Aurecon website was 

posted to you on 4 November 2009. 

Aurecon was established in a merger between 

Ninham Shand, Africon and Connell Wagner 

on the 1 March 2009. 

Information 

Information 



3.1.3 

3.1.4 

3.1.5 

3.1.6 


(21) 

MP Loubser (45) 


(21) 

Johan Venter (78) 

Please provide us with the email addresses 

of Interested and Affected Parties for the 

project. 

The only probable indirect problem I foresee 

is related to the location of public ablution 

facilities What do you plan to do with the 

public ablution facilities at the parking area? 

Will it be moved? 

The developer has promised to preserve 

the rights and access of the fishermen to 

the harbour however the designated area 

for fish offloading or bait sales is not 

reflected in the latest plans. The 

representative of Stauch Vorster when 

questioned at the meeting at Struisbaai 

library on Saturday 24 October admitted 

that this was not in his brief. 

Find attached the following two documents 

for your information: (1) Completed 

response sheet with comments on the Draft 

Environmental Impact Assessment Report 

and (2) Memo from Abrie Bruwer, dated 3 

November 2009.Please acknowledge 

reception of this e-mail. 

Owing to the privacy attached to particulars of 

registered I&APs an electronic list containing 

those I&APs that provided assent to this 

requestwas emailed to you on the 6 

November 2009. I&AP contact information is 

provided in hardcopy in Annexure C of the 


The ablution facilities would need to be 

relocated to a more amenable location. A 

provisional site was chosen on Erf 921 

opposite Erf 572, however it may be suitable 

to consider locating the facility next to the 

MCM building within the harbour. The 

proposed development would also include 

public ablution facilities. 

Stauch Vorster: The detailed Ground Floor 

design was not in the original brief but as a 

result of all the meetings a layout of the 

ground floor has been drawn up and is 

included in the FEIR. See ground floor plan in 




We have acknowledged receipt of these two 

documents. 

Information 

Information 

Information 



3.1.7 

3.1.8 



We submit that as presently proposed this 

application should be dismissed. In 

summary, it is the view of our clients that 

DEADP has insufficient reliable information 

before him or her to enable an informed 

decision. The development proponent has 

failed to demonstrate the feasibility of the 

proposed development which it must do in 

order for the application to succeed. In 

addition, the proposed development is 

misaligned with the SDF, which is a guiding 

document that must be complied with 

unless there is a good motivation for 

departing from it. Sustainability of the 

proposed development has not been 

illustrated and the socio-economic impacts 

of the proposed development have not been 

properly assessed (particularly given the 

public rights attaching to the property). 

Finally, our clients also have concerns 

about the adequacy of the EIA and the 

public participation process which are set 

out in this document. 

In the last meeting at Struisbaai North 

Library, I proposed that the developer erect 

poles of 16m on the outer extremities of the 

development so that everyone can see the 

real size of the development and thus avoid 

the smoke and mirrors effect that is being 

portrayed at present. 

We respectfully disagree with this submission. 

The process triggered by the activity was a 

Basic Assessment. On the advice of the EAP 

after initial public consultation the application 

was elevated voluntarily to an EIA and was 

accepted by the competent authority 

(DEA&DP). Numerous specialist inputs, 

extensive public participation (as evidenced 

by the voluminous comments) and detailed 

assessment has been undertaken. There is 

sufficient information upon which the 

competent authority can base an informed 

decision. The choice of the authority however 

regarding whether to authorize this application 

based on the clear and fully described 

planning issues should not be pre-empted. 

The 2006 CAM SDF made reference to a 

height limitation of two storeys, however the 

2009 CAM SDF makes no reference to height 

limitations per se. Height is subject to the 

applicable zoning scheme regulations and 

development is promoted within the urban 

edge. 

Please refer to Annexure P & R of the FEIR 

regarding feasibility. Please refer to Section 

1.4 of the FEIR regarding the SDF 

implications. Please refer to Table 6.2 and 

Annexures P, R & U of the FEIR regarding 

sustainability. Please refer to Sections 5.2.3, 

5.2.4, 5.2.5 & 5.2.6 as well as Annexure H: 

Social and Economic specialist study, of the 

FEIR regarding the socio-economic study. 


regarding the public participation process. 

Suggestion noted.. This suggestion has been 

communicated to the proponent for 

consideration. 

Process 

Process 



3.1.9 

3.1.10 

3.1.11 

3.1.12 

3.1.13 

Rhona de Groot 

(161) 

Bobby de Groot 

(143) 


(137) 


Dorel Van der 







73, 69, 66, 65, 172, 

93, 78) 


Dorel Van der 







73, 69, 66, 65, 172, 

93, 78) 

I strongly recommended the developers to 

erect a clearly marked pole to indicate the 

exact height of the proposed development 

of Langezandt Quays so that we may give 

consent to building 

We will not give our approval before a 

marked pole indicating the maximum height 

of the proposed construction is erected in 

front of Pelican‟s Restaurant. 

A 16m tower/structure must be erected on 

site as was done at Langezandt for us get 

the realistic reflection of the intended height 

and for the developer to win potential 

customers or buyers. 

I suggest that a pole or construction of 16m 

in height be erected before the coming 

December holiday so that IAP‟s can get the 

real picture. I would also like you to refrain 

from using vastly inaccurate information in 

the final report. I would suggest that 

warnings of this nature (my letter of 8 

January 2009 to Mr Foord) be taken 

seriously and investigated, as this is fraud, 

and such a serious accusation. 

The architect‟s images do not reflect the 

real visual impact, this has also been noted 

by other members of the public. They are 

attempting to pass off a four storey, 16m 

building, as having only half a storey more 

impact than a normal house. The actual 

size of the building should be two telephone 

poles high. Such inaccuracy in measuring 

the height of the building is misleading and 

unacceptable 

See 3.1.8 of this comments and response 

report. 


report. 


report. Please refer to Section 3.1.16 of this 


This suggestion was brought to the attention 

of the proponent. 

Stauch Vorster: This was investigated and it 

was confirmed that in the superimposed 

images the building are not grossly 

downplayed. 

Might not be 100% accurate due the difficulty 

of the exercise _camera elevation ,camera 

angles and target elevation of the real photo 

can differ from that of the model. 

Stauch Vorster: The lamppost you are 

referring to is in fact 9.2m above ngl and 

therefore the scale of the proposed 

development his accurately depicted 

(assuming a reasonable degree of standard 

deviation). 

These images were furthermore accepted by 

the visual impact assessor before being 

utilised in the visual impact assessment. 



Information 

Process 

Process 

Visual 

Visual 



3.1.14 

3.1.15 

3.1.16 

3.1.17 

3.1.18 






(87) 

I attended an Open Day in December 2008 

and I was shocked to see the graphics that 

were misleading presented to the public. 

These graphic mock-ups, computer 

graphics were out of scale and were 

purposely shrunk to create the perception 

that these multi storey building are in fact 

fitting to the neighbourhood. This 

constitutes a fraud and I will prove this in 

court should it go so far 

The picture depicting alternative 6 on page 

3 of the draft report does not represent the 

true height of the building in the 

background. It appears as if the building is 

of the same height as the light or telephone 

poles on the right of the picture whereas it 

should be at least twice the height of the 

poles. The picture should show in the 

boldest print that " this is an artist's 

representation and is not depicted to scale" 

At this juncture, it is important to note that, 

notwithstanding such concerns having been 

repeatedly raised, there still exist grave 

concerns about the veracity of the super 

imposed illustrations of the proposed 

development on the photographs included 

in the draft EIR. For example, the height of 

the proposed development is grossly played 

down in the photographs. 

Pictures of true scale of the proposed 

building must be presented to the public to 

enable them to make an informed decision. 

The draft EIA Report mislead the I&AP as it 

uses distorted images for the building not to 

look as so high. 



Please refere to section 3.1.12 and 3.1.13 of 

this comments and response report. Please 


Please refer to section 3.1.12 and 3.1.13 of 

this comments and response report. Every 

effort has been made to ensure accuracy is 

portrayed on all visual images utilised 

throughout the EIA process. This issue was 

raised at the Public Meeting on the 31 

October 2009. Please refer to Section 5.2.5 of 


Please refer to Sections 3.1.12, 3.1.13, 

3.1.25, 3.1.26 and 3.1.27 of this Comment 


Disagree, the images that were used by 

Stauch Vorster were scaled appropriately. 

This has been confirmed in section 2.5 and 

5.2.5 of the FEIR. These images were also 

used by the visual impact assessor during the 

visual impact assessment (Annexure G of the 

FEIR). 

Visual 

Visual 

Visual 

Visual 

Visual 



3.1.19 

3.1.20 

3.1.21 

3.1.22 

3.1.23 



Plessis (141) 


(75) 


Jacobus J.D. 

Havenga (12) 

All the graphics of the proposed 

development are not to scale. If one 

compares the height depicted in relationship 

to the 7.6 meter lamppost it is clear that the 

development is being portrayed as a lot 

smaller and lower that it will ultimately be. 

Incorrect representations have been made 

on purpose, i.e. building heights, benefits to 

fishing community, etc 

I demand that all names of complainants 

received between 10 December 2007 and 

10 February 2008 be made public and proof 

supplied that they are on I&AP list and that 

they have received correspondence from 

Aurecon. 

During the public meeting on 31 October 

2009 in Struisbaai, Aurecon was asked 

about the extent of objections that have 

already been made and how these are 

managed. The Draft EIR (Volume 1&2) do 

not contain information w.r.t. the number 

and range of objections made thus far and 

the value attributed to them. It might be of 

benefit to Aurecon‟s credibility should a 

summary of all the objections are distributed 

among I&APs. 

Did the provincial government receive all 

individual complaints via an appendix? 

Please refer to Section 3.1.16 of this FEIR. 

Disagree. Please refer to Sections 1.13.26 

and 3.1.16 of this Comment and Response 

Report regarding heights. 

All correspondence for each phase of the 

project is summarized in a Comment and 

Response Report for that phase and the 

original comments are collated and attached 

to the report. The reports have been available 

to the public at each phase of the public 

participation process. This methodology 

applies for all phases. Please refer to 

Annexure D of Volume 1 of the DEIR 

comments received during the period 18 

December 2008 to February 2009. 

Comments received during the period 9 

October 2009 – 17 November 2009 are 

attached in Annexure D of the FEIR. 








participate as they have few issues to raise. 

ALL public correspondence for each phase of 

the project is summarized in a Comment and 

Response Report for that phase and the 

original comments are collated and attached 

to the report for all to peruse. These 

comments form a critical part of what was 

investigated in the EIA. It is therefore blatantly 

incorrect to state that Aurecon has not 

provided or valued the “objections” of the 

I&APs. . 

Yes they do receive all individual complaints 

in the EIA documentation. 

Process 

Process 

Information 

Information 

Process 



3.1.24 

3.1.25 

3.1.26 

Jacobus J.D. 

Havenga (12) 

Jacobus J.D. 

Havenga (12) 


Why is the Public meeting scheduled on a 

date when most homeowners/ property 

owners are not there? Why not hold it 

between 16 and 31 December when 80% of 

us are there? It is much better to talk about 

this verbally than go on and on about it on 

paper. 

A lot of effort has been made to ensure that 

the project information is available on four 

public libraries and also on Aurecon 

website, however consider the fact that 

many of the Struisbaai owners do not live 

near these areas and most of them are not 

aware of Aurecon website or do not have 

access to the internet. If my neighbours 

who live in Grabouw had never informed me 

about the project, I would never have known 

about it. 

Approximately 60% of the homeowners in 

Struisbaai are holidaymakers who do not 

live in Struisbaai all year round but who are 

interested and affected parties. This 

notwithstanding, the EAP has conducted 

some public participation meetings outside 

of season, more particularly the last 

meeting which took place on 31 October 

2009. In addition, the draft EIR was 

published for comment between October 

and November a period during which it is 

unlikely to come to the attention of the nonpermanent 

residents; 

The EIA process to date has spanned 32 

months and all the information for the draft 

EIR phase produced was made available for 

public comment between 09/10/2009 – 

17/11/2009. The EIA regulations do not 

stipulate that public meetings are required for 

the review period of the DEIR, however to 

ensure I&APs had a platform for engagement 

the public meetings between 30/31 October 

2009 were deemed suitable in line with the 

project programme. Please refer to Chapter 

3 of the FEIR. 

I&APs in this situation can request a CD from 

Aurecon. The cost to produce a report of this 

size is several thousand Rands and thus is 

not viewed as a feasible option. 

It is unfortunate that you were not notified. 

The process used local newspaper adverts for 

the notification of the DEIR, letters, email, sms 

as well as word of mouth to ensure that 

interested parties become informed of the 

process. It may have been that you were not 

registered or your post, email or SMS 

(depending on your preferred means of 

communication) was not delivered to you. In 

the future you will be notified by all three 

media, should you have provided the 

necessary information. 

It is not a requirement in terms of the EIA 

Regulations to undertake a public meeting 

during the draft EIR review. Furthermore, 

I&APs are well informed on the proposed 

development as the EIA process is at a 

advanced stage. In addition an Executive 

Summary was posted to I&APs as well as all 

the relevant documents being available off the 

Aurecon website. Please refer to Section 


Report. No party/person was prejudiced by 

when the meeting was held. Registered 

I&APs were informed accordingly. 

Process 

Process 

Process 



3.1.27 

3.1.28 

3.1.29 

3.1.30 

3.1.31 

3.1.32 


(137) 




(23) 

Emmerentia 

Hesseling (on 


payers) (41) 


(58) 



(140) 

The public participation process was not 

adequate and appropriate opportunity for 

public participation was not provided as it 

has been stated on NEMA. Meetings were 

held when the vast majority of property 

owners and holiday makers could not attend 

the meetings. These meetings should be 

rescheduled to coincide with the peak 

holiday season i.e. December, the proposed 

date for such meeting is 30 December 

2009. 

More than 75% of Struisbaai‟s tax payers 

do not live there on a permanent basis. 

Hosting an “Open House” on 30 and 31 

October 2009 cannot be seen as public 

participation, in fact it is the exact opposite. 

According to the Land Use Ordinance No 

15 of 1985, the Province has a policy 

against placing notices over the December 

holiday. Taking this into account, your aim 

should be to have the Open House when 

people would be here, in other words, 

during the December holiday. 

Furthermore, the dates that were chosen for 

the Open House/ Public meeting were not 

practical for most homeowners. It would 

have been better to have dates during the 

holiday season in order to have more 

people involved. 

Information meetings are held at obscure 

times when 80% of the holiday makers and 

people affected by the development are not 

in the area. 

If the developer wants the general public to 

participate in the process, why were the 

public meetings conducted outside the 

holiday season, all owners of stands who 

are not living in Struisbaai contribute to the 

rates and taxes of Struisbaai. 

Public meetings were not held during the 

public holiday seasons 


Comment and Response Report This is 

incorrect as the following meetings were held 

to date. 

Open House: 

1. 27/09/2007 

2. 18/12/2007 

3. 21/01/2008 

4. 22/01/2008 

5. 18/12/2008 

6. 30/10/2009 

Public Meeting: 

1. 31/10/2009 

Please refer to Sections 3.1.25, 3.1.26 and 


Report. 

The comment below is seprate from the 

EIA process followed todate. 

Applicants response: Struisbaai Ratepayers 

meeting, which called for attendance in order 

to discuss the harbor drew a response of 

50/60 people in December 2009. 



Report. 



Report. 



Report. 



Report. 

Process 

Process 

Process 

Process 

Process 

Process 



3.1.33 

3.1.34 

3.1.35 

3.1.36 

3.1.37 





H du Plessis (68), 


Kriel (70) 

If the proposed developer intends to be 

transparent in terms of engaging with 

Interested and Affected Parties, why are the 

public meetings and Open House 

discussions held at the end of October 

when there obviously less people that in the 

peak season in December? 

One can conclude that hosting the public 

meetings in October is an attempt to 

marginalise the bulk of ratepayers who have 

been the main contributors to the income 

base of the council. All property owners 

and residents in Struisbaai and L'Agulhas 

area must have the right to express their 

opinion on this matter, this country for too 

long has been dogged by decisions that 

suite a few and marginalise the majority. 

The Public Meetings were held out of 

season thus denying many seasonal visitors 

that are property owners an opportunity to 

comment or make submissions 

Public meetings should be in December so 

that more property owners or tourists can 

be present. 

Besides the fact that we didn‟t receive any 

notification of the meeting that was held on 

31 October, we wouldn‟t have been able to 

attend due to the very inconvenient time it 

was scheduled for. It would make more 

sense to have meetings when most 

interested homeowners would be available, 

i.e. during December / January. 



Report. 



Report. 



Report. 



Report. 



Report. 

Process 

Process 

Process 

Process 

Process 



3.1.38 

81, 79, 95, 85, 84, 

90, 160, 162, 164, 

154, 155, 156, 157, 

158, 153, 150, 151, 

116, 102, 103, 101, 

99, 100, 98, 92, 94, 

163, 174, 175, 176, 

177, 178, 33, 179, 

180, 181, 182 

The public meetings were deliberately held 

out of the holiday season when most of the 

rate paying landowners could not attend. 

