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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: CRR 3.1.59 3.1.60 3.1.61 3.1.62 3.1.63 David McKinstry (21) Henri R. Du Plessis (140) Marie-Lou Roux (159) Grant McKinstry (80) Justine Sweet (97) 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. Please refer to Section 3.1.15 of this Comment and Response Report. Please refer to Section 3.1.15 of this Comment and Response Report. Please refer to Section 3.1.15 of this Comment and Response Report. 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 Section 3.1.15 of this Comment and Response Report regarding the photographs. See section 3.1.12 and 3.1.13 of the comments and response report. Process Process Process Process Process I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\CRR IV FEIR ~ 26042010 [FINAL].doc 136 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: CRR 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. Please refer to Section 3.1.12, 3.1.13 and 3.1.15 of this Comment and Response Report. Process 3.1.65 3.1.66 3.1.67 3.1.68 David McKinstry (21) David McKinstry (21) Evan Meirion Williams (31) Neville Van der Westhuizen (71) 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. Please refer to Section 1.7.145 of this Comment and Response Report. 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 of the FEIR. Process Process Process Process I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\CRR IV FEIR ~ 26042010 [FINAL].doc 137 of 193
Page 1 and 2:
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (EI
Page 3 and 4:
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUA
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
1.3.47 1.3.48 1.3.49 1.3.50 1.3.51
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86: EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUA
Page 135: EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUA
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193:
show all

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

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

Delete template?

Save as template?