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

EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: CRR
4.1.34
4.1.35
4.1.36
Justine Sweet (97)
Justine Sweet (97)
A.F. & J.H. Tooke
(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.
Please refer to Section 3.1.51 of this
Comment and Response Report regarding
alternative sites.
Alternatives
Alternatives
Alternatives
I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\CRR IV FEIR ~ 26042010 [FINAL].doc 172 of 193