Disagree. Please refer to Sections 3.1.25, 

3.1.26 and 3.1.27 of this Comment and 


Process 

3.1.39 

3.1.40 

3.1.41 

3.1.42 

3.1.43 





(21) 


(21) 

We would like to thank you for the 

opportunity provided to us to make our 

contribution to the process. It attests to a 

responsible attitude and is much 

appreciated. 

Please contact us for correct method of 

submitting comments, should the use of e- 

mails be inappropriate. 

The draft EIA Report does not provide 

sufficient information to truly consider the 

effect of the proposed design on erf 848, 

the surroundings and on Struisbaai as a 

whole. 

Why do you publish the names and postal 

addresses of the Interested and affected 

parties? 

E-mails are just another method of 

communicating and are far cheaper, we 

may wish to use it for our concerns about 

the proposed development. Or is it that 

Aurecon not interested in facilitating 

communication for all parties? 

Your comment is appreciated. 

Aurecon will accept comments via email, 

letter, fax or verbal. It is however important to 

note that it is best practice to submit 

comments in writing (hardcopy or electronic) 

as this will be included in the documentation 

to the decision-making authority. 

Strongly disagree. Refer to Section 2.5 of the 


It is a requirement of the DEA&DP Public 

Participation Guidelines to compile and 

maintain an I&AP register which should be 

included in the documentation. 

As a matter of standard practice Aurecon 

does not publish email addresses of 

registered I&APs without obtaining permission 

first. Aurecon believes that it is in the interests 

of registered I&APs privacy. 

Process 

Process 

Process 

Process 

Process 



3.1.44 

3.1.45 

3.1.46 

3.1.47 

3.1.48 

3.1.49 




(23) 


(168) 




(23) 



Chris & Ria 

Reynolds (34) 

Legally your final report has to include all 

objections received. Then we will see if you 

are legally compliant and if all our detailed 

objections are attached. 

The EIA suggest that there is support by 

I&APs who are they and how do they 

benefit financially? 

Another misrepresentation you make that 

clearly shows your prejudice towards the 

developer which is “owing to the public 

interest and concern relating to the 

alternatives presented during the scoping 

phase, the proponent proposed another 

alternative, a multi-level…alternative 6”. 

Again, send me the letters or emails from 

people supporting the multi-level 

development. I am an active member of the 

Struisbaai Homeowner Association who‟s 

every member are against the multi-level 

development. 

I do not know if my comments are fair or 

even useful but I'm honest and thank you 

for inviting me for my opinion on this 

matter. 

My property is located approximately 150 

meters away from the proposed 

development. It is evident in the Draft 

Environmental Impact Assessment Report 

that the compilers of the report have a 

positive inclination towards the proposed 

development. The objectivity of the 

compilers/consultants is questionable. 

Additional comments will be submitted via 

email. 

You are making a big mistake if you think 

the proposed development would have no 

impact or a medium impact as you have 

suggested. 

All comments received are included in the 

submission(s) made to the decision-making 

authority. All documentation to date has 

included all original comments and this will be 

maintained throughout the process. As 

professional EAPs we strive to ensure that all 

relevant information and comments received 

are provided to the decision-making authority 

for due consideration. 

Please refer to this Comment and Response 

Report to see who is in favour of the 

development. 

Aurecon is not prejudice towards any 

particular outcome for this EIA process, we 

are appointed only to undertake the legal 

process and submit information for decisionmaking. 

. The additional alternative 

(Alternative 6) was the proponent‟s response 

to the extremely negative reactions which 

emanated from the initial round of 

engagement especially relating to the 4 and 6 

storey solid buildings options. I&APs 

comments in support and in opposition to the 

proposed development are contained in the 

various EIA Comment and Response Reports. 

All comments are welcomed during the EIA 

process. 

The Environmental Assessment Practitioner 

has maintained independence and all 

conclusions are based on specialist findings 

and information available at the time of 

compilation. 

Please refer to the FEIR for detailed 

assessment. 

Process 

Process 

Process 

Process 

Process 



3.1.50 

3.1.51 

3.1.52 

3.1.53 



(49) 


(49) 


(SEA) (48) 

There are too many "Shoulds" on the 

essential mitigation measures which leave 

the door wide open for second quality 

workmanship and finishes. 

The process is flawed as no viable 

alternatives for the site have been put 

forward. The EIA Regulations state that all 

alternatives need to be investigated with 

equal weight, this has not been undertaken 

and the option to build on the site within the 

existing regulations has not been 

investigated. Why this has not been 

investigated? 

Given the R8 million the developer paid for 

the land makes the likelihood of the No go 

option being undertaken very unlikely. The 

implications of this are that if the current 

proposal is not developed and then another 

option would then be investigated, namely a 

development within the building regulations, 

and again why this option has not been 

investigated as part of this EIA process? 

At the very first public meeting the “no-go” 

option was insignificantly marked status 

quo, and was not listed as a specific Option. 

To say that the new Option 6 combines a 

previous option with the “No-go” option is 

unbelievable. It is impossible to combine a 

“no-go” option with some other 

development. What part of “No-go” does 

the developer not understand? “No-go” 

means “No-go”, i.e. Retain the status quo! 


does not have the authority to enforce 

mitigation on the proponent or the competent 

authority. Based on the information provided 

the competent authority will make a decision 

and enforce the required mitigation to be 

implemented. 

With reference to section 2.4 of the FEIR it is 

clear that all the alternatives were equally 

assessed. Furthermore, Alternative 6 is 

compared with the No Go Alternative in 



has advised the proponent that a two storey 

development should be considered. The 

proponent however maintains that a two 

storey building is not financially feasible and 

that they therefore do not wish to apply for 

that option even if it means that no 

development can occur on the site should a 

negative decision be issued. Please refer to 

Annexure P and Annexure R of the FEIR. 

Your point is noted. The no-go option 

remains a no-go/status quo alternative 

(Alternative 5) 

Process 

Process 

Process 

Process 



3.1.54 

3.1.55 

3.1.56 

3.1.57 

3.1.58 


(SEA) (48) 


(SEA) (48) 


(58) 


(58) 


(58) 

Page 3 of the Executive Summary 

(Proposed design), it is stated that a 

basement parking area would be below 

ground level. Surely cognisance has been 

taken of the fact that seawater was 

encountered only a couple of metres down 

when a basement parking area was 

investigated for the proposed development 

on the old hotel site in Struisbaai. The 

proposed building on Erf 848 already stands 

below the high-water mark – and the 

developers are planning a basement 

parking area below ground level! How 

perfectly ridiculous is that?! 

Page 8, it is only unbelievable for the EAP 

to suggest that the proposed development 

is considered to be acceptable from an 

environmental perspective 

The architect‟s impressions are misleading 

and one can not form an opinion on these 

superimposed photos. 

The draft Environmental Impact study sent 

out had no mention of how many people 

participated positively or negatively to your 

first survey. 

The draft sent out was to give an 

assessment of the most significant factors 

of the impact of the development in colour 

yet a black and white document was sent 

for comment. 


Annexures L & I of the FEIR. 

The specialist assessments undertaken to 

date have assess the environmental impacts 

to be within acceptable parameters and thus 

conclusions have been based on these 

assessments. 

Please see 3.1.12 and 3.1.13 of the 

comments and response report. Please refer 

to Section 5.2.5 and Annexure O of the FEIR. 

The architects impressions (which have been 

reviewed by the visual specialist) have been 

included to attempt to provide I&APs with a 

sense of design and scale. All reasonable 

efforts have been taken to ensure as accurate 

representation as possible. 








participate as they have few issues to raise. 

Owing to the quantum of registered I&APs a 

colour copy was not deemed necessary since 

the actual impact was written out in the text. 

The colour is only a indicatory mechanism. All 

documents are available in colour on the 

website and in the libraries. 

Process 

Process 

Process 

Process 

Process 



3.1.59 

3.1.60 

3.1.61 

3.1.62 

3.1.63 


(21) 


(140) 


(159) 


(80) 


My impression is that the EIA Consultants 

have attempted to “mitigate away” most of 

my and other objectors detailed opposition 

to the scheme, and I am not giving up and 

will detail further objection to the 

conclusions of your deeply flawed and I 

think that the conclusions that were drawn 

on Draft Environmental Impact Report are 

biased. 

Distorted images were used to propose a 4 

storey building 

The architect‟s images of the proposed 

development (deliberately?) do not reflect 

the true visual impact. This kind of 

manipulation of facts is reprehensible and 

morally questionable, and adds to the 

concerns about the application. 

Pictures that show the proposed 

development do not accurately depict the 

true visual impact of this development. They 

have been skillfully manipulated to lessen 

the impact to the viewer. 

Not all required information has been 

placed before the interested and affected 

parties in time, if at all. In this regard, we 

note that: until at least 18 December 2008 

the development proponent failed to place 

any building plans before interested and 

affected parties and that the plans which 

were belatedly provided are inadequate to 

enable a proper assessment to be made of 

all of the consequences associated with the 

development proponent's proposed 

development [we reiterate the concerns 

raised regarding the photographs upon 

which the proposed development has been 

superimposed above]; 

The mitigation proposed is aimed to reduce 

the potential impact that was assessed as it 

required in EIA metholodology. Aurecon is 

committed to processing the information in an 

independent fashion. 







The necessary material was made available in 

the draft EIR for I&APs to make an informed 

comment on the draft EIR. Please refer to 


Response Report regarding the photographs. 

See section 3.1.12 and 3.1.13 of the 


Process 

Process 

Process 

Process 

Process 



3.1.64 

81, 79, 95, 85, 84, 

90, 160, 162, 164, 

154, 155, 156, 157, 

158, 153, 150, 151, 

116, 102, 103, 101, 

99, 100, 98, 92, 94, 

163, 174, 175, 176, 

177, 178, 33, 179, 

180, 181, 182 

The draft report uses distorted images in 

which the proposed 4 storey building is 

made to appear just higher than a 2 storey. 



Report. 

Process 

3.1.65 

3.1.66 

3.1.67 

3.1.68 


(21) 


(21) 

Evan Meirion 

Williams (31) 



The precedents cited of other buildings in 

the area are misleading. Firstly those that 

have circumvented the two storey limit by 

fraudulent or other means including 

planning authority incompetence can never 

constitute a new set of regulations. 

The examples given are largely irrelevant 

because they are either on sloping ground 

so that at least one side is only two stories 

above ground level, or they are situated 

against a mountain, or they do not 

substantially interfere with neighbour‟ views. 

The developer is clutching at straws in 

regard to precedent. 

I have a major problem with the way the EIA 

was presented to a carefully orchestrated 

group of 22 affected parties. This underlined 

the partiality of the presentation and the 

lack of independence of the Aurecon group 

The Draft EIA Report is flawed, it is biased 

and is in favour of the developer's proposal. 

Your point is noted. The other examples 

merely point out what has been deemed 

acceptable by the public and how it compares 

to the proposed design. 



All registered I&APs were invited to attend the 

October public meetings. A public meeting is 

not mandatory for the draft EIR phase and 

thus is viewed as a step in the EIA process to 

provide registered I&APs with an opportunity 

to engage with the EAP. All documents are 

available for the public to scrutinize in detail 

as required. 

Strongly disagree. Please refer to Section 1.8 


Process 

Process 

Process 

Process 



3.1.69 

3.1.70 

3.1.71 

3.1.72 

3.1.73 

3.1.74 

3.1.75 





Home Owners 







(113 & 112) 


(87) 

The "no-go" option which maintains the 

status quo is the preferred option supported 

by the vast majority of the local and 

surrounding town residents as well as many 

visitors to Struisbaai. This should, in a 

democratic process be taken into account in 

accessing the impact of this development. 


indicates that the public have until 11 

November 2009 to submit written comments 

on the Draft EIR. However on page 1,it 

indicated that comments can be submitted 

until 17 November 2009. We trust that 

comments submitted after 11 November will 

qualify for the permitted comment period 

It is known that buildings such as these 

proposed are usually spoiling the skyline 

with other features such as satellite dishes, 

TV antennae, air conditioning units, store 

tanks and the like. To be fair to the reader, 

such features should be shown or a plan in 

mitigation should be presented. 

As a member of the registered owners of erf 

378 I hereby request to be registered as an 

Interested and Affected party, contact 

details are provided on the completed 

registration sheet. 

I have recently been forwarded a copy of 

the DEIR dated 9 October 2009, I cannot be 

certain that I will not have any other 

concerns 

Please acknowledge the receipt of this 

objection 

The Public Meetings were held when most 

I&APs could not attend i.e. out of season 

The no-go option is considered as a feasible 

alternative throughout the FEIR. While the EIA 

process is designed to ensure that impact 

assessment and public comment is provided 

to the authorities the decision is vested with 

them and can be appealed – this is the 

democratic process. Please refer to Section 

2.4 and 7.3 of the FEIR. 

The date for final submission should read 17 

November 2009 and comments were 

accepted throughout this period. Apologies for 

this typographical error or any confusion 

caused. 

Thank you for this valuable suggestion. A 

mitigation measure regarding the roofscape 

has been added. The proposed development 

is currently in the concept phase; however the 

environmental authorisation decision would 

limit the proposed development to a certain 

height. Therefore, peripherals would need to 

be within the height limit that has been set by 

the competent authority. Please refer to 

Annexure O of the FEIR. 

You have been registered. 

Your point is noted and you will be afforded 

an opportunity to review the final EIR before 

submission is made to the decision making 

authority. 

You have been sent notification. 



Process 

Process 

Process 

Process 

Process 

Process 

Process 



3.1.76 


If there is an effort, which I was made to 

believe, to superimpose the building to 

create the impression that it will in effect 

appear almost the same as for that of a 2 

storey building – I object strongest and will 

almost state that I question the 

professionalism of the person/grouping 

leading the public participation process 

All reasonable steps have been taken by the 

project architect to accurately reflect the scale 

and height of the proposed development in 

relation to the surrounding area and were 

furthermore utilized by the visual impact 

assessor.. 

Stauch Vorster: Building superimposed as 

close to reality as possible, no effort was ever 

made to make the building appear smaller. 

Might not be 100% accurate due the difficulty 

of the exercise _camera elevation ,camera 

angles and target elevation of the real photo 

can differ from that of the model.but the 

variations are minimal as certain things in the 

model need to be in scale with certain things 

on the photograph. 

Process 

3.1.77 

3.1.78 

3.1.79 

3.1.80 

3.1.81 



(168) 


(140) 


(159) 


(159) 

The legal entity responsible for the upkeep 

of not only the building, but also parking and 

maintenance of the area after completion, is 

not indicated. A shelve company shifting 

responsibility after selling the development 

cannot be held responsible once dissolved 

The EIA does not deal with the issues 

comprehensively and sufficiently; I‟ll 

address my viewpoints accordingly 

I have protested before but I never received 

any response. 

The DEIR is seriously misleading and 

biased in many respects. 

The DEIR does not reflect the extent of the 

opposition to the impact that the proposed 

development will have on the harbour. It is 

not mentioned in the DEIR that over a 

thousand complaints were submitted 

against the negative impact this proposal 

will have on the harbour. 

See section 3.1.12 and 3.1.13 of the 


Applicants response: The body corporate 

would be established to perform this function. 

The pristine nature of Langezandt Fishermens 

Village should provide an indication of how 

the proposed development would be 

managed. 

Your opinion is noted however the EAP 

disagrees. 

Notification has been sent, using the provided 

contact details. 

Disagree ever effort has been made to 

provide all relevant information an specialist 

inputs for informed-decision making. Please 

refer to Section 1.8 of the FEIR. 

All comments have been included in the EIA 

reports and summarized in the Comment and 

Response Reports. We have however revised 

section 3.4 – 3.8 of the FEIR to ensure that 

the reader is made aware of the nature and 

quantity of the comments. 

Process 

Process 

Process 

Process 

Process 



3.1.82 

3.1.83 

3.1.84 

3.1.85 


(137) 



(64) 


(64) 

The whole EIA is based on assumptions 

and predictions and cannot be verified or 

guaranteed. Allegations of broken promises 

by the client were made. 

The developer claims that the two storey 

building restriction is not enforced and 

backs this with pictures of 3 storey buildings 

that have sunken garages with two stories 

on top and are not three stories above 

ground. 

The EIA states that the proposed 

development will increase the length of the 

holiday season and I fail to see the logic 

behind this. South Africans are very 

sensitive to the weather, especially when it 

comes to seaside resorts. Cape Town is a 

prime example of this, where occupancy 

levels in winter is far lower than in summer 

months. 

It is also not true to state that Struisbaai 

does not have any facilities for tour busses 

and without the proposed development of 

Erf 848 the town will not have such facilities. 

This was an oversight in the reasoning of a 

developer. 

The EIA is based on specialist input as well as 

comments received for I&APs. Every 

reasonable measure has been taken to 

ensure reasonable confidence in the findings 

accuracy as well as sufficient information for 

the competent authority to make an informed 

decision. Assumptions and gaps in 

information are declared in Section ** as 

legally required. 

