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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: CRR 3.1.115 3.1.116 3.1.117 3.1.118 A.S. Lourens & other 5 Struisbaai Property owners (23) A.S. Lourens & other 5 Struisbaai Property owners (23) Meg Cowper Lewis (SEA) (48) Grant McKinstry (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 of the FEIR. 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 I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\CRR IV FEIR ~ 26042010 [FINAL].doc 152 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: CRR 3.1.119 A.F. & J.H. Tooke (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? The Environmental Assessment Practitioner 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 Justine Sweet (97) Justine Sweet (97) 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 I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\CRR IV FEIR ~ 26042010 [FINAL].doc 153 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:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102: EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUA
Page 151: EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUA
Page 193: EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUA
show all

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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?