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

EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: CRR
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
Johan Van Zyl (15)
Eldalene Bruwer
(16)
Gerry Pienaar (38)
Carel Schaap (165)
Gerry Pienaar (38)
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.
Please refer to Section 1.14.1 of this
Comment and Response Report.
Harbor control remains a function of MCM.
Please refer to Sections 1.4.9 and 1.3.60 of
this Comment and Response Report.
Could you please explain the relevance of this
to the proposed development which has no
maritime component per se? Please refer to
Section 1.6.15 of this Comment and
Response Report.
Your comment is noted. Please refer to
Section 5.2.3 of the FEIR.
Safety and
Security
Safety and
Security
Safety and
Security
Harbour
Safety and
Security
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\CRR IV FEIR ~ 26042010 [FINAL].doc 115 of 193