This was the case in accordance with the 

2006 SDF which has now been superceded 

by the 2009 CAM SDF which no longer makes 

provision for a two storey limitation. Section 

2.7 of FEIR states that the proponent plans to 

apply for the appropriate zonation and rights 

to meet the requirements of the proposed 

development. 

Economic Specialist: The financial 

sustainability inputs for Langezandt Quays 

indicate that the calculated risk that the 

proponent is willing to take is not misplaced. 

Financial sustainability cannot be guaranteed. 

However, the available evidence provides no 

reason to suspect financial failure and, as 

such, provides no clear basis to argue against 

the desirability of the development. 


Economic Specialist: The financial 

sustainability inputs for Langezandt Quays 

indicate that the calculated risk that the 

proponent is willing to take is not misplaced. 

Financial sustainability cannot be guaranteed. 

However, the available evidence provides no 

reason to suspect financial failure and, as 

such, provides no clear basis to argue against 

the desirability of the development. 

Process 

Process 

Process 

Process 




3.1.86 

3.1.87 

3.1.88 

3.1.89 

3.1.90 


(64) 


(75) 


(75) 


(75) 


(75) 

The developer states that development will 

result in better fish prices for the fisherman. 

My logic is telling me that should a more up 

market shop be used, a higher rental will be 

payable, resulting in a higher cost structure 

and higher prices to the buyer. It will not 

result in higher income to the fisherman – it 

could rather result in a loss of income as 

potentially fewer buyers will be interested in 

buying fish at higher prices. The statement 

that fisherfolk will benefit from the new 

development in terms of prices for their 

produce is therefore highly unlikely. 

The interested and affected parties who 

passed their comments about the proposed 

either fax or post between 10 December 

2007 and 10 February 2008 have been 

disregarded. They never received any 

correspondence from Aurecon and were 

subsequently not notified of the public 

meeting and not able to lodge their 

opposition to this project. 

The public comment period from 9 October 

to 17 November 2009 should be extended 

to mid January 2010 so that we have an 

opportunity to familiarize ourselves with the 

fact and with most of the homeowners. 

The libraries in which these draft EIA 

reports are available are beyond reach of 

probably 90% of homeowners at Struisbaai. 

The EIA report is flawed and should be 

redone. It is further too biased in 

discrepancies on site selection, site 

availability, visual impact, heritage impact 

etc, 



Please refer to Section 3 of the FEIR. 

A 40 day comment period was provided as 

per the NEMA requirements. It must be noted 

that registered I&APs will be afforded a further 

21 days to comment on the final EIR before it 

will be submitted to the decision-making 

authorities. 

The reports were sent to libraries that best 

suited the I&AP profile per geographical area. 

Including the library in Struisbaai Noord. All 

the relevant documentation was made 

available for review on the Aurecon website 

www.aurecongroup.com 

Strongly disagree. Every effort has been 

made to include specialist input on the 

potential environmental impacts. Furthermore, 

extensive public participation has been 

undertaken throughout this EIA. Aurecon does 

not accept the accusation that the report(s) 

are bias as Aurecon is a reputable 

environmental consultancy and the EAP is a 

registered professional environmental 

scientist that abides to a strict code of ethics. 

Process 

Process 

Process 

Process 

Process 



3.1.91 

3.1.92 

3.1.93 


(80) 

Andre Morgenthal 

(89) 


(67) 

The notion that it is not economically viable 

for the developer to build a structure of 2 

storey's, is quite frankly irrelevant. As a 

developer of existing property in Struisbaai, 

the developer should know the building 

regulations better than most people. As 

such, I am led to believe that he was fully 

aware of this restriction prior to his purchase 

of ERF 848, and has taken a gamble that 

he would be able to have the rules changed 

to suit his pocket. 

It has come to our attention that there was a 

deadline for submission of comments and 

objections, today, 17 th of November. 

However, even though I had registered as 

an Interested and Affected Parties and have 

submitted my comments last year, we never 

received any correspondence or feedback. 

We therefore demand an extension in order 

to study the scoping report, to offer me and 

others (who have also not received an 

opportunity due to the lack of 

communication from your side) to 

investigate what we consider does not 

reflect a realistic picture of the impact on the 

socio- and ecological environment. 

The comment stating that some I&APs have 

supported the proposed development as it 

would significantly upgrade the harbour 

infrastructure need to be contextualized. 

Perhaps the I&APs were responding to 

whether the development of any nature 

would be an improvement. Improvement 

the harbour does not depend on a four 

storey building. The proposed mitigating 

factor of a staggered design to reduce 

height/ visual effect is inadequate. There is 

no mitigating factor that will reduce 

satisfactory the severity of this impact. 

The proponent is undertaking the impact 

assessment as legally required and the 

proposed development may not be approved. 

Every effort is made to ensure that all 

registered I&APs receive information 

throughout the EIA process. This is usually 

undertaken in various ways such as post, 

email, fax or sms. According to our database 

you selected the option to receive 

correspondence via email. We experienced a 

technical problem with our bulk emails which 

consequently resulted in you not receiving a 

notification. We have addressed this issue 

with you in an email dated 18/11/2009. 



Process 

Process 

Process 



3.1.94 

3.1.95 

3.1.96 

3.1.97 

3.1.98 


(67) 


(114) 


Wilken (105) 



The results indicated on the impact 

assessment table are highly subjective. 

There is no reference as to whose expert 

opinion was taken into consideration. A few 

examples of impacts that are controversial 

are assigned to parking in the harbour and 

to traffic flow during the peak periods. Such 

impact should be rated as high both before 

and after mitigation. Furthermore the impact 

on heritage as been rated as low and very 

low, without mitigation and with mitigation 

respectively. This denies the significant 

impact that this development will have on 

the local fishermen and the fishing village 

atmosphere of Struisbaai. 

I sincerely hope that all the concerns, 

reservations, questions and objections to 

the harbour project will be addressed 

adequately to make the development a 

reality. Note I only read through the 

executive summary and not the impact 

report. Please hear my plea to investigate 

this aspect thoroughly and to have wellstructured 

mitigation measures in place that 

would address people‟s concerns. 

Please acknowledge reception of this 

objection. 

1. I don‟t believe the public meetings were 

adequately advertised among residents. I 

know of a number of people who was 

unaware of the meeting. I received an e- 

mail as notification and saw an 

advertisement in the Suidernuus. However, 

I did not see an advert in any of the larger 

newspapers, e.g. Weekend Argus, and I 

talked to a number of homeowners and 

residents who did not receive notices via 

mail. 

The photos on the letter of the proposed 

development are very small and blurred. 

Strongly disagree. Please refer to Chapter 4 

of the FEIR for the methodology adopted. 

Specialists were consulted to inform each of 

the potential impacts listed in Section 5 of the 

FEIR and this is clearly outlined in the text. 

Please refer to the FEIR. 

Acknowledgement has been sent to you. 

Please refer to Chapter 3 of the FEIR which 

details the steps taken to notify I&APs of the 

meeting. 

Please refer to the FEIR which is available on 

the website (www.aurecongroup.com) and in 

the libraries. 

Process 

Process 

Process 

Process 

Process 



3.1.99 

3.1.100 

3.1.101 

3.1.102 





First of all, I want confirmation that you have 

registered me as an Interested and Affected 

Party, as I have registered on two separate 

occasions before but never received any 

confirmation, letters or information 

regarding the process for the development. 

The impacts and associated intensity, as 

well as the proposed mitigation measures in 

the Draft EIR are very unconvincing. 

We confirm that the EAP has advised us 

[Telephone discussion between Justine 

Sweet and John Foord on 12/11/2009] that 

there will be a further opportunity to 

comment on the final environmental impact 

report. [Of some concern to us is the fact 

that a further specialist feasibility report is 

apparently being prepared. in our view, this 

ought properly to have been included in the 

dEIR]. We confirm our clients' rights to do 

so. 

In addition, the development proponent 

comments that "retaining the current 

operations of the fishermen is of tourism 

value since it would positively contribute to 

the attractiveness of the harbour for tourists 

and locals alike." [p. 115 of dEIR]. It is 

therefore not clear why the required 

mitigation measures in this regard, for 

example strategies to accommodate and 

encourage the acquiring of fish from local 

fishermen, are only put forward as optional 

mitigation measures [p. 114-115 of dEIR]. 

These optional measures, coupled with the 

inevitable closure of Harbour Catch 

mentioned below, in fact indicate that the 

development would eliminate the current 

operations. This contradicts the above 

statement concerning the retention of these 

operations. 

You are registered on the database. We have 

checked our database and confirm that you 

will receive future correspondence in this 

regard. Please refer to Section 3 of the FEIR. 

Every reasonable effort has been made to 

assess the potential impacts associated with a 

development of nature within the EIA 

methodology outlined in Chapter 4. 

An independent review of the feasibility report 

was a response to I&AP comments during the 

DEIR phase and has now been concluded 

and is available for review in Section 2.4.6 

and Annexure R of the FEIR. I&APs will have 

an opportunity to comment on this in the final 

EIR. 

EAP Response: The design (Alternative 6) 

makes provision for an interface between the 

fisherfolk and the fish market facility in the 


Applicants response: Although the fishing 

operations will add to the attraction of the 

harbour, the proponent is not in control of the 

fisherfolks operations as it falls under MCM. 


regarding mitigation measures. Please refer 


Response Report regarding other activities. 

Please refer to Annexure T of the FEIR. 

Process 

Process 

Process 

Process 



3.1.103 

3.1.104 

3.1.105 




The EAP alleges that the Integrated Coastal 

Management Act [24 of 2008. Desmond 

Marinus at the DEA] ("ICMA") is not 

applicable in the context of the EIA process 

because a date for its commencement has 

not yet been set. We are advised [Mr 

Marinus of the DEA] that a date has in fact 

been set for the commencement of the 

ICMA which shall be published shortly. In 

any event, given the fact that this Act has 

already been published and is directly 

applicable to the applicant's proposed 

development, it is our view that its content 

should have been addressed within the 

draft EIR. 

As a result, our clients contend that the 

abovementioned pertinent provisions of the 

ICMA should have been addressed within 

the draft EIR particularly given their 

relevance to the location of the site within 

the coastal protection zone. To the extent 

that they have not been addressed, they 

must be taken into account by the decisionmaker. 

Although the conversion of the application 

from a basic assessment requirement to a 

full scoping and environmental impact 

assessment is to be applauded (more 

particularly based on the extensive negative 

reaction to the proposed development), the 

public participation has still, in our view 

been inadequate. 

The ICMA has been enacted and became 

operational on the 1 December 2009 (expect 

sections 11, 65, 66, 95, 96 and 98) and has 

been included into the FEIR. Please refer to 



which has been revised from the DEIR to 

include this Act as it became operational on 1 

December 2009. 

The EAP respectfully disagrees with the 

ascertion that public participation has been 

inadequate.Please refer to Chapter 3 of the 

FEIR which summarises all public 

engagements throughout the assessment to 

date. 

Process 

Process 

Process 



3.1.106 

3.1.107 

3.1.108 

3.1.109 





It does not appear that particular steps have 

been taken to inform and address the 

concerns of the community of Struisbaai 

Noord (including the local fishermen) who 

will be particularly affected by a 

development which essentially caters for 

once-off tourists rather than the Struisbaai 

public; 

To date, not all homeowners have been 

informed of, are aware of or have 

commented on the proposed development 

[We confirm that for example, one Judge 

Combrink who resides in Natal but owns a 

house in close proximity to the proposed 

development only became aware of the 

proposed development when John van 

Niekerk advised him of it telephonically]. 

As stated elsewhere in this report, the 

requirement for full public participation and 

consultation must be greater given the 

public nature of the site and the rights 

attaching to it. 

A much more inclusive process of public 

participation is required. I own property in 

Struisbaai, yet accidentally learned (very 

late) of this report. This development 

process excludes interested and affected 

parties and this needs to be addressed. 

If you consider the combined investment of 

all these individuals at present property 

prices and you compare it to the input cost 

of the developer I think the public 

participation process is flawed and biased in 

favour of the developer. 


regarding the public participation process. 

The fisherfolk have furthermore been 

personally invited to participate through their 

representatives and have chosen to attend 

the meetings in small numbers. To this end, 

the social impact assessment undertaken 

addressed the fisherfolk to ensure issues 

raised were considered and included in the 

EIA. A detailed independent Social Impact 

Assessment was undertaken to ensure all 

spheres of the Struisbaai community were 

consulted (Annexure H of the FEIR). Please 

also refer to Section 5.2.3 of the FEIR 

regarding opportunities for Struisbaai. Please 


Response Report regarding the fisher folk‟s 

concerns being considered. 

Please refer to Chapter 3 of the FEIR. The 

Environmental Assessment Practitioner has 

gone beyond what is legally required to 

accommodate I&APs and has taken all 

reasonable steps to ensure I&APs are 

informed as the EIA process continues. 

Please refer to Section 3 of the FEIR 

regarding the extensive public participation 

process. 

All reasonable steps have been taken to 

include and promote public engagement 

through the EIA to date. Please refer to 

Section 3 of the FEIR. 

Process 

Process 

Process 

Process 



3.1.110 


An application in terms of the Promotion of 

Access to Information Act [2 of 2002] was 

submitted to Mr Roodt [the proponent 

developer's representative] (both in Cape 

Town and in Struisbaai), Mr Tommy 

Brummer [the proponent developer's townplanner], 

Mr Piet Bakker [the proponent 

developer's architect] and Mr John Foord 

(of the EAP) by John van Niekerk on or 

about 9 February 2009. To date, no 

response has been formally forthcoming 

[the EAP's representative, John Foord, 

advised Mr John van Niekerk on several 

occasions that the proponent developer had 

taken advice and that the answers would be 

forthcoming] and our clients reserve their 

rights to supplement this objection pending 

delivery of such information; and 

1. All plans, drawing, diagrams, charts, 

deeds of transfer, and/or documents 

relating to Erf 848 Struisbaai that 

discloses: 

a. Erf extent; 

b. set back from all four boundaries of Erf 

848 of any buildings or structures to be 

erected/ constructed; 

c. proposed building/ structure coverage; 

d. proposed entry/ exit points; 

e. proposed height (above mean sea level) 

of any buildings/structures; 

f. bulk factor attached to structures/ 

buildings; 

g. restrictive condition imposed in favour of 

the general public of a right of way (as 

depicted on diagram No 596/1961 

annexed to Deed of Transfer No T 

482/1962; 

h. special restrictive condition relating to the 

rights to hotels and liquor licenses on Erf 

848 as is set out in deed of transfer No 

T482/1962; 

i. special restrictive condition forbidding the 

erection of any building on Erf 848 until 

plans have been submitted to and 

approved by the directors of Struis Bay 

Estates (Pty) Ltd. 

Process 

RESPONSE TO 1 ABOVE: 

The documentation referred to above has 

now been provided, either by virtue of the 

provision of the title deed in question; or by 

the provision of other relevant detail 

contained in the FEIR and its Annexures. 



One of the reasons why this request purportedly 

lodged under PAIA was not responded to by the 

proponent before the production of this draft of the 

FEIR is because the request failed to comply with 

certain stipulated requirements under that Act; for 

example, the requester failed to pay the required 

request fee, as stipulated in the Act read with its 

regulations. Another reason was because (in light 

of the flawed request, as adverted to directly 

above) there appeared to be no justifiable basis on 

which to prefer this I&AP to the others (some 1,400 

in total) who or which have participated in this 

process. 

3.1.110 

2. All reports, correspondence (minutes, notes or 

memoranda of meetings or correspondence) 

and or notifications presented to, or received 

from any person, provincial department, Cape 

Agulhas Municipality, committee, subcommittee, 

working groups or task teams, 

consultant (whether public or private) regarding 

the proposed use and/or change of zoning of 

Erf 848 Struisbaai or the passing of buildings 

plans regarding buildings to be erected and 

used on Erf 848 Struisbaai. 


As this FEIR and its Annexures make abundantly 

clear, the formal application for zoning (as well as 

whatsoever other applications may be required in 

order to facilitate the proposed land use) are 

explained and/or summarized in the documentation 

that has served before ht provincial environmental 

authority to date. Please see annexure M of the 

FEIR for the land use planning documentation. 



3. All correspondence (from or to) any person, 

body, committee, sub-committee, working 

group or task team, or Provincial Government, 

consultant which is or was in the possession of 

the Provincial Government of council relating to 

such aforementioned use or proposed change 

of zoning. 


As this FEIR and its Annexures make abundantly 

clear, the formal application for zoning (as well as 

whatsoever other applications may be required in 

order to facilitate the proposed land use) are 

explained and/or summarized in the documentation 

that has served before ht provincial environmental 

authority to date. Please see annexure M of the 

FEIR for the land use planning documentation. 

3.1.110 

4. All opinions, memoranda, reports of counsel, 

attorneys, architects engineers or town 

planners or, notes, memoranda or other 

documentation in the possession of any official 

or employee of the company relating to such 

aforementioned use or change of zoning. 


