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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: CRR 1.4.9 1.4.10 1.4.11 1.4.12 1.4.13 1.4.14 1.4.15 1.4.16 Gerry Pienaar (38) Julian G Williams (47) Gwen S. Claasen (53) John Butler (104) Les C. Freese (91) Gawie Bruwer (76) Wayne D. Meiring (135) G.R. Youldon (93) The Draft EIA Report does not address the effect of the higher volume of seagoing craft that will be clogging up the harbour. The higher volume of people who will own a fractional title apartment and hotel guests that will need to be entertained will result in an influx of their own equipment to use on the water The proposed development will place adverse pressure on existing boats that until today have enjoyed their activities on harbour facilities without being disturbed. I'm concerned about the fishing activities at the harbour, harbour will not as accessible as it used to be, it will be restricted. It is totally unacceptable to have restricted access to the harbour and the small beach in the interest of paying guests of the hotel. It is historical fact that fishermen and their families currently living in Struisbaai Noord once lived in close proximity to the area surrounding the harbour. It is also a matter of historical fact that they were forcibly removed due to the dictates of the apartheid regime. Their heritage and livelihood is encapsulated in the various activities which take place in that harbour. The harbour is in fact their last remaining link with their lives pre forced removals. The most significant financial injection to the harbour is from sport-fisherman. The slipways and general congestion already cause severe restriction in the harbour. I see neither plans nor regulations to ensure adequate entry and control of this area. Fishermen will be excluded and will eventually not be able to gain access to the harbour Access to the harbour of the local community due to the proposed development would not be allowed though it should be enhanced. There may be a marginal increase in crafts as a result of the development. This is however likely to increase with increased tourism whether the development is approved or not. It is MCM‟s responsibility to control these activities. Please refer to Section 1.4.9 of this Comment and Response Report. Disagree. Please refer to Section 1.4.2 of this Comment and Response Report. Access will not be restricted. Please refer to Section 1.4.1 of this Comment and Response Report. Your concern is noted. Applicants response: The heritage and livelihood of fishermen will not be affected. Control of the harbour remains vested with MCM. Please refer to Section 1.3.60 of this Comment and Response Report. Disagree. Access to the harbour will not be restricted. Please refer to Section 1.4.1 of this Comment and Response Report. Access to the harbour will not be restricted. Please refer to Section 1.4.1 of this Comment and Response Report. Harbour access Harbour access Harbour access Harbour access Harbour access Harbour access Harbour access Harbour access I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\CRR IV FEIR ~ 26042010 [FINAL].doc 54 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: CRR 1.4.17 1.4.18 1.4.19 1.4.20 1.4.21 Bertrus Hayward (172) Lindie Snyman (61) Lois Albertyn (109) John W. Newman (146) Justine Sweet (97) I'm concerned about access to the harbour. Leave the harbour untouched. There are very few places left where children can swim within the harbour. Our harbour is unique. Currently the site is occupied by a rustic tourism and fishing development. In what way will the development impact on accessibility to the harbour for informal and social fishermen and vacationers? The harbour development is an outrage and my access to it will be limited in the future. This has happened before in the Cape and at Gordon‟s Bay. These factors could lead to the disenfranchisement and alienation of the local fishermen which is contrary to the aims of the Fishing Harbours Transition Project, [www.deat.gov.Branches/MarineCoastal/pro ject] which requires proclaimed harbours to be maintained primarily for their core activity, namely fishing. According to Mr Marinus, the person in charge of this project at the Department of Environmental Affairs, developments within proclaimed harbours cannot be dominated by tourism or recreational activities. Access by local fishermen and particularly, any previously disadvantaged communities, to these proclaimed harbours is also critical to this Project. Despite the applicant's bald assertion that its proposed development is in line with the Fishing Harbours Transition Project, [p. 47 & 60 of dEIR] it is clear that the effects of the proposed development will in fact go against the key aims of that Project. Access to the harbour will not be restricted. Please refer to Section 1.4.1 of this Comment and Response Report. The proposed development will not alter the harbor infrastructure or swimming arangements. Erf 848 is within the harbour precinct, however private property adjacent to the existing harbour. Access to the harbour will not be restricted. Control of the harbour remains vested with MCM. Please refer to Section 1.4.1 of this Comment and Response Report. Disagree. Access to the harbour will not be restricted. Control of the harbour remains vested with MCM. Please refer to Section 1.4.1 of this Comment and Response Report. Erf 848 is private property and not part of the proclaimed fishing harbour and is thus not required to contribute towards fishing activities. However due to its proximity to the harbour, the proposed development does contribute towards promoting and accommodating tourism which is part of the Transition Project. Please refer to Sections 1.6.51 and 1.6.30 of this Comment and Response Report. A meeting was held at the MCM offices in Cape Town on the 26 May 2009 to table the proposed development and it was stated at that meeting that the proposed development complies with the Harbour Transition Project. Please refer to Annexure A of the FEIR for a copy of the follow-up correspondence sent to MCM [post 26 May 2009 meeting] Harbour access Harbour access Harbour access Harbour access Harbour access I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\CRR IV FEIR ~ 26042010 [FINAL].doc 55 of 193
Page 1 and 2:
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (EI
Page 3 and 4: 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 53: EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUA
Page 105 and 106:
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUA
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?