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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: CRR 3.1.135 3.1.136 Justine Sweet (97) 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) 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 In this regard, we note that much of the information relied upon by the development proponent's specialists is either outdated [we note reliance, for example on a 2001 census] or considered desk top/armchair information rather than factually accurate [we note reference to quotas in the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. Please refer to Section 5.2.3 of the FEIR and 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 I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\CRR IV FEIR ~ 26042010 [FINAL].doc 162 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: CRR 3.1.137 3.1.138 3.1.139 3.1.140 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) 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) 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) 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) 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. Please refer to Section 3.1.123 of this 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. Please refer to Sections 5.2.5 and 5.2.6 of the FEIR. 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 I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\CRR IV FEIR ~ 26042010 [FINAL].doc 163 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:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112: EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUA
Page 161: 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?