This category of information purportedly sought by 

this I&AP amounts to a “fishing expedition”. It does 

not specify with sufficient particularity, the 

information so sought. In addition it purports to 

include a request for types of information that can 

be refused in terms of the refusal grounds 

stipulated in the PAIA (for e.g. information that is 

legally privileged like reports of counsel and / or 

attorneys). 



5. Copies of all agreements entered into 

between the company and other persons 

relating to the use or change of zoning of 

Erf 848 Struisbaai. 

3.1.110 


3.1.111 


Although a new feasibility study is being 

prepared (and which we understand has not 

yet been completed but should be available 

on or about 17 November 2009), we 

understand [from an e-mail from John Foord 

to Justine Sweet dated 12/11/2009] that that 

study will only be made available to the 

interested and affected parties upon 

publication of the Final Environmental 

Impact Report. It is submitted that given the 

identified inadequacies of the existing 

feasibility study (and the contentious issue 

of alternatives), the draft EIR should not 

have been made available for comment 

until the new feasibility study was available 

or, at the very least, the period within which 

to comment extended upon distribution of 

such report. The very purpose of comments 

on the draft EIR (and the specialist reports 

attached thereto) is to seek to allow the 

EAP the opportunity to address the issues 

raised by such report or, in this case, to 

allow further alternatives to be properly 

investigated. 

It is not possible to discern exactly what is 

meant under this request. In any event it 

amounts a “fishing expedition” as it does nor 

specify with sufficient (or any) particularity, 

exactly what is sought. 

There was no commitment to have the 

independent feasibility report completed by 17 

November 2009. The comment period for the 

draft EIR however ended on the 17 November 

2009. The request for an independent review 

of the Feasibility Statement (Annexure P of 

the DEIR) was raised at the Public Meeting 

(31 October 2009). Turner & Townsend was 

then appointed to undertake a feasibility 

assessment and it was determined that the 

proponents‟ interpretation was within the 

range of estimates provided by Turner & 

Townsend. The feasibility report, though not 

as detailed as the Turner & Townsend, 

assessment was thus adequate in terms of 

the selection of alternatives. 

Process 



3.1.112 

3.1.113 

3.1.114 




The EAP is a well known and well regarded 

firm and we do not wish to place its integrity 

in question. However, given the 

requirement that EAPs must at all times 

remain objective and independent in their 

duties as a practitioner, we are constrained 

to point out the following: Throughout the 

public participation process, questions of 

the EAP's independence and objectivity 

have been raised. In this regard, we refer 

to the minutes of the public participation 

meetings; 

The EAP has not specifically made any 

recommendation on whether or not the 

proposed development should proceed. 

As an independent expert, the EAP's 

responsibility is, in our view, to make a 

recommendation on whether or not a 

particular development is appropriate in the 

circumstances. In our view, the EAP has 

failed to do so. 

It appears that, where contentious issues 

arise, the EAP simply refers to the 

proponent's argument or decision. In this 

regard, we refer to paragraph 2.4.5. of the 

draft EIR in which, with reference to the 

request that the development proponent 

consider a two storey alternative, it states 

that "the proponent has argued that a two 

storey building will not be financially 

sustainable …" The EAP has apparently 

not committed itself to a conclusion either 

way. This, in our view, and more 

particularly given the integrity of the EAP, is 

problematic 

It is often the case that I&APs make 

allegations about the Environmental 

Assessment Practitioners. More specifically, if 

I&APs do not agree with the Environmental 

Assessment Practitioner findings. Aurecon 

maintains that these allegations are 

unreasonable and unjustified. Please refer to 


Disagree. The Environmental Assessment 

Practitioner has provided its opinion in Section 

7.5 of the DEIR and the FEIR in terms of 

Section 32 (2) m in GNR 385 (the NEMA EIA 

Regulations). Conclusions were provided in 

Section 6 of the DEIR and FEIR. 

With reference to Annexures P & R of the 

FEIR it is clear that a 2 storey alternative is 

not financially feasible or reasonable in the 

circumstances. The EAP obtained a 

motivation of market and economic viability 

which has been independently reviewed. As 

such we accept the argument that the 

proponent does not wish to apply for this 

option and requires only a decision on the 

option it has shown to be reasonable and 

feasible. - The EAP thus assessed 

alternatives that are considered financially 

feasible and as such the decision making 

authority would need to apply their minds to 

consider if the proposed development is 

acceptable within the context of the receiving 

environment. 

Process 

Process 

Process 



3.1.115 

3.1.116 

3.1.117 

3.1.118 




(23) 




(23) 


(SEA) (48) 


(80) 

Another misrepresentation you make that 

clearly shows your prejudice towards the 

developer which is “owing to the public 

interest and concern relating to the 

alternatives presented during the scoping 

phase, the proponent proposed another 

alternative, a multi-level…alternative 6”. 

Again, send me the letters or emails from 

people supporting the multi-level 

development. I am an active member of the 

Struisbaai Homeowner Association who‟s 

every member are against the multi-level 

development. 

How can a four-storey building that would 

suite in the V&A Waterfront in Cape Town 

also fit in Struisbaai? The prejudice from 

environmental consultants is blatantly 

shameless and the Province should 

urgently put a system in place where they 

appoint the consultants and pay them with 

money guaranteed by the developer. If not, 

EIAs would continue to provide motivations 

for the needs of developers. 

Page 5 of the Executive Summary (The 

public participation process), It is 

unfortunate that it is still legally permissible 

for developers to appoint their own 

environmental consultants. In many cases, 

this practice creates a source of corruption 

and collusion, whereby it is in the 

consultants‟ interests to propose the 

development in a positive framework, and 

mitigate negative impacts wherever 

possible. Until the policy of appointments of 

consultants by developers is changed, 

public participation will amount to nothing 

more than a farce. 

Careful consideration needs to be given to 

the potential impacts, and needs to reflect 

an accurate and fair assessment of the 

situation. I don‟t believe that this report 

accomplishes either of those objectives. 

Aurecon is not prejudiced towards any 

particular outcome for this EIA process, we 

are appointed only to undertake the legal 

process and submit information for decisionmaking. 

. The additional alternative 

(Alternative 6) was the proponent‟s response 

to the extremely negative reactions which 

emanated from the initial round of 

engagement especially relating to the 4 and 6 

storey solid buildings options. I&APs 

comments in support and in opposition to the 

proposed development are contained in the 

various EIA Comment and Response Reports. 

The EAP has maintained its independence 

and ensured that all issues have been 

adequately investigated and reported in 

accordance with accepted methodologies. 

Where appropriate, specialists have been 

appointed to undertake more detailed 

assessments and all information has been 

made public in the EIA documentation. The 

issue of independence in terms of Section 1.8 


Your comment is noted, however Aurecon 

maintains its independence. Please refer to 

Section 1.8 and Section 3 of the FEIR. 

Strongly disagree. This has been considered 

throughout the EIR. 

Process 

Process 

Statement 

Process 



3.1.119 


(67) 

It is interesting to note that the EAP 

supports the development though they 

identify the negative visual impact of the 

proposed development? How can the EAP 

support the proposal despite the negative 

visual impact they've identified? 


does not support the proposed development. 

The EAP is requested in terms of Section 32 

(2) m of the NEMA to provide an opinion in 

terms of whether the proposed development 

should be granted authorisation or not. In our 

opinion, subject to the visual impact, no 

significant environmental impact applies to 

prohibit such a development. 

Process 

3.1.120 

3.1.121 

3.1.122 

SW Meyer (46) The report is good and transparent Noted. Process 



A full copy of the title deed in respect of the 

site has not been annexed to the draft EIR. 

It appears, however, that there are 

potentially title deed restrictions which have 

not been mentioned or addressed in the 

draft EIR [i.e. there may be a condition 

which stipulates that the site shall be used 

for the erection of a building to be used for 

the cleaning, salting and storing of fresh fish 

in refrigerated rooms]. Consequently, we 

reserve our rights to supplement this 

objection upon such title deeds being made 

available and comment on those restrictions 

included in the draft EIR [it should be noted 

that a failure buy the development applicant 

to make a full copy of the title deeds 

available to the department will result in any 

decision taken by the department being 

once which potentially failed to take all 

relevant information and considerations into 

account and which would be subject to 

appeal and judicial review]. 

In our view, although this is not the 

equivalent of "public open space", the public 

rights attaching to these restrictions require 

a particularly comprehensive public 

participation process. In our view, and as 

stated elsewhere in this objection, the public 

participation process has not taken this into 

account and is accordingly inadequate. 

This is incorrect. The title deeds are included 

in Annexure S of the FEIR. Please refer to 

Sections 2.6 and 2.7 of the FEIR regarding 

the lifting of title deed restrictions. 

Tommy Brummer: There are no conditions in 

the title deed which prescribe the use of the 

property or the type of building that is to be 

erected. Condition B.6.(b), which prescribed 

that the property “shall be used only for the 

erection thereon of a building to be used for 

the cleaning, salting and storing of fresh fish 

in refrigerated rooms”, was removed from the 

title deed in terms of a Notice that was 

published in the Provincial Gazette on 26 

September 2003 and accordingly no longer 

applies. The town planning application is still 

to be submitted, part of the application will be 

for the removal of the “three quarters built 

upon area” restriction, the restriction referring 

to loading bays (typically imposed on 

industrial erven) and the 7.61m street building 

line restriction. 

Please refer to Chapter 3 regarding the public 

participation process. The Environmental 

Assessment Practitioner has exceeded the 

requirements as defined in the EIA 

Regulations and it is noted that an application 

in terms of the Removal of Restrictions Act 

(No. 84 of 1967) will also need to be followed 

with its associated objection process. 

Process 

Process 



3.1.123 

3.1.124 


Dorel Van der 







73, 69, 66, 65, 172, 

93, 78) 


The condensed EIR notification for the open 

day posted to I&AP had no colour 

differences for the impact assessments and 

was thus useless as a means to measure 

the different impacts. Impact assessment 

have to be redone to give fair opportunity to 

all involved to access the various impacts 

and their grades, as it is impossible to 

distinguish or to comment when impacts are 

shown in black and white. 

The restrictions and rights of way are 

significant and affect the public. They also 

dictate, to a large extent, what alternatives 

are feasible and should be permitted. It is 

submitted that it creates an absurd result to 

consider alternatives which, at this stage, 

are not yet known to be possible. Given the 

significant impact upon the public should 

the title deed restrictions be removed, it is 

our view that a specialist town-planning and 

socio-economic study ought to have formed 

part of the EIA process in order to 

determine properly the socio-economic 

impacts of the proposed development [it 

should be noted that a failure by the 

development applicant to address all 

information inadequacies will result in any 

decision taken by the department being one 

which potentially failed to take all relevant 

information and considerations into account 

and which would be subject to appeal and 

judicial review]. Thus, in our view, the 

necessary information is not before the 

interested and affected parties or the 

Department and any decision taken without 

that information will be flawed and 

reviewable. 

The colours are merely indicative and are 

available on the Aurecon website. The actual 

impacts to which the colours referred were 

typed into the same table.Furthermore, 

original copies were available for viewing at 

the Struisbaai Noord library, Cape Town 

library, Sandton Library and the Cape Agulhas 

Municipality. 

Disagree. The EIA process assessed the 

impact of the proposed development, which 

included the potential scenario of lifting the 

title deed restrictions. A social and economic 

impact assessment was undertaken and was 

included in Annexure H of the DEIR. Tommy 

Brummer Town Planners have provided input 

in terms of the proposed process that would 

be followed to release certain title deed 

restrictions as well as the proposed change in 

terms of zonation. 

We wish to correct the suggestion that (in so 

far as necessary before I&APs, which we 

dispute), that this would lead in the first 

instance to a decision that would be 

“reviewable”. There is a right of appeal 

provided for under NEMA, and this internal 

remedy would have to be exhausted before 

any party could seek the review and setting 

aside of a decision that they might choose to 

challenge. 

Process 

Process 



3.1.125 


We also note that the site may have formed 

part of the admiralty reserve [Section 1(1) of 

the ICMA]. However, this is not mentioned 

in the draft EIR and since we were not 

furnished with a copy of the title deed, we 

are unable to determine whether this is the 

case. We request confirmation from the 

applicant as to whether the site forms part 

of the admiralty reserve. We reserve our 

clients' rights to submit further comments in 

this regard. 

There is no mention in the title deeds of the 

property falling within the admiralty reserve. 

The admiralty reserve is state land whereas 

Erf 848 is private land. 

Process 



Disagree the role of the EIA is not to motivate 

for planning alterations rather to consider the 

consequences of the activities which may be 

undertaken on that location. It is the 

responsibility of the Planners to motivate for 

any required deviations. Please refer to 

Section 1.38, 1.4 and 2.8 of the FEIR. 

3.1.126 


Amongst others, the purpose of an SDF is 

to ensure a harmonised, integrated and 

consistent approach to spatial development 

planning. These frameworks are prepared 

consequent upon careful consideration and 

consultation by the relevant local authority, 

in this case Cape Agulhas Municipality. 

Developments which constitute exceptions 

to such frameworks ought, at the very least, 

to demonstrate that there is a significant 

need for such a development, that they are 

feasible and that there are exceptional 

circumstances justifying a departure from 

the SDF, particularly where the departure is 

as extreme as the proposed development. 

In our view, the draft EIR fails to do so. 

Tommy Brummer: SDF‟s do not change or 

confer real rights on land; the purpose of a 

SDF is to guide appropriate future change and 

to guide municipalities to assess applications 

for land use changes. Zoning Scheme 

Regulations, on the other hand, have a 

binding effect on the development rights 

attributed to land and confer real rights on 

properties; however, given the dynamic nature 

of towns, it is impossible to predict the exact 

requirements of development rights and a 

measure of flexibility is therefore built into 

Zoning Schemes in order to take changing 

circumstances into account, normally 

achieved through the processing of town 

planning applications such as rezonings and 

departures, where each development 

proposal is assessed on its own merits and 

desirability. In this regard we are of the 

opinion that the restrictions imposed on the 

property in terms of the current approved SDF 

is unconstitutional as it takes away rights 

afforded to the property in terms of the Zoning 

Scheme. On the other hand, the draft SDF 

does not prescribe building envelopes for the 

Harbour Precinct (as opposed to the current 

SDF); this is welcomed as it is clearly not the 

function of SDFs to prescribe development 

envelopes. 

Process 



3.1.127 


In general, the development proponent has 

failed to demonstrate that the proposed 

development is sustainable as required by, 

amongst other things, the principles 

enshrined in NEMA [Section 2]. We 

submit that there is insufficient information 

in the draft EIR to determine the feasibility 

and sustainability of the proposed 

development. For example, the costs of 

infrastructure improvements have been 

calculated based on a rough estimate. As 

noted below, significant infrastructure 

improvements are required for the proposed 

development to take place and, given the 

budgetary and other constraints placed on 

local authorities throughout South Africa, it 

is simply not realistic to place such 

significant demands on the Cape Agulhas 

Municipality (more particularly when the 

demands are in favour of an apparently 

small minority favouring development rather 

than the general public). 

Disagree. With reference to Section 6.1.3, 

Annexure P, Annexure R and Annexure U of 

the FEIR the proposed development has been 

assessed to be both financially viable 

(specifically Alternative 6) and confirmation 

has been received from CAM confirming their 

ability to provide services. 

Process 



3.1.128 

3.1.129 



The development proponent has failed to 

demonstrate the sustainability and feasibility 

of the proposed hotel. It is submitted that 

there is little need for a further hotel in 

Struisbaai and a development which 

incorporates a hotel is simply not 

sustainable (financially or otherwise). 

Previously, a hotel in Struisbaai failed. 

Further, we point out that, despite being the 

developer of another proposed boutique 

hotel in the area, [in fact, no more than 1.5 

km from the site] namely at Langezandt, the 

development proponent has failed to 

mention or consider such boutique hotel. 

We have also been advised that a new 

hotel has been approved on the old 

Struisbaai Hotel site which would also affect 

the alleged feasibility of the applicant's 

proposed development. Significantly, we 

understand that although application was 

made for a building outside of the SDF 

requirements, the Department failed to 

approve it and that development may be 

constructed to a maximum height of 10m 

[as advised by the chairman of the 

Struisbaai Residents Association]. These 

facts are, it is submitted, material facts 

which ought to have been considered and 

disclosed [in this regard, we refer to the 

requirement in regulation 23(2) which 

requires that a development applicant place 

all relevant facts before the Department] 

and which almost certainly affect the 

economic feasibility of the proposed hotel. 

The impact of the proposed hotel on guest 

house operators (and their employees) has 

also not been adequately considered. 

Disagree. With reference to Section 6.1.3, 

Annexure P, Annexure R and Annexure U of 

the FEIR the proposed development has been 

assessed to be both financially viable 

(specifically Alternative 6) and confirmation 

has been received from CAM confirming their 

ability to provide services. 

