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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: CRR 1.1.68 1.1.69 1.1.70 1.1.71 1.1.72 Lois Albertyn (109) W. J. and S.N. Wilken (105) W. J. and S.N. Wilken (105) Frederick Janse van Rensburg (169) H du Plessis (68), Dawid & Christelle Kriel (70) During the construction of the construction of the Nostra, it was necessary to demolish existing buildings only to find that there wasn‟t any foundation. What guarantee is there for construction on erf 848? We vehemently object to proposed attempts to change the existing building regulations by allowing construction of a building that would cover more than 75% of the property – even up to 100%. Object to: Making allowance to change height restrictions for the proposed new building. It‟s misleading to compare the development with other height violations and cannot be used as examples. This is a new project that has to get approval. If necessary, rather upgrade existing commercial buildings. While reading the information provided to homeowners in the Agulhas Municipal area, I got a strong impression that the opinions and needs of homeowners are not respected or considered during the planning of this development. The building would be built in accordance with National Building Regulations and the foundations would be inspected by the municipality. A geotechnical assessment was undertaken to determine what foundations would be necessary based on the existing substrate conditions. Please refer to Annexure L of the FEIR. Your objection is noted however planning legislation allows for landowners to undertake a legal process to alter such restrictions. Such an application may be granted or refused by the authorities. A new SDF has been passed in accordance with the Municipal Systems Act as of December 2009. The 2009 CAM SDF promotes development within the urban edge, of which Erf 848 is located. Please refer to Section 1.4 and 2.7 of the FEIR. Agreed, the proposed project must abide by the legal requirements applied to it by the relevant authorities, who may refuse applications for amendments to the restrictions. It should be noted however that the comparative assessment was simply aimed at identifying whether comparative heights within Struisbaai. A new SDF has been passed in accordance with the Municipal Systems Act as of December 2009. The 2009 CAM SDF promotes development within the urban edge, of which Erf 848 is located. Please refer to Section 1.4 and 2.7 of the FEIR. The proponent is exercising their right to apply for the development of Erf 848. The EIA process has gone to great lengths to accommodate I&APs. Please refer to Chapter 3 of the FEIR. Further to this the public comments and objections are included in the EIA documentation and must be considered by the competent decision-making authorities. Planning Planning Planning Planning Planning I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\CRR IV FEIR ~ 26042010 [FINAL].doc 18 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: CRR 1.1.73 1.1.74 1.1.75 A. J. Vlok (139) Andre van der Berg (145) Justine Sweet (97) High water mark and setback lines – the background image notes that buildings would be approximately 9 m above the average sea level and alternatively 5 m above the natural ground level. Thus earthmoving activities to raise the ground level would have to do so by 5 m. In other words, the total presentation is wrong as the development‟s height would vary between 3 to 5 storeys, a situation that is not acceptable. Thus, we have to ask the question if this mistake was made on purpose. The buildings are too high and do not fit into the rest of Struisbaai Although it is not so zoned, the site is presently regarded as a public space [We note that although the property is not zoned "public open space", in our view, it is arguable (and in fact, environmentally and socially appropriate) that a more extensive public participation process should be conducted as a result of the significant public rights granted in respect of this property and the concomitant potentially negative impacts on the public if the proposed development goes ahead. We have elaborated on this argument below] (in line with the extensive rights of way and other public use rights imposed on the property). Bordering the harbour, it is much used by local fishermen and the general public and, although it is in some state of disrepair, the rights attaching to the property are generally considered a significant public asset [the question of expropriation has been raised by at least, John van Niekerk. In addition, during a telephone discussion, a representative of the DEA&DP queried whether it should ever have been privately owned given its proximity to the harbour and immediate benefit to the public]. Please refer to Sections 5.2.5 and 5.2.6 of the FEIR for a description of the height. With reference to page 2 of the Executive Summary that you are referring to, please note that these heights are relative only to the existing buildings and not that of the proposed Langezandt Quays. Your comment is noted. Please refer to Section 2.7 of the FEIR. Erf 848 is private property and the proponent is exercising their right to apply for the development of the erf. Current usage does not alter the private status of the property. The property is outside of the designated harbour area although adjacent to it. The applicant desputes the notion that the site “is plesently regarded as a public space”. It is noteworthy that the comment to which this response relates cites no authority for the proposition. Erf 848 cannot be regarded as public open space since the western, southern and eastern boundaries of the erf have been fenced off for a number of years. The only perceived public open space is relevant to the right of way servitude on the northern boundary of Erf 848. The EIA process has been extensive and has gone to great lengths to accommodate I&APs. Please refer to Chapter 3 of the FEIR for the public participation process undertaken. Planning Planning Planning I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\CRR IV FEIR ~ 26042010 [FINAL].doc 19 of 193
Page 1 and 2: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (EI
Page 3 and 4: EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUA
Page 17: EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUA
Page 49 and 50: 1.3.47 1.3.48 1.3.49 1.3.50 1.3.51
Page 69 and 70:
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUA
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:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193:
show all

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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?