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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: CRR 1.7.164 1.7.165 1.7.166 Justine Sweet (97) Justine Sweet (97) Justine Sweet (97) It is our clients' submission that multi storey buildings are inappropriate for Struisbaai and in particular a multi storey building on the site would be inappropriate within the existing landscape. The harbour and its surrounds have frequently been used as photographic subjects by photographers, both professional and others, and are frequently found in “coffee table” type books. The proposed development would eliminate the existing, picturesque landscape. In addition, it will destroy the charm and ambiance which is presently found in this area. This loss will be irreversible. The visual impact of the development has been rated as having a high, negative, probable impact for those who prefer the status quo [p. 124 of dEIR]. Four of the five vantage points illustrated in the figures attached to the draft EIR make it clear that the development is highly visible and represents an intrusion in the existing landscape [p. 117-119 of dEIR]. It is our clients' view that if a height restriction is imposed as an essential mitigation measure, the visual impact on the harbour area for those who prefer the status quo will be vastly reduced. Please refer to Sections 5.2.5 and 5.2.6 of the FEIR. Your point is noted. Please refer to Section 5.2.5 of the FEIR. Your point is noted, however it is viewed by the proponent as an unviable option for the reasons set out in the FEIR. Please refer to Section 2.4.6 of the FEIR. Visual impact Visual impact Visual impact I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\CRR IV FEIR ~ 26042010 [FINAL].doc 94 of 193
EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUAYS DEVELOPMENT IN STRUISBAAI HARBOUR: CRR 1.7.167 1.7.168 1.7.169 E. Ley Kempthorne (49) 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) The architectural report also uses other existing buildings to illustrate the possible visual impact, however these have been taken out of context. An example is the development of Hoof Weg Erf 673, which is located against the mountain thus allowing it to blend more easily into the surrounding environment, it is also not located on the water front and therefore using it for a positive argument against negative visual impacts is misleading. The existing character of sea front properties along the Struisbaai and Agulhas coastline are not more than 2/3 stories and many of the examples given in the document are not on the coastline. The proponent further has provided pictures that in his view are more than 2 storeys and are legal, i.e. garages that were excavated, with the first storey starts 1,2m above ground level, and with the whole building not transgressing 8m from the ground. Golden Falls then justify their proposed 16m and all this inaccurate information is included in the report. This is not acceptable. The pictures that I have provided show the real image and they must be included in the report. Referring to Page 116(b) of the Visual Impact Assessment, the proposed project is in breach of 5 points namely high intensity, change in land use, a significant change to the fabric and character of the area, a significant change in townscape and streetscape and a possible vision intrusion in the landscape. The comparative assessment undertaken by the architect and reviewed by the visual specialist was aimed at stating that certain buildings with Struisbaai and its surrounds exceed 2 storeys based on the natural ground level i.e. road level. Please refer to Sections 5.2.5 and Annexure O of the FEIR. Please refer to Section 1.7.145 of this Comment and Response Report regarding height comparison. Stauch Vorster utilised these pictures for comparative purposes only, as calculated from the road level. Noted. Please refer to Section 5.2.5 of the FEIR. Visual impact Visual Visual I:\ENV\PROJECTS\401807~Struisbaai\Public Participation\Comments & Response\EIR\CRR IV FEIR ~ 26042010 [FINAL].doc 95 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: 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 93: EIA FOR THE PROPOSED LANGEZANDT QUA
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?