Disagree. Please refer to Section 5.2.3 of the 


Process 

Process 



The feasibility study included in the draft 

EIR is, in our view, wholly inadequate. In 

this regard, we confirm that the EAP has 

commissioned a further feasibility study 

(and must assume, based on this fact, that 

the EAP holds a similar view). For what it is 

worth, the feasibility study fails to 

demonstrate an understanding of the 

principles of economic viability analysis 

(feasibility study) [these comments as well 

as those directly below are courtesy of Lori 

Colussi, a professional quantity surveyor at 

De Leeuw, Cape Town of the De Leeuw 

Group]. It is lacking in, amongst other 

things, the following respects: There is no 

development programme to understand 

whether values are future or present; There 

is no description of product; There is no 

basis stated for land value (square metre 

bulk rate); There is no proper analysis of the 

construction costs. On a cursory analysis, 

these costs reflect that they are not realistic; Please refer to Section 2.4.6, Annexure P and 

There is no reference to local authority or Annexure R of the FEIR. An independent 

other approvals of any nature; There is no feasibility assessment was undertaken by 

reference to value added tax; Reference Turner & Townsend and confirmed that the 

has been made to "other costs" being proponent‟s feasibility statement (Annexure P 

calculated at 20% of development costs. of the DEIR/FEIR) was deemed reasonable 

3.1.130 


Process 

This fails to indicate a proper understanding and acceptable i.e. Basement + 3 Floors. This 

of the relevant costs or items; and 

alternative would yield a 24.08% profit margin 

Numerous additional costs are excluded whereas the proponents calculation was 

(although there is an indicated intent to 24.16%. It is therefore reasonable to accept 

allow for such costs at 20%). These costs this figure as accurate. 

include, amongst other things, geotechnical 

investigations, land surveyors fees, legal 

costs, funding costs, escalation in 

construction costs, professional fees, local 

authority costs such as plan scrutiny fees, 

interim taxes, bulk service charges, 

marketing and pre-opening costs, 

furnishings, fixtures and equipment, 

financing costs, occupational health and 

safety compliance, etc. In summary, the 

feasibility study does not provide sufficient 

information to properly analyse or identify 

the risk to the proponent developer. 

I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\CRR IV FEIR Ordinarily ~ 26042010 [FINAL].doc a feasibility study should be 

159 of 193


3.1.131 

3.1.132 

3.1.133 




At the outset it is important to note the 

emphasis which NEMA places on the 

required investigation of the potential 

consequences or impacts of alternatives to 

a proposed activity on the environment 

within an application for environmental 

authorisation [Section 24(4)(b)(i)]. The EIA 

Regulations require both a basic 

assessment report and a scoping report to 

identify feasible and reasonable alternatives 

to the proposed activity [Reg. 23(1)(g) & 

29(1)(b) in GNR 385]. 

Given, amongst other things, the present 

economic crisis as well as the large bond on 

the property, there is some concern that 

there may not be sufficient financial 

resources to see the proposed development 

to completion. In this regard, and in the 

unlikely event that this development is 

approved, we submit that the development 

proponent ought to provide some comfort 

(by way of, for example, a bank guarantee) 

to the Department and interested and 

affected parties we submit that there is 

scope for this in the dEIA Regs.] 

Our clients do not deny that the site is 

presently in a state of disrepair. In this 

regard, we confirm that our clients would 

not be opposed to a development which is 

in line with relevant town-planning 

restrictions and which adequately 

accommodates public concerns and rights. 

NEMA only requires a Basic Assessment 

Report for the proposed development. 

However the Environmental Assessment 

Practitioner applied for an upgrade to full EIA 

process. Please refer to Section 2.4 of the 

FEIR and Section 3.1.52 of this Comment and 

Response Report regarding alternatives. 

Applicants response: All development 

funding is put in place pre-sales of an 

acceptable level is achieved. The developers‟ 

track record at Langezandt Fishermens 

Village, a billion rand development, provides 

proof of the ability to deliver. There is no 

obligation to provide comfort to I&APs. 



Report. 

Process 

Process 

Process 



3.1.134 


We submit that there is insufficient 

information [e.g. p. 81 of dEIR] in the draft 

EIR to determine the impact, feasibility and 

sustainability of the proposed development. 

For example, the costs of the apparently 

extensive infrastructure improvements 

required by the proposed development have 

merely been calculated on the basis of a 

20% cost of development. In our view, this 

is wholly inadequate. In addition, the Cape 

Agulhas Local Municipality and the 

Directorate of Marine and Coastal 

Management ("MCM") has not been 

properly consulted regarding traffic and 

parking [p. 31 of dEIR.] 

Please refer to Annexure P and Annexure R 

of the FEIR. The various authorities have 

been engaged on several occasions 

throughout the past 3 years. The Cape 

Agulhas Local Municipality was consulted on 

the traffic alternatives at a meeting that took 

place on the 31 July 2009. Telephonic 

correspondence with Marine and Coastal 

Management ("MCM"), Desmond Marinus 

took place on the 30 July 2009 to discuss the 

traffic options in principle and the proponent 

was informed that MCM would consider traffic 

solutions proposed as a product of the EIA 

process. 

Process 



3.1.135 

3.1.136 



Dorel Van der 







73, 69, 66, 65, 172, 

93, 78) 

While it is acknowledged that the area is 

severely depressed and that the 

unemployment is high, it is submitted that 

the proposed development is simply not one 

which will contribute towards a solution to 

those problems. In general, it is submitted 

that there will be fewer jobs created by the 

development than those impacted on or 

eradicated by it. The development 

proponent concedes that numerous 

livelihoods are dependent upon the ability of 

the fishermen to continue to use the 

harbour. In fact, a socio-economic survey 

conducted in 2008, and which is not 

referred to by the EAP, indicates that more 

than 20% of the persons employed in Ward 

5 are employed in the fishing industry. In 

our view, the real impact on employment 

opportunities and loss has not properly 

been investigated. In this regard, we note 

that much of the information relied upon by 

the development proponent's specialists is 

either outdated [we note reliance, for 

example on a 2001 census] or considered 

desk top/armchair information rather than 

factually accurate [we note reference to 

quotas in the fishing industry whereas in 

Struisbaai the local fishermen generally 

refer to a total allowable effort allocation] 

information. 

The authors of the DEIR are constantly 

naming and pointing to the problem, but 

they fail to address it. The mitigation 

measures that are recommended are 

inadequate. The community needs real 

answers to real problems. 


Sections 1.6.15 and 1.13.26 of this Comment 

and Response Report regarding the impact on 

the fisherfolk as well as Section 5.2.3, 

Annexure H and Annexure O of the FEIR 

regarding employment opportunities. 

Specialists have been consulted at all 

reasonable stages within the EIA to assist in 

arriving at an informed interpretation with 

regard to the identified impacts and 

suggestions for mitigation measures. 

Process 

Process 



3.1.137 

3.1.138 

3.1.139 

3.1.140 


Dorel Van der 







73, 69, 66, 65, 172, 

93, 78) 


Dorel Van der 







73, 69, 66, 65, 172, 

93, 78) 


Dorel Van der 







73, 69, 66, 65, 172, 

93, 78) 


Dorel Van der 







73, 69, 66, 65, 172, 

93, 78) 

A low rating for traffic flow can only be 

possible if you have the swimmers and 

fisherman enter the harbour through the 

main door of the proposed development. 

I also note that on Aurecon website, the 

impact rating is in Black and White, while all 

the proposed views of the development had 

colour. Page 117 - and so were the spatial 

planning context; Page 59 – and various 

aerial photographs. The impact 

assessments (black and white) are of more 

importance. I argue that this constitute a 

fatal flaw 

Referring on page 31 (1.7), it is assumed 

the information given by the proponent is 

correct. In the meeting, on Saturday 31 

October 2009, the architect acknowledged 

that it is difficult to be accurate when 

superimposing new developments onto 

existing photographs. Despite all the 

warnings, you still allow this material to be 

used at the presented in public. 

It is inaccurate to state that “due to strong 

opposition to alternatives” the development 

appointed an architect to design alternative 

6. We were totally against 4 storey building 

(alternative 6), even at the previous public 

meetings. The number of oppositions is not 

mentioned anywhere in your report 

No such suggestion has ever been made. The 

access to the harbour via Harbour Road will 

remain unaffected. 

This is incorrect. The tables in the draft EIR 

were in colour with red clearly showing where 

the high negative impacts were. The detail 

was also explain thoroughly in the text. 


Comment and Response Report. The 

correspondence sent by letter would have 

been presented in black and white. 

Stauch Vorster: The lamppost you are 

referring to is in fact 9.2m above ngl and 

therefore the scale of the proposed 

development his accurately depicted 

(assuming a reasonable degree of standard 

deviation). 

These images were furthermore accepted by 

the visual impact assessor before being 

utilised in the visual impact assessment. 



Your comment is noted, however with 

reference to the Feasibility Assessment 

(Annexure P/R of the FEIR) it is clear that a 

building less than ground level plus three 

levels would not be financially viable. 

Alternatives assessed have thus been in line 

with the potential feasibility as the proponent 

would be reluctant to develop an unprofitable 

building. 

Process 

Process 

Process 

Process 



3.1.141 

3.1.142 

3.1.143 

3.1.144 


Dorel Van der 







73, 69, 66, 65, 172, 

93, 78) 


Dorel Van der 







73, 69, 66, 65, 172, 

93, 78) 


Dorel Van der 







73, 69, 66, 65, 172, 

93, 78) 


Dorel Van der 







73, 69, 66, 65, 172, 

93, 78) 

I demand that each objection be listed and 

the number of IAP‟s objecting to that 

particular point be listed. As it currently 

stands it seems that the objections are only 

against the alternatives. How can the best 

decision be taken if the numbers of the 

objecting I&AP‟s are not reflected? 

I have been informed by some I&APs that 

they were not informed of the public 

meetings and this report. I strongly object 

to this and this is unfair to the individual and 

everyone and jeopardizes this process. 

They have the right to ask for a restart. 

I further object to these meetings being held 

off-season i.e. the open day was six weeks 

before the school holidays, surely it could 

have waited until then. You would have a 

much fairer and objective report with more 

input from the majority of property owners 

who only visit in the holidays. I urge you to 

allow comments obtained in the holiday 

period of 2009 and if not, then to state that 

in this report. 

The DEIR states that the local traditional 

fishermen will be accommodated as best 

they can with a fish processing facility in the 

proposed building, however the architect 

could not point out the location of such a 

facility at the Open Day meeting. Once 

again an empty promise. 


Comment and Response Report and Volume 

2 of the FEIR to see how many people are 

opposed to the proposed development. The 

decision is not based on a popularity poll but 

on all facts presented to the authorities. 

Every effort is made to ensure all registered 

I&APs are informed/notified throughout the 

EIA process. We did experience a technical 

fault with email correspondence, however 

other media was utilised to ensure notification 

to all registered I&APs was achieved. Please 

refer to section 3 of the FEIR. 

The EIA process to date has spanned 32 

months and all the information for the draft 

EIR phase produced was made available for 

public comment between 09/10/2009 – 

17/11/2009. The EIA regulations do not 

stipulate that public meetings are required for 

the review period of the DEIR, however to 

ensure I&APs had a platform for engagement 

the public meetings between 30/31 October 

2009 were deemed suitable in line with the 

project programme. Please refer to Chapter 

3 of the FEIR. 

The architect was not mandated to design the 

retail section in detail. The Environmental 

Assessment Practitioner was however 

informed by the proponent from the beginning 

of the EIA process that there would be a fish 

market/handling facility and this has been 

conveyed to I&APs on numerous occasions. 


Process 

Process 

Process 

Process 



3.1.145 


Dorel Van der 







73, 69, 66, 65, 172, 

93, 78) 

It is unacceptable to state that the 

development will have a positive impact on 

the harbour. This is the last unspoilt 

commercial harbour in the country, where 

the traditional chukkies are moored without 

yacht marinas and constructions as 

proposed. It is absurd to rate this intrusion 

as positive. You have received over 1000 

complaints stating that the harbour is 

unspoilt and yet this has not been reflected 

in your Draft EIA Report. 

Incorrect all comments received have been 

included in the reports and summarized in 

relevant Comment Response reports. Please 

refer to Sections 3, 5.2.4 and 5.2.5 of the 


Process 

3.1.146 

81, 79, 95, 85, 84, 

90, 160, 162, 164, 

154, 155, 156, 157, 

158, 153, 150, 151, 

116, 102, 103, 101, 

99, 100, 98, 92, 94, 

163, 174, 175, 176, 

177, 178, 33, 179, 

180, 181, 182 

I know of many I&APs who submitted letters 

of protest but are not on the database 

therefore we must assume their disapproval 

has been mislaid or lost. 

Please check Volume 2 of the FEIR to 

determine if their objection has reached 

Aurecon. Aurecon takes all reasonable steps 

to ensure the inclusion of every comment 

received during the EIA whether the 

comments are positive or negative. 

Process 

3.1.147 


The significant noise created by the 

fishermen, created at all times of the day 

and night, could pose a significant nuisance 

to residents and hotel guests within the 

proposed development [p. 141-142 of 

dEIR]. It is unclear whether the essential 

mitigation measures suggested would be 

sufficient to ensure that this nuisance does 

not result in the alienation of the fishermen 

as a result of persistent complaints being 

lodged against them. If double glazing is 

required to accommodate this noise 

concern, air conditioning would follow as a 

matter of course. No provision has been 

made for this and once again, this 

demonstrates a failure to consider all 

relevant considerations and associated 

impacts. 

EAP response: It has been stated on 

numerous occasions throughout the EIA that 

the appropriate design imperatives would be 

included into the construction. 

Stauch Vorster: Double glazing was intended 

from the beginning of the design stage. 

Noise 



4 Consideration of 

alternatives 

4.1.1 


Furthermore, the argument that the 

developer does not have any other land 

suitable for this type of development is 

raising concerns about the weight of the 

report. However, the fact that we don‟t have 

any land does not give us more rights. It 

would be more appropriate for the 

developer to focus his energy on areas that 

require his abilities. 

Erf 848 is the only property that the proponent 

owns and therefore is exploring the possibility 

of developing on that erf. It has been 

suggested to utilise the old Struisbaai Hotel 

site as an alternative site, however it has been 

confirmed by El-Mé Properties that the selling 

price of the Struisbaai Hotel site is 

R 75,000,000 which is unacceptable to the 

proponent and unfeasible. 

Alternatives 

4.1.2 

4.1.3 

4.1.4 


Johan Van der 



There is no reason why property away from 

the harbour can't be used, should the area 

require development. Organised 

expropriation is still legal in South Africa, 

however the reason behind this decision 

has to be appropriate 

Alternatives are too limited, it looks like the 

proposed development is being forced. 

Erf 848 should in fact be sold to the harbour 

authorities in order to provide for future 

needs and developments. What other 

options are there for future developments in 

the harbour? 



Please refer to Section 2.4 of the FEIR and 



Your point is noted. Development in the 

harbour is the responsibility of MCM. 



Alternatives 

Alternatives 

Alternatives 

4.1.5 

4.1.6 


(43) 


(49) 

The property located above the Nostra 

would be more suitable for this type of 

development. 

Has sufficient thought been given to 

locating the hotel in a more suitable position 

such as next to Nostra or near the 

Langezandt Quays Fishing Village? 

Applicants response: The property that you 

are referring to is priced well out of the market 

price at R 75,000,000 in comparison to the 

value paid for Erf 848. It would not be 

financially viable. 

Please refer to Section 3.1.52 and 4.1.5 of 


Alternatives 

Alternatives 



4.1.7 

4.1.8 

4.1.9 

4.1.10 

4.1.11 

4.1.12 

4.1.13 

4.1.14 


(49) 


(SEA) (48) 


(21) 




(87) 



(168) 


(152) 

It's been mentioned that the proposed 

development is a waterfront style 

development however given the current 

proposed activities a significant opportunity 

for a more sympathetic development could 

be lost if this development is allowed to 

continue. 


(Alternatives) states that Erf 848 is the only 

site available to the developer for this 

development as they are the landowners.” 

This sentence clearly has no logical 

meaning in the English language and 

throughout this entire process minimal 

mention has been made of the “No-go” 

option. 

The “no go” option is the one that will best 

serve the needs of the various communities 

of Struisbaai, as opposed to the developer, 

and it will preserve the character and 

ambiance of this beautiful part of South 

Africa. 

Another absolutely unreasonable statement 

is to state that Erf 848 is the only site 

available to the developer for this 

development as they are the landowners. 

There are other alternatives. The vacant old 

hotel site Erf 230 is ideally suited for the 

development envisaged 

There is enough land in the area that can 

be developed without major impacts. 

I support positive progress and tasteful, and 

developments which consider things like 

heritage, zoning etc. 

The EIA suggests that alternative 6 would 

be viable than other alternatives, however 

we‟re not satisfied with the proposed 

development despite this propaganda. 

One can buy freshly caught fish at a regular 

fish shop (not a sterile woolies market) at 

reasonable prices. 




