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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: CRR 4.1.37 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) Referring to page 48 (2.4.5), the proponent‟s argument as to why he refuses to have a two storey building included in the study as being commercially unsustainable is strange. Please refer to Annexures R & T of the FEIR. Alternatives 5 Opposition to the proposed development 5.1.1 5.1.2 5.1.3 5.1.4 Jacobus J.D. Havenga (12) Johan Venter (78) Gert Groenewald, Anna-Marie Groenewald, Juliana Van der Merwe, Anneke Groenewald, Gerda Groenewald (138, 138, 183, 184, 185, 186) Jacobus J.D. Havenga (12) I feel sorry for the residents who live near the harbour and who would firsthand experience negative impact resulting from the development With reference to Abrie Bruwer‟s memo dated 3 November 2009 regarding this issue. This memo expresses my feelings and objections towards the proposed development. We all agree to the following objections. We agree with everything written in the Suidernuus on 13 November 2009 by the Suidpunt Environmental Alliance. Do not see me as an ill- humour person; rather think about how you would feel in our position. Wouldn‟t you also ask questions? Noted. Please refer to Section 5.2.3 of the FEIR. Noted. Please refer to Section 2.8 of the FEIR. Noted. Please refer to Section 2.8 of the FEIR. All comments and queries are welcomed. Public participation is a critical part of the information required for an informed decision to be taken. Thank you for participating. Oppose Objection Objection Oppose I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\CRR IV FEIR ~ 26042010 [FINAL].doc 173 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:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122: EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUA
Page 171: EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUA
Page 193: EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUA
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?