Comment and Response Report. The no-go 

option is referred to throughout the FEIR and 

is the base state against which the proposed 

development is measured. Please refer to 







Comment and Response Report and Chapter 

6 of the FEIR which summarises the findings 



The EIA findings were informed by the various 

specialist studies undertaken and taken 

through the approved methodology however 

we accept that you may not like the proposed 

design. 

The proposed development plans to sell the 

fish from a fish market facility. Please refer to 


Alternatives 

Alternatives 

Alternatives 

Alternatives 

Alternatives 

Alternatives 

Alternatives 

Alternatives 



4.1.15 

4.1.16 

4.1.17 

4.1.18 

4.1.19 

4.1.20 

4.1.21 


(152) 


Pienaar (163) 




(137) 


(75) 


There is a caravan selling cone ice-cream, 

not an expensive carousel in a supermarket 

There's an alternative area that was 

earmarked for hotel or holiday 

accommodation, why does the developer 

destroy another part of Struisbaai. 

Why is the proposed hotel rather not built in 

an area where the old hotel stood? 

The proposed development would rather be 

located at where the old hotel and cottages 

(rondawels) are located at present. They've 

got a negative visual impact. Why do you 

want to continue with the current location – 

it will only be a source of irritation in the 

future should the proposed development 

continue. 

There are other sites available for the 

proposed development i.e. old Struisbaai 

Hotel as well as the old Agulhas Hotel. 

Such sites could be used for the proposed 

development without damaging the 

character of the one of the last remaining 

working fishing harbours. Should the 

developer decide to utilise alternative sites, 

the proposed development would be 

supported by everyone. 

Numerous alternative sites are available for 

the proposed development including the old 

Motel site. 

The proposed development can be located 

anywhere else without destroying the 

character of a harbour. 

Your comment is noted, however activities 

occurring within the Harbour will be under the 

control of MCM and not the developer. 


Comment and Response Report.Please refer 









Please refer to Section 3.1.51, 4.1.1 and 4.1.5 

of this Comment and Response Report 

regarding alternative sites. 




Alternatives 

Alternatives 

Alternatives 

Alternatives 

Alternatives 

Alternatives 

Alternatives 



4.1.22 

4.1.23 

4.1.24 

4.1.25 



(67) 


(67) 


(67) 

The DEIR explores no alternative sites for 

development. I personally feel that the 

stretch of land between Langezandt and 

Struisbaai North would be appropriate for 

the proposed development as it does not as 

clearly affect any residential property 

around. Also the now-abandoned 

commercial development between 

Langezandt and the main road would be a 

good position - overlooking the quaint 

fishing village of Langezandt towards the 

sea, while having the excellent access from 

the main road. Or the stretch of properties 

on Marine Drive between the ridge and the 

main road - even a 4 storey development 

would not spoil any property's line of sight to 

the beach below. 

A hotel site already exists in Struisbaai, and 

is another ideal alternative property and is 

currently vacant. This site must already 

have the required zoning, is centrally 

located alongside a public parking area and 

directly adjacent to the sea shore. I 

therefore contest the argument that 

alternative locations should not be 

considered, they should be considered. 

I disagree with the statement that site layout 

alternatives are limited, and that one 

feasible layout is therefore assessed. The 

fact that the developer bought the land at 

too high price should not justify an 

inappropriate development. 

I do not believe that adequate alternative 

activity and design alternatives have been 

explored, the only alternatives noted were 

an industrial development for fish 

processing and a four to six storey 

residential development. There must be 

other far more appropriate alternatives e.g. 

craft workshop and market which employs 

local disadvantaged communities, one and 

two storey residential development etc, 

Please refer to section 2.4 of the FEIR and 

4.1.1 of this Comments and Response 

Report. 








and Response Report.Please refer to section 


Alternatives 

Alternatives 

Alternatives 

Alternatives 



4.1.26 

4.1.27 

4.1.28 

4.1.29 

4.1.30 


(67) 



Mr. and Mrs. 




We would propose a cluster residential 

development of a single and double storey 

residential units in the genre developed 

Langezandt Quays village, augmenting, 

rather than overwhelming the atmosphere 

and character of the harbour, and setting a 

standard for responsible, tasteful and 

appropriate development in Struisbaai. 

According to your documentation there are 

no alternative site locations – what about 

where the hotel was? 

There is an existing much larger 

undeveloped erf zoned for a hotel available 

(the old hotel site) that is strategically 

located at the main beach. This can be 

used for the developer‟s purposes without 

having unreasonable impact on the interest 

of neighbouring homeowners and the facility 

users at the fishing harbour. 

There are properties available for this type 

of development, e.g. die demolished 

Struisbaai hotel/motel property. An excellent 

opportunity to due something positive for 

Struisbaai as a tourist destination. 

I am in favour of: (1) A world class seafood 

restaurant, building according to local 

traditional architecture, one storey, (2) Small 

shops that have local and traditional goods 

for sale, (3) Keeping the harbour building as 

is with fishing boats, etc. This is what gives 

the harbour its atmosphere and personality, 

(4) Heritage centre that shows the history of 

fishermen, Struisbaai and the marine leave 

in the bay; this can link to a shipwreck 

museum. The future Agulhas National Park 

heritage centre and the Elim heritage 

centre, (5) No housing and (6) Paid parking. 

Please refer to Annexure P & R of the FEIR 

regarding the feasibility of less than four 

storey development of this nature. 










Thank you for your suggestions. Refer to 

Annexure R of the FEIR for the feasibility 

assessment undertaken by Turner & 

Townsend 

Alternatives 

Alternatives 

Alternatives 

Alternatives 

Alternatives 



4.1.31 

4.1.32 

4.1.33 


Anna-Marie 

Groenewald, 


Merwe, Anneke 



138, 183, 184, 185, 

186) 


Anna-Marie 

Groenewald, 


Merwe, Anneke 



138, 183, 184, 185, 

186)) 


The development should be 

environmentally friendly – fisher style 

shops, a few boats in the water, a bar in an 

anchored boat, an old shipwreck 

transformed into a restaurant (or a building 

constructed to look like one), etc. Use your 

imagination to create something unique that 

would be an asset. 

Residential developments should not be 

allowed in the harbour. There are more then 

enough accommodation in Struisbaai. The 

harbour should rather include shops, 

restaurants, etc. where people can walk 

barefoot and in swimwear and even sit 

down at the Pelican. The Pelican‟s idea is 

ideal. No ugly buildings please. 

Site location alternatives were not 

considered [p. 43 of dEIR]. This is despite 

the fact that there were at least two suitable 

alternative locations for the proposed 

development identified by the original town 

planners [as advised by Mr Stephen Knobel 

during a telephone discussion]. These are 

set back from the harbour and would avoid 

the potential alienation of the fishermen 

from the use of the harbour. These sites 

will also be more appropriate for residential 

units as the noise, smells and irregular 

hours kept by the fishermen will not pose a 

nuisance to the residents. 

Thank you for your suggestions. Refer to 

Annexure R of the FEIR for the feasibility 

assessment undertaken by Turner & 

Townsend 

Thank you for your suggestions. The hotel 

only accounts for a portion of the proposed 

development. The items that you have 

supported are included in the proposed 

development i.e. restaurants and shops with 

the lower level being available for informal 

attire. 




Alternatives 

Alternatives 

Alternatives 



4.1.34 

4.1.35 

4.1.36 




(67) 

During the Scoping Phase, four activity 

alternatives were investigated, namely an 

industrial development (consisting of two 

options), a combination of residential and 

retail development, a residential 

development comprising 4 levels and a 

residential development comprising 6 levels 

[p. 40-41 of dEIR; p.22-23 of Final Scoping 

Report.] The "no go" option was also 

considered. Subsequently, a sixth 

alternative, a mixed residential and retail 

development comprising between two and 

four storeys, was proposed in an effort to 

respond to some of the interested and 

affected parties concerns [p. 26 & 41of 

dEIR]. Activity alternatives one to four were 

"scoped out" due to reasons set out in the 

draft EIR [Table 2.3 on p.44 of dEIR]. No 

viable alternatives have really been put 

forward and properly investigated. It is 

submitted that this represents a fatal flaw in 

the process. 

In addition, the new activity alternative six 

("the proposed development") proposes an 

upmarket fish handling facility which would 

purchase fish from local fishermen. The 

development proponent confirms that the 

success of this facility is dependent upon 

the availability of fish resources and 

sustainability [p. 62 of dEIR] It seems 

somewhat incongruous that the 

development proponent therefore rejected 

proposed alternative one, a fish processing 

plant, on the basis that "there would not be 

sufficient fish stock landed to make the 

business viable."[Table 2.3 on p.44 of 

dEIR]. This puts into question the alleged 

non feasibility of activity alternative one. 

I object to the statement that the erf 848 is 

the only site available to the developer for 

this development as they are landowners. 

The fact that the developer has made 

unwise property investment decisions does 

not justify that there are no alternatives. 

Strongly disagree. Please refer to Section 2.4 

of the FEIR. The process adopted in an 

iterative process where a number of 

alternatives were considered and scoped out 

resulting in Alternatives 5 & 6 as the final 

alternatives to be taken through the 

assessment phase 

Applicants response: The fish market that is 

proposed is vastly on a smaller scale and thus 

can be financially viable due to the quantum 

of fish required to make the facility 

sustainable. Alternative 1 was limited to fish 

handling/process as the primary business 

whereby Alternative 6 has a more diversified 

functionality. 




Alternatives 

Alternatives 

Alternatives 



4.1.37 


Dorel Van der 







73, 69, 66, 65, 172, 

93, 78) 

Referring to page 48 (2.4.5), the 

proponent‟s argument as to why he refuses 

to have a two storey building included in the 

study as being commercially unsustainable 

is strange. 

Please refer to Annexures R & T of the FEIR. 

Alternatives 

5 Opposition to the proposed development 

5.1.1 

5.1.2 

5.1.3 

5.1.4 

Jacobus J.D. 

Havenga (12) 

Johan Venter (78) 


Anna-Marie 

Groenewald, 


Merwe, Anneke 



138, 183, 184, 185, 

186) 

Jacobus J.D. 

Havenga (12) 

I feel sorry for the residents who live near 

the harbour and who would firsthand 

experience negative impact resulting from 

the development 

With reference to Abrie Bruwer‟s memo 

dated 3 November 2009 regarding this 

issue. This memo expresses my feelings 

and objections towards the proposed 

development. 

We all agree to the following objections. We 

agree with everything written in the 

Suidernuus on 13 November 2009 by the 

Suidpunt Environmental Alliance. 

Do not see me as an ill- humour person; 

rather think about how you would feel in our 

position. Wouldn‟t you also ask questions? 



Noted. Please refer to Section 2.8 of the 




All comments and queries are welcomed. 

Public participation is a critical part of the 

information required for an informed decision 

to be taken. Thank you for participating. 

Oppose 

Objection 

Objection 

Oppose 



5.1.5 

5.1.6 

5.1.7 

5.1.8 

5.1.9 

5.1.10 

5.1.11 

5.1.12 

5.1.13 


Evan Meirion 

Williams (31) 


Emmerentia 

Hesseling (on 


payers) (41) 


(SEA) (48) 


(63) 


(58) 

Evan Meirion 

Williams (31) 

Evan Meirion 

Williams (31) 

I do not understand how far the project is 

and whether it will be going ahead but I 

think it is a bad idea. 

I'm a Struisbaai resident for 17 years and 

annual visitor for 45 years and the proposed 

development cannot take place 

As a resident of Struisbaai, I think that the 

proposed development is a smoke screen 

I am completely against the proposed 

development as a Struisbaai homeowner. I 

have personally also talked to members of 

the fishing community and they explicitly 

object to the proposed development. They 

have signed a petition against it. 

The Suidpunt Environmental Alliance 

objects most strongly to any up-market 

development exceeding two storeys within 

the Struisbaai Historic and Cultural Harbour 

precinct 

I am Struisbaai property owner erf 890 and 

with my family we strongly object against 


I would like to express my strongest 

opposition to the proposed development of 

the Struisbaai Harbour. 

Given the overwhelming negative reaction 

by the directly and indirectly affected 

Struisbaai community, this development 

should be rejected just like the 

developments at Hout Bay and the Apostles 

in the Peninsula mountain chain 

The virtual 100% rejection of the proposal 

by those present was clear for all to see. 

The draft EIR Phase has been completed. 

Additional studies and information was 

obtained to answer issues raised by 

registered I&APs during the draft EIR review 

phase which ended on the 17 November 

2009. The FEIR will be made available for 

public review before submission is made to 

the decision-making authority after which the 

environmental authorisation decision can be 

taken. 

















Oppose 

Oppose 

Oppose 

Oppose 

Oppose 

Oppose 

Oppose 

Oppose 

Oppose 



5.1.14 

5.1.15 

5.1.16 

5.1.17 

5.1.18 

5.1.19 

5.1.20 

5.1.21 

5.1.22 


Westhuizen, A.F. & 

J.H. Tooke (71, 69) 



Home Owners 


Tiaan P. Lourens 

(110) 

Heleen Rabe (118) 


(168) 


(143) 


(159) 

Jan Momberg (3) 


(64) 

I strongly object to the proposed 

development Commercial development at 

the traditional Harbour. 

Support for the development was recruited 

at schools in the Southern Cape – most 

likely under the pretence of marketing for 

the proposed sectional title deeds. Will you 

be using this as public support for the 

development? As you know by now, no-one 

in Struisbaai supports the development. 

Provincial and local government institutions 

have been informed of the situation. 

As we're doing business in the fishing 

industry, we are totally opposed to the 


I object to the proposed development in 

Struisbaai. 

It is my view the proposed harbour 

development is not conducive to the 

wellbeing of Struisbaai and I am therefore 

against it. I am against this development 

due to the impacts already mentioned. 

Other opportunities are available for 

development that (after the necessary 

consultation of all interested parties) will 

enhance and grow Struisbaai for us to 

contribute to the economic needs being 

placed upon us. 

I do not approve the proposed 

development. 

We ask that this application not be 

approved. 

I want to lodge my strongest objection to the 

development at the Harbour. 

We are strongly opposed to the 

development proposed by Golden Falls 

Trading 193 (Pty) Ltd on erf 848. 



Noted. Regarding the school support, you 

made the same comment at the public 

meeting on 31 October 2009, but despite a 

commitment by you to provide proof of such 

support; we are yet to validate this allegation. 

Upon consultation with the proponent they 

have denied any such doing in the strongest 

terms. This allegation can only be accepted if 

the proof is supplied. 

Applicants response: We take exception to 

this allegation and call on you to prove this 

irresponsible allegation in the strongest terms. 















Oppose 

Oppose 

Oppose 

Oppose 

Oppose 

Oppose 

Oppose 

Oppose 

Oppose 



5.1.23 

5.1.24 

5.1.25 

5.1.26 

5.1.27 

5.1.28 

5.1.29 

5.1.30 

5.1.31 

5.1.32 

5.1.33 

5.1.34 

5.1.35 

5.1.36 



(80) 

Johan & Cecilia 

Janse van 

Rensburg (57) 



(107) 

Mr. and Mrs. 






A. J. Vlok (139) 


Plessis (141) 



Lourens (82) 

G.G. Newman (149) 


The fishermen in Struisbaai are totally 

against the proposed development in 

Struisbaai Harbour. 

I object to the currently proposed 

development the strongest possible terms. 

We strongly object to the any development 

more than two storeys on erf 848. 

I herewith confirm as owner of erf 649 my 

opposition to the development of erf 848 for 

the reasons explained in my submission 

annexure. 

Against it. 

Be warned, should you receive approval, 

we will object vehemently to the 

development. 

I continue to object to multi-storey buildings 

in the harbour area. 

I object to the proposed development of the 

Struisbaai harbour. 

Seen in the light of the above and 

considering the undoable and monocular 

mitigation measures used to try and 

substantiate the development, we have to 

object strongly to the proposed 

development. 

I am completely against the development. 

The proposed development will negatively 

affect the harbour area. 

As a tourist, it would be very sad for 

Struisbaai community should the proposed 


I am a fisherman from Struisbaai and object 

to the development 

We have been instructed to object to the 

development and to submit formal written 

comments on the draft EIR. 

Noted. 

Applicants response: Please provide a list of 

the fishermen you make reference to. 



























Oppose 

Oppose 

Oppose 

Oppose 

Oppose 

Oppose 

Oppose 

Oppose 

Oppose 

Oppose 

Objection 

Objection 

Oppose 

Oppose 



5.1.37 

5.1.38 



Given the fact that our clients object to the 

proposed development in its current form, 

our clients object to any application brought 

on behalf of the development proponent 

under the relevant town-planning legislation, 

including any applications for a rezoning of 

the property, either to Special Zone,[i.t.o. 

Section 8 Scheme Regulations of LUPO] 

Business Zone [where the Cape Agulhas 

Municipality Integrated Zoning Scheme is 

approved by the Provincial Administration 

for the Western Cape prior to the granting of 

a rezoning of the site] or any other zone and 

the removal of any title deed or other 

restrictions on the property. 

The development proponent's observation 

that a potential precedent could be set in 

respect of buildings that exceed the SDF's 

two storey limit are greatly concerning to our 

clients [p. 125 of dEIR]. It is for this reason 

that our clients strongly object to the 

approval of the proposed development in its 

current form. 

Noted Please refer to Section 2.8 of the FEIR. 



Oppose 

Oppose 

6 Support for the 

proposed 

development 

6.1.1 

6.1.2 

6.1.3 

6.1.4 

6.1.5 

M.J Edwards (7) The proposed development is acceptable. Noted. Favour 

Mark Murtz (14) 

SW Meyer (46) 



(113 & 112) 


(166) 

I've got no concerns with regard to the 

proposed development, the development 

must go ahead 

I'm a businessman as well as a resident and 

I support possible businesses and 

restaurants. 

I am favourable of the proposed 

development 

I thank you for your interest in developing a 

building in Struisbaai, it can have a positive 

impact on our town. 

Noted. 

Noted. 

Noted. 

Noted. 

Favour 

Favour 

Favour 

Favour 



7 General comment 

7.1.1 

7.1.2 

7.1.3 

7.1.4 

7.1.5 

7.1.6 

7.1.7 

7.1.8 

Jacobus J.D. 

Havenga (12) 






(23) 

Robin N Green (44) 


(21) 

Evan Meirion 

Williams (31) 

Evan Meirion 

Williams (31) 

Good luck with your planning and work 

We are truly concerned about the 

development and respect the developer, as 

well as appreciate the contributions he has 

made. 

Southern Staying understands how difficult 

the decision is that has to be made and 

wish the decision makers good luck. May 

the decision not rip the community apart 

and may the Lord bless the people of this 

area. 

All previous detailed comments/objections 

are still relevant. 

It looks like the developers want to change 

the entire coastline of South Africa and 

change every harbour into a waterfront, this 

is enough. 

The developer wants the building and is 

unlikely to deliver the promises he has 

made. 

It will be simple to collapse any 

concessionary agreement between the 

developer and the community a couple of 

years down the road. 

Struisbaai is a community with a difference. 

It brings residents and visitors into close 

proximity with the magnificent coastline and 

the wildlife it supports. It is a reasonably 

safe community to visit and to raise children 

in, the developer wants to change that. 

Noted. Please refer to the FEIR for further 

information. 

Noted. 

Noted. Decision making authorities are 

provided with as much information as is 

reasonably acceptable to apply their minds in 

the formulation of a decision (be it negative or 

positive). 

Noted. Please refer to the FEIR. 

Noted. The Department of Environmental 

Affairs has a project underway, namely the 

Harbour Transitions Project, which aims to 

upgrade proclaimed fishing harbours. 

Noted. Please refer to Annexure T of the 

FEIR. If the proposed development is 

approved, a number of conditions would apply 

that will be audited by the decision making 

authority to ensure compliance. 

Noted. In the event that the proposed 

development proceeds, administrative 

structures will be put in place and maintained 

to ensure optimal operations. 

Noted. Please refer to Section5.2.6 of the 


Opinion 

Opinion 

Opinion 

Opinion 

Opinion 

Opinion 

Opinion 

Opinion 



7.1.9 

7.1.10 

7.1.11 

7.1.12 

7.1.13 

7.1.14 

7.1.15 




(152) 


(152) 

Chris Moll (65) 


(107) 


My impression is that the developer and his 

professional team maybe trying to mislead 

people and take short cuts, which makes 

one to question the integrity of the whole 

development. 

My opinion is that the Agulhas/Overberg 

region is successfully marketed as a natural 

unspoilt coastline area, which I think needs 

to be preserved as such and that a four 

storey eyesore on the pristine coastal belt 

will be to the detriment of any endeavours. 

For those visitors requiring more 

sophisticated forms of entertainment, I 

suggest they holiday elsewhere 

Obviously developers require a good return 

on their investment, but this should not be 

at the expense of the residents and the very 

happy holidaymakers that make Struisbaai 

their home through the year 

Every day one reads in the press of more 

and more cases of corruption and 

dishonesty being uncovered in Government 

and top flight business, what example does 

this set for our youth, do we want our 

Country to become another Somalia 

To my opinion this development can cause 

a lot of problems for Struisbaai in the future. 

Regarding the proposed development and 

associated studies, reports and actions by 

Aurecon (environmental impact assessment 

consultants appointed by the developer): 

Please note the above objections are made 

due to the fact that I am a permanent 

resident with property located very close to 

erf 848. 

Disagree. Please refer to the Chapter 1.2, 1.5 

and 1.8 of the FEIR regarding the process 

followed. Aurecon, the appointed 

Environmental Assessment Practitioner is an 

independent consultant and is governed by 

the National Environmental Management Act 

(R. 385) with regard to undertaking this EIA. 

Aurecon has no financial gain from this 

development going ahead. 



Noted. Please refer to the FEIR which 

addresses comments raised during the review 

of the DEIR. 

Noted. The proponent has the right to develop 

Erf 848 (private property). Due consideration 

for the needs of the public have been 

considered and in the context of this proposed 

development that 2 – 4 storey alternative 

(Alternative 6) has been assessed as the 

preferred alternative. 


Erf 848 (private property). All the necessary 

legal requirements and procedures are being 

followed to ensure that the proposed 

development application is considered by the 

decision making authorities. 

Noted. The EIA process to date has strived to 

determine potential environmental impacts. 

Please refer to the FEIR. 

Noted. Please refer to the Chapter 1.2, 1.5 

and 1.8 of the FEIR regarding the process 

followed. Aurecon, the appointed 

Environmental Assessment Practitioner is an 

independent consultant and is governed by 

the National Environmental Management Act 

(R. 385) with regard to undertaking this EIA. 

Aurecon has no financial gain from this 

development going ahead. 

Opinion 

Opinion 

Opinion 

Opinion 

Opinion 

Opinion 

Opinion 



7.1.16 

7.1.17 

7.1.18 

7.1.19 

7.1.20 

7.1.21 

7.1.22 

7.1.23 

7.1.24 


(134) 

A. J. Vlok (139) 

John W. Newman 

(146) 





Rene Swart (30) 

MP Loubser (45) 

Certain promises made during the previous 

Langezandt project that have not been kept. 

We will shortly provide comment regarding 

the issues mentioned in previous 

correspondence, as well our reaction to the 

latest presentation. 

I have had to rely on the sea from a very 

young age. 

We act for the South Cape Environment 

Protection Society [which is an I&AP in its 

own right as registered in the covering letter 

to this objection and as represented by DLA 

Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr Inc, which has 

always represented various I&APs in this 

matter and has been registered as an 

I&AP], which is a duly constituted voluntary 

association independent of its members, 

which represents various surrounding 

landowners within Struisbaai and other 

interested and affected parties as listed in 

annex A in their personal capacities 

(collectively, "our clients"). 

Kindly confirm receipt of the attached 

comments together with the annex thereto. 

Thank you very much for sending me the 

communication all the way from South 

Africa. I appreciate it and it's quite 

important. 

I am not very familiar with all the legal terms 

used in the executive summary. But I did 

study all the possible outcomes and impact 

on the environment and community. 

I'm a resident; my property is located 

approximately 150 away from the harbour 

I am the owner of erf 572 (business 

property), located at the proposed parking 

area. The design for the parking area looks 

good. My erf is located on Heidelaan and is 

the only fenced property in the parking area 

Noted. Could you please expand on what 

promises were not kept and any suggestions 

regarding how any agreements should be 

changed to be more binding on the developer. 

Noted. All information can be forwarded to 

Simon Van Wyk. Please refer to the FEIR. 

Noted. The proposed development would not 

have any impact to the sea. 

Noted. Comments on the DEIR have been 

considered and attended to in order to provide 

feedback to the I&APs that DLA Cliffe Dekker 

Hofmeyr Inc represent in this matter. Please 

refer to the FEIR. 

We have sent confirmation via email, dated 18 

November 2009. 

Your comment is appreciated. All comments 

are important and need to be considered as 

part of the EIA. 

Noted. Every attempt is made to describe the 

EIA and associated information in easy to 

read terms. Please refer to the FEIR. 

Noted. Please review the FEIR. 

Noted. The preferred traffic alternative 4, as 

amended has attempted to make provision for 

the most suitable traffic solution, given the 

challenges facing parking in this area. 

Opinion 

Opinion 

Opinion 

Opinion 

Opinion 

Statement 

Statement 

Statement 

Statement 



7.1.25 

7.1.26 

7.1.27 

7.1.28 

7.1.29 


(SEA) (48) 


(SEA) (48) 


(SEA) (48) 



(SEA) (48) 

There is a tendency for developers from 

other areas to undertake unwanted and 

unattractive development on small towns to 

make profit. Such developments are 

objected by the vast majority of local 

residents. These developments change the 

spirit and atmosphere of these small towns 

forever. Developers then frequently move 

on again after pocketing their millions to 

look for further easy pickings. 

Upmarket developments such as the 

proposed development do not work in 

favour of previously disadvantaged people. 

Those who are to gain are the developers, 

the consultants, the estate agents, the legal 

fraternity/sorority, etc., and of course those 

wealthy enough to afford million-rand 

apartments, with enough money to spend at 

the expensive boutiques and restaurants. 

A four-storey development has been 

compared to a six-storey, eight-storey, and 

even a massive fish factory. This is a way 

to deceive the public to choose the least 

hideous option, i.e. the proposed four-storey 

building. 

It is evident that the developer is not 

interested in improving the area for the 

benefit and use of the public, but is only 

doing this for profit. One would think that the 

developer would use such a sensitive site to 

make some profit to benefit the community 

and improve Struisbaai in general. 

Page 10 (Summary of Essential Mitigation 

Measures), it is stated that wealthy people 

are generally high consumers which results 

in greater volumes of waste materials, and 

with a far heavier carbon footprint than the 

underprivileged. This must surely be 

considered a crucial issue when our planet 

is faced with the anticipated horrors of 

climate change. 

Noted. 

Applicants response: We live and work in 

Struisbaai and feel equally passionate about 

our region and therefore do not consider 

ourselves separate from the community. 


Economic & Social Study of the FEIR 

regarding opportunity for historically 

disadvantaged individuals. 

Alternatives 1 to 4 have been scoped out and 

have thus not been considered as viable 

options. Please refer to Section 2.4 and 5.2.9 


Noted. The proposed development would 

have a multitude of benefits to the public as 

well as external visitors to Struisbaai. 

Noted. The proposed development has a 

higher carbon footprint than the no-go option, 

however construction material that contains 

lower embodied energy has been proposed. 


Statement 

Statement 

Statement 

Statement 

Statement 



7.1.30 

7.1.31 

7.1.32 

7.1.33 


(SEA) (48) 




(21) 

We submit images of the Struisbaai Harbour 

on 26 September 2009 for inclusion into this 

objection. It is difficult to get previous 

images since every time there's a big storm 

surge the high-water mark changes to claim 

more of the land. I know that the car park 

was completely flooded after the Tsunami 

but I do not have images for this. Living as I 

do close to the ocean I have seen high tides 

during the last five years that I've never 

witnessed before in my life. But then again, 

I have images from my house but not of the 

Struisbaai Harbour. 

Referring to the draft design on the DEIR, I 

believe that the proposed development 

would have a positive impact on the area 

and cannot find any negative aspect related 

to it. 

Currently the old Sea-fishery building at the 

jetty (north) is partially utilized. Should this 

building be used for public ablution 

facilitates, visitors and fishermen would 

have a much short distance to walk. It 

would also prevent people from using the 

adjacent bushy area as a toilet. With the 

approval from the Agulhas Municipality, I 

suggest that the public ablution facilities 

should be connected to the main structure 

of the harbour and a service plan. 

Further evidence of the developers real 

intentions is contained in the Economic 

Specialist report Sec 6.2 p19, The 

proponent is conveniently handing over the 

problem of the potential shutdown of 

Harbour Catch to MCM and the local 

authorities. I agree he does not have to 

provide this service but he does have to be 

limited to the activities for which the Harbour 

is legislated. 

Noted. Section 5.2.8 of the FEIR details the 

potential impact of sea level rise. 

Applicants response: Disagree, we were in 

the harbor at the time of the incident and did 

not witness a sea level rise to the degree as 

detailed in your comment. 

Noted. 

Thank you for the suggestion it has been 

forwarded to CAM and the proponent for 

consideration. The proposed development 

does make provision for ablution facilities 

(refer to section 2.4.8 of the FEIR) however 

the existing ablution facilities located on Erf 

921 would need to be relocated a suitable and 

amenable location. 

Regarding the fish handling facility, the 

architect was not mandated to design the 

retail section in detail. The Environmental 

Assessment Practitioner was however 

informed by the proponent from the beginning 

that there would be a fish handling facility (fish 

market) and this has been conveyed to I&APs 

on numerous occasions. 

Statement 

Statement 

Statement 

Statement 



Please refer to Annexure U of the FEIR 

regarding tourism potential. 

7.1.34 

7.1.35 

7.1.36 

7.1.37 

7.1.38 


(21) 


(21) 


(21) 

Evan Meirion 

Williams (31) 



The economic assessment is riddled with 

generalities and frankly who knows what the 

long term effect will be. No attempt seems 

to have been made to get tourism experts to 

concur with the consultant‟s views. 

No amount of bleating about needing 4 

stories to make the development viable 

justifies the developer's application. 

There is no need i.e. legal, environmental, 

or social to rescue the developer from his 

mistaken assumption, at the expense of the 

fishing, residential or visiting community of 

Struisbaai 

There have been enough proposed 

developments in sensitive areas in the 

recent past. Most of these have been 

characterised by the cultivating of 

inappropriate political involvement to “ease” 

the approval of the project. 

Referring to Page two of the Executive 

Summary it is unreasonable to state that the 

buildings are approximately 9m above 

mean sea level (amsl), which equates to 

+5m above natural ground level (ngl). 

Unless the intention is to raise the ground 

floor of the development by more than one 

floor height above natural ground level, 

therefore no need to excavate for the 

proposed basement. 


Indeed, assessing long term economic effects 

with high levels of confidence is difficult which 

is why bold statements, potentially misleading 

quantification or „long-shot‟ predictions have 

been avoided. This helps to avoid spurious 

„accuracy‟, but probably increases the 

potential for comments that the report is too 

„general‟. 

Noted. Please refer to Section 2.4.6 and 

Annexure R of the FEIR. 


Erf 848 (private property) within the confines 

of the CAMSDF (2009) as well as statutory 

requirements. 

Noted. The proponent has the right to 

develop Erf 848 (private property) within the 

confines of the CAMSDF (2009) as well as 

statutory requirements. 

These heights are referring to the current 

buildings i.e. Alternative 5 and not Alternative 

6 (proposed development). 

Statement 

Statement 

Statement 

Statement 

Statement 



7.1.39 

7.1.40 

7.1.41 

7.1.42 

7.1.43 

7.1.44 

7.1.45 








It is morally wrong for the developers to 

seek relief from the current height 

restrictions based on a poor business 

decision made when purchasing the 

property. At the time of making the decision 

to purchase the property they knew about 

the ruling height restrictions and chose to 

risk their money in the hope that the public 

will bail them out of an overpriced 

transaction. 

Part of my objection maybe nostalgic after 

spending at least 90% all of my December 

holidays in Struisbaai since 1982. I assume 

that one should always weigh up your 

personal requirements and needs with that 

of the bigger picture and the community as 

a whole. 

Please acknowledge receipt of my e-mail 

and ensure that my detail is on your 

database. 

I am tired of developers half truths, strategic 

omissions and lies and their various 

consultants doing whatever is necessary to 

support a profit model predicated on an 

idiotic purchase. 

Garden Falls chose to overextend 

themselves by spending too much on a 

property zoned for industrial use and not for 

what the purchaser intends should not 

garner any sympathy from anybody. 

Sound business is about measured risk. 

Golden Falls wants to make good on its 

investment without due consideration for the 

people of Struisbaai no matter the cost. 

Golden Falls must not expect anything other 

than a battle they won‟t win if they pursue 

this development. 

A new CAM SDF, dated 2009 has superceded 

the 2006 CAM SDF which had a height 

limitation of two stories. The new CAM SDF 

promotes development within the urban edge. 

Erf 848 is situated within the urban edge and 

height is now restricted in accordance with 

zonation, which is currently Industrial Zone 1 

to be changed to Special Zone. 

Applicants response: Happy that the 

acquisition was prudent and responsible. In 

order to achieve all the objectives as stated, a 

critical mass is required. 



We have acknowledged receipt of your e-mail 

and your details are captured on our I&AP 

register. 

Your concern is noted. Aurecon has 

remained independent and objective. Please 

refer to Section 7.1.39 of this comments and 

response report and Section 1.8 of the FEIR. 

Noted. Please refer to Section 7.1.39 of this 


The EIA process is a mechanism that is used 

to determine the potential impacts to the 

environmental, social and economic aspects 

in relation to the community of Struisbaai. 




requirements. 

Statement 

Statement 

Statement 

Statement 

Statement 

Statement 

Statement 



7.1.46 

7.1.47 

7.1.48 

7.1.49 

7.1.50 

7.1.51 

7.1.52 





Heleen Rabe (118) 

Johannes P. 



I am convinced that the municipality would 

not approve this misguided quest for profit 

at the expense of common sense and the 

voting public. I am convinced that should 

approval be granted, opposition will be 

mobilised on both a political and legal level. 

I support all the facts contained in the 

response by Abrie Bruwer dated 13 

November 2009 

There is no way that fish processing will fit 

in with the activities of the proposed 

development. The developers seem to 

believe that winning the support of the 

fisherfolk in Struisbaai Noord will be easily 

achieved by empty promises. He has 

underestimated the sense of heritage and 

the level of dignity that exists within the 

Struisbaai Noord community. I haven‟t and 

can confidently predict that Struisbaai 

Noord will not support this pathetic attempt 

at making good on a poor business 

decision. 

Should the proposed development be 

approved, the developer will be subjected to 

a sustained protest that will be three times 

the size of the VMS protest of 2008. The 

developer has succeeded in at least 

providing something around which the two 

Struisbaai can unite. For that I thank them. 

I have been living here most of my life and 

do not wish to see the town ruined any 

further by insensitive builders and 

developers. 

There should be a tarred road along the 

coast from the Hermanus for whale 

watching to Cape Agulhas through the 

reserve to attract the tourists. 

This eventually boils down to the breaking 

of the local building regulations and the 

assurance that opposing parties will also 

combat this to the highest level. 

Noted. The CAM would need to apply their 

minds to the application, not only the EIA, but 

the planning application etc in the overall 

context. A right to appeal will be allowed for 

once DEA&DP issues a environmental 

authorisation decision. 

Noted. 

Noted. Please refer to Section 7.1.33 of this 





requirements. 

Noted. The proposed development however 

aims to meet the requirements of the 

CAMSDF 2009 as well as any other statutory 

requirements. 

This falls outside of the mandate for this EIA, 

however suggestions such as proposed can 

be made to the Provisional Department of 

Transport and the CAM. 

The current proposal would exceed the height 

restriction of the Spatial Development 

Framework. The competent authority would 

need to make a decision on whether this is 

acceptable. 

Statement 

Statement 

Statement 

Statement 

Statement 

Statement 

Statement 



7.1.53 

7.1.54 

7.1.55 

7.1.56 

7.1.57 

7.1.58 


(152) 






The question as to “why do people love 

visiting the harbour, should be seriously 

considered and the answer to this will 

provide solutions as to what should happen 

at this special area. 

There will not be a place to offload vessel 

catches from the ski boats or chukkies in 

the harbour area. 

A small token section of the development 

will not suffice to handle any significant 

quantities of fish when the catches are good 

and fishing are biting. 

As a property owner in the Overberg I think 

I have the right and duty to add my name to 

concerned Struisbaai citizens on this 

development. It looks like the developer is 

just want to make profit without abiding to 

the regulations. We should clean up our act 

and start living a life of integrity both on or 

personal and business dealings. 

The development seems be heavily filled 

with misleading information. Ignoring the 

strong opposition against this development 

would be problem. We're in a situation 

whereby the quest for personal gain and 

greed takes priority over all other 

considerations. 

I request that this development be reviewed 

and amended to fully comply with existing 

legislation and that transparent and full 

disclosure of all relevant information 

pertinent to this development be made 

available to all stakeholders and interested 

parties whose input must be recorded and 

taken into account before any final approval 

on the project is made. 





Your point is noted. Other facilities may need 

to be developed to handle excess fish. 

Noted. 

Applicants response: We have the right to 

follow due process with integrity. 

The EIA reports endevour to share all 

pertinent information clearly and logicially with 

the proponent, the public and decisionmakers. 

All concerns have been noted and 

considered. Please refer to Annexure D & 

Volume 2 of the FEIR regarding comments 

received and considered. 

The assessment has been undertaken in 

accordance Section 24 (5) of NEMA and 

information regarding the EIA has been made 

available to ensure I&APs are afforded a 

opportunity to engage in the EIA. Please note 

that should the development proceed it will 

also require approvals from the planning 

authorities as outlined in Section 1.3.8 and 2.7 

of the FEIR 

Statement 

Statement 

Statement 

Statement 

Statement 

Statement 



7.1.59 

7.1.60 

7.1.61 


(64) 


(64) 


(64) 

Should the developer have the traditional 

hotel usage in mind, it should be very 

similar to the hotel which used to be located 

next to Nostra, opposite the beach; however 

the proposed development is a far more 

upmarket hotel usage. Is this really 

necessary and will it not scar our coastline 

and the town‟s rural ambience forever? We 

do not want to have hotel where only rich 

people would have access to it. 

Furthermore, guests will be “encouraged” 

not to dispose of certain items into the 

sewage system, or to reduce the amount of 

water usage, etc, is simply not good 

enough. This cannot be guaranteed by the 

developer. I am sure that he will not be 

willing to take responsibility for this, and the 

“encouragement” is therefore of limited 

significance. 

Struisbaai is already experiencing severe 

economic pressure outside holiday periods 

when it is quiet. To now allow several 

restaurants, shops and similar activity to a 

town where economic pressure is already a 

concern, would worsen that. 

The hotel portion of the proposed 

development forms only a portion of the 

facilities that would be provided and therefore 

the functionality is envisaged to be more 

diversified that the traditional hotel concept. 


regarding the visual impact. 

Please refer to Annexure T for a copy of the 

mitigation measures that the proponent is 

willing to commit to. The EMP (Annexure Q) is 

a evolving document that can be amended to 

include various measures to ensure a reduced 

impact to the receiving environment. 


regarding the economic impact. 

Statement 

Municipal 

Services 

Statement 




FEIR regarding the economic impact. 

7.1.62 


(64) 

Adding about 1,100m² of commercial space 

could well mean the end of a large chunk of 

the commercial market in Struisbaai and 

could ultimately, resulting in the loss of the 

rates base for the traditional commercial 

properties and the economic ruin of traders 

of Struisbaai, as it has happened in 

Bredasdorp. 

Economic Specialist response: 

The key consideration with regard to the 

commercial component of the development is 

spatial – i.e. that it would not be established in 

an area that is seen as inappropriate for 

commercial development in planning 

guidance. Competition with existing 

commercial interests in Struisbaai is likely but 

considered acceptable in a market-based 

economy, hence there are no clear reasons to 

discourage it or assess it as a net negative 

(provided it is spatially appropriate). Having 

said that competition is likely, it should be 

borne in mind that it is not likely to be fierce as 

the kind of commercial space on offer at the 

development will be quite differentiated from 

that in other parts of Struisbaai in that it would 

probably attract greater interest from more 

upmarket and tourism focused businesses. 

This should reduce direct competition with 

existing businesses in Struisbaai and 

commercial ruin is not regarded as likely. 

While there may be some re-distributional 

effects with regard to where rates and other 

municipal income comes from (e.g. 

businesses at the development may 

contribute more while those at existing 

commercial nodes potentially contribute less), 

it is considered unlikely that overall municipal 

income will decrease. Ultimately the rates and 

income base will only truly be under threat if 

there is a net loss of commercial activity in 

Struisbaai as a result of the development. 

This is considered highly unlikely. 

Statement 

An independent market sustainability 

assessment was undertaken by Douglas 

Parker Associates to ascertain the market 

appeal for the proposed retail portion of the 




The assessment concluded that the Struisbaai 

economy and potential market can 

accommodate the additional retail market 

envisaged. Please refer to Annexure U of the 


7.1.63 

7.1.64 

7.1.65 

7.1.66 

7.1.67 


(75) 


(75) 


Grange (86) 



Erf 848 is unique, located on a high water 

mark for the purposes of storing and 

handling of fresh fish, it must be kept that 

way. 

By allowing the proposed development to 

continue is to allow greed, lies and 

misconduct to reign over the heritage, lives 

and unspoiltness of many generations. 

Please reconsider this development. 

We're aware that the proposed 

development will generate massive incomes 

for the developer but not for the fishermen 

and their families. 

The developer promised to provide job 

opportunities to Struisbaai-Noord 

Community at his previous Langezandt 

Quays Development and those promises 

never materialized. 

Erf 848 is private property and the proponent 

is exercising their right to apply for 

development. Please refer to Section 2.4.8 of 

FEIR which details the plans for the fish 

market which incorporates the handling of 

fish. 


Erf 848 (private property). Please refer to 2.3 


Aurecon does not make the decision in terms 

of approval. The Department of Environmental 

Affairs and Development Planning is the 

competent authority. 


regarding economic benefit. 


Economic and Social assessments of the 

FEIR. The local Struisbaai community will be 

afforded an opportunity for employment both 

at the construction phase as well as the 

operational phase. 

Applicants response: Many people from 

Struisbaai-Noord who provide reliable 

consistent services and work at Langezandt 

Fishermens Village, is and have been 

employed for many years. Labour from Elim, 

Bredasdorp etc is also viewed as local. 

Statement 

Statement 

Statement 

Statement 

Statement 



7.1.68 

7.1.69 

7.1.70 

7.1.71 

7.1.72 

7.1.73 





Pienaar (163) 


Pienaar (163) 


(80) 

We were willing to take MCM on during the 

VMS 2008- protest and we are more than 

willing to do the same to the developer of 

Struisbaai Harbour if our heritage in not left 

in tacked. 

The attitude of this development is wrong. 

The developers are not seriously taking into 

consideration the needs of others and the 

pride which people have in their harbour. 

They are only trying to make a profit using 

this icon as a focal point. 

If the developers would show that they're 

improving the harbour, then I would support 

them. 

Residential development in the harbour is 

only for the financial benefit of the 

developer and not in the interest of the 

surrounding residents for the following 

reasons 

Hermanus is a good example of where the 

traditional harbour was preserved as part of 

the heritage as well as tourist attraction. 

The Struisbaai harbour is the last harbour of 

its kind that remains in the country. It is an 

unspoilt harbour that is used by the local 

fisherman, beachgoers and pedestrians 

who walk along the boardwalk that lines the 

coastline. To access the existing harbour 

requires to walk on the public servitude. 

This servitude belongs to the people of 

Struisbaai, not to the developer. Once again 

I am assuming that the developer will move 

to change this to suit his own pocket. 

Noted. Please refere to Section 5.2.4 of the 


Concerns raised by I&APs as well as issues 

identified during the EIA by the EAP have 

been assessed to determine the potential 

impact that would be caused by the proposed 

development. Annexures P & R of the FEIR 

address the issues of Feasibility. 

Noted. Please refer to Sections 5.2.5, 5.2.6 

and 5.2.9 of the FEIR. 


regarding financial benefit. 

Your point is noted, however accordingy to 

the Heritage Specialist and the Record of 

Decision issued by Heritage Western Cape 

the Struisbaai Harbour contains limited 

regional heritage value. Please refer to 


The servitude is registered in the title deeds 

and would need to be removed via a planning 

process i.e. amended to the new high water 

mark. Refer to Annexure M of the FEIR. 

Applicants response: Only a fraction of the 

servitude has been used for many years as 

the property is enclosed. 

Statement 

Statement 

Statement 

Statement 

Statement 

Statement 



7.1.74 

7.1.75 

7.1.76 

7.1.77 


Johan & Cecilia 

Janse van 

Rensburg (57) 



The existing site does not comprise "lowkey 

tourist and fishing development" as 

stated. It is a commercial (small but of 

significant importance to the local 

population) fishing harbour which is at the 

heart and supports the local community, 

and happens also to be used for 

recreational purposes due to its rustic 

atmosphere. The developer's restaurant is 

incidental - the safe swimming cove and 

breakwater are much bigger attractions. 

We (JJJ van Rensburg Familie Trust) are 

the registered owners of Erf 440 (19 

Kusweg-Noord, the house is named 

Suiderkruis and located across the harbour 

parking area). 

Presently the site is home to three single 

storey buildings (in line with the present 

Cape Agulhas Spatial Development 

Framework, 2006 ("SDF"), including 

Pelicans Restaurant and a fish processing 

plant known as Harbour Catch which 

processes approximately 50% of all fish 

landed in the harbour and also provides ice 

and bait to the local fishermen [p. 38-39 of 

dEIR]. It is directly neighbouring and 

supports the harbour. 

These services form an integral part of the 

Struisbaai harbour and contribute towards 

the livelihood of the persons providing these 

services, and also the people to whom the 

services are provided or the goods sold. 

Not to maintain these services within the 

proposed development contradicts the very 

terms of the IDP and SDF, which encourage 

job creation, to which the development 

proponent refers and by which the decisionmaker 

must be guided. 

Erf 848 is private property. Harbour activities 

is the responsibility of MCM, though the 

proponent is willing to incorporate current 

activities where feasible. The breakwater and 

swimming cove will remain as is as they form 

part of the harbor and as a consequence are 

managed by MCM. 

Noted. 

Noted. The CAMSDF has since been 

replaced with the CAMSDF (2009) which 

allows builing within the urban edge. Elements 

of Harbour Catch and Pelican‟s form part of 

the proposed development (Alternative 6). 


Economic Assessment of the FEIR regarding 

job creation. 

Statement 

Statement 

Statement 

Statement 



7.1.78 

7.1.79 

7.1.80 




Dorel Van der 







73, 69, 66, 65, 172, 

93, 78) 

There is increasingly a propensity in South 

Africa to over-develop seaside villages and 

towns. It is submitted that it is the 

responsibility of the EAP, the Department 

and the interested and affected parties to 

ensure that this does not happen. The EAP 

uses the description of Struisbaai as a 

tranquil, quiet seaside fishing village to 

motivate for the increase in tourism. 

However, the increase in tourism will 

potentially destroy the very tranquility that 

motivated it. Any development within 

Struisbaai must be designed in a manner 

which maintains its sense of place. 

Importantly, the site falls within the "coastal 

protection zone" because the site is situated 

within 100 metres of the high water mark 

[Section 16(1)(e)]. The stated purpose of a 

coastal protection zone is to enable the use 

of land that is adjacent to coastal public 

property to be managed, regulated or 

restricted in order to, among other things, 

protect the ecological integrity, natural 

character and the economic, social and 

aesthetic value of coastal public property 

and to protect people, property and 

economic activities from risks associated 

with sea-level rises [Section 17(a) and (c)]. 

Bus tourism, which the developer argues to 

be his target, is the cheapest travel package 

available and they do not eat at Agulhas 

Lighthouse, although the facilities exist. 

They are dealing with the cheapest 

eateries. The developer should rather build 

40 toilets and a snackwich machine that 

makes 60 toasted cheeses in 10 minutes 

flat to cater for bus tourism 


FEIR regarding the change in sense of place. 

Applicants response: The increase in 

tourism sought will not remotely reach the 

levels as experienced in Cape Town‟s V&A 

Waterfront for instance, as such, it will retain 

most of its tranquility. 

Your point is noted. The competent authority 

would need to make a decision on whether or 

not to authorize the proposed development 

based on these principles and what has been 

presented in the Environmental Impact 

Assessment. 

Noted. 

Applicants response: Foreign bus tourism 

operates and supports venues that can 

accommodate them as a group and provide a 

certain standard which meet their 

requirements. 

Statement 

Statement 

Opinion 



7.1.81 

7.1.82 


Dorel Van der 







73, 69, 66, 65, 172, 

93, 78) 


Dorel Van der 







73, 69, 66, 65, 172, 

93, 78) 

Page 108(i) of the DEIR state that the 

harbour is currently the main local tourist 

attraction in Struisbaai as well as its beach 

area and maintaining the Harbour or 

improving the Harbour as an attraction is 

thus crucial. However a four storey 

hotel/time share with tourist buses will not 

improve the harbour; it will only be of benefit 

to the wealthy people. At the moment this 

is the focal point of Struisbaai/Agulhas. 

He (Proponent) bought the property 

knowing the applicable restrictions with the 

intention of making a profit. Why are these 

restrictions now unsustainable? He cannot 

claim ignorance. The real reason is that he 

is trying to have his four storey proposal 

passed and should it fail, will go for the legal 

option in any case. I plead with the 

authorities not to allow the applicant to 

proceed with this development. 

To clarify, the proposed development ranges 

from two storeys to a maximum of four 

storeys. Please refer to Section 5.2.3 and 

Annexure H: Economic and Social 

assessments of the FEIR regarding 

employment opportunities and Section 5.2.5 & 

5.2.6 of the FEIR regarding impact on harbour 

area as an attraction. 

Noted. Please refer to Annexure P & R of the 

FEIR regarding the feasibility of other options. 

Opinion 

Statement 

7.1.83 


Anna-Marie 

Groenewald, 


Merwe, Anneke 



183, 184, 185, 186 

Please also read all the objections stated in 

the Suidernuus, as well as the Suidernuus 

of 20 November 2009 

We have sourced as many of the articles as 

we can and this has been included in 

Annexure B of the FEIR. 

Statement

CRR IV FEIR ~ 26042010 [FINAL].pdf - Environmental Projects

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?