REGISTER OF COMMENTS AND RESPONSES - Midrand Estates

REGISTER OF COMMENTS AND RESPONSESCOMMENTS RECEIVED BEFORE THE SCOPING PHASENO NAME CONTACT DETAILS AND ORE-MAIL ADDRESSINTEREST IN THE PROJECTCOMMENTS OR ISSUES AND RESPONSESDATEREGISTERED1 Jacques Retief jretief@za.go2uti.com Can you please share some more information on the planned layout androads for this development?I am in Midfield 1528 and would like to understand what will be adjacent tomy plot.01/03/2012ResponseDear interested and affected parties,APPLICATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AUTHORISATION IN TERMS OF THEENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REGULATIONS, 2010: GAUT002/011-12/E0268 – THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A TOWNSHIP KNOWN ASMIDRAND ESTATES EXTENSIONSYour requests and comments regarding the above refer.We have registered you as an Interested and Affected Parties in respect tothe abovementioned application and take note of your comments in respectof the proposed development.Your comments have been recorded and will be considered during theScoping Phase of the assessment, subsequent specialist studies as well asthe Environmental Impact Assessment phase of the assessment.You are invited to attend a Public Open Day on 18 April 2012, at theCommunity Hall, Retire @ Midstream, any time between 15:00 and 19:00where the proposed development project will be on display and wherevarious development team members will be present to provide more insightinto the proposal.1

A background information document with updated information will also bedistributed to all registered Interested and Affected Parties before the endof April 2012.As Interested and Affected Parties you will be informed on an on-going basisas contemplated in Regulation 54 of the Environmental Impact AssessmentRegulations, 2010.2 Kevin Venketiah VenketM@eskom.co.za This is good news.01/03/20123 Lewis Mathieson Tel: 012 428 3255LewisM@armscor.co.zaDo you know when the study will be completed, and construction is plannedto start?ResponseSame response as no. 1 above.I am a resident of Midstream (ERF 343) and I have seen the proposeddevelopment (GDARD: GAUT. 002/011-12/E0268) and I would like toregister an objection to this development. The access to the development iscited as – “via a link road from Brakfontein Rd and the P38-1 Road”. Peoplegoing towards JHB will not use the P38-1 Rd. With the current heavy trafficand choke point being experienced on Brakfontein Rd daily, I very muchdoubt that Brakfontein can accommodate any more traffic. I do not thinksuch a development should proceed without the K111 and K220 Roadsbeing built.ResponseSame response as no. 1 above.01/03/20124 Hennie Vermeulen hennievermeulen@gmail.com I fully support the objection to this new proposed development.01/03/2012ResponseSame response as no. 1 above.2

5 Armand tradebf@iafrica.com We stay in Midfield on the side of the proposed development. Please senddetailed map of the side of the development and also a detailed map of themain road that will run past our boundary wall.01/03/20126 Dr. Paul Sussman Cell 082 747 5379psussman19702@hotmail.comResponseSame response as no. 1 above.3 proposals not clearly described. Very concerned and would oppose accessvia K111 every step of the way even if it involved legal action - noteddifferent roads stated but zero trust exists towards Bondev that have beenpaternalistic in all my interactions with them. To date has not followedthrough on aesthetic codes with house that clearly detract from theenvironment and parks that have been left unsafe and disorganised (justcheck out the park down the road from us - just to mention one aspect thatis environmentally related I have no doubt that Bondev would pursue leastcostly option every step of the way and thus pre-empting the road issue.Generally traffic is completely congested for a long time now. MidrandEstates road network is completely inadequate and now they want to addmore homes. I am against this development. Nothing Bondev states herecan be trusted. The estate is oversubscribed and the infrastructuredisproportionately small - it has been very disappointing journey for myfamily.ResponseSame response as no. 1 above.01/03/20127 Dr. Wynand van derMerweTel: 011 883 7095wynandvdmerwe@yourdentist.co.zaThe roads have to be upgraded before any other development is done. Italready takes you 45 min to get out of Midfield.01/03/2012ResponseSame response as no. 1 above.3

8 Delani van derWaterenTel: 012 842 2281dvande69@ford.comThank you for the notice. We have 2 concerns with the new development.Firstly, there are jackals and a lot of wild animals in the field behind us.What will happen to them?02/03/2012Secondly, and most important. What are they planning with the roads? Arethey going to get more access roads before the building start? As it is theroads are congested and we have far too many people using our roads andthe roads cannot accommodate the cars. It can take up to an hour to getout of the estate in the morning. With an additional 10 000 cars, it’s goingto be a nightmare. And then you have to take the builders and trucks alsointo consideration. The estate should finalise the roads before any furtherbuilding projects start.ResponseSame response as no. 1 above.9 Werner Rőssle Tel: 011 929 7000WernerR@erwat.co.za10 Geoff van Hees Tel: 012 672 6043Geoff.vanHees@za.saabgroup.comI refer to our discussion this morning. I appreciate your time andinformation supplied.Kindly register Erwat as an I&AP for the proposed development. Erwattreats the wastewater, origination from Midrand Estates, at theOlifantsfontein WCW.As discussed, it will be useful to obtain figures of the existing and totalanticipated households at Midrand Estates, if available.ResponseSame response as no. 1 above.Can you please tell me what the plans are for the K111 in this newdevelopment?Is the road going to be used for this or not/ At this stage there are anumber of vehicles that use the sand road on daily basis, and this does02/03/201205/03/20124

esult in a lot of dust being deposited in our home.ResponseSame response as no. 1 above.11 Jean Raath Jean.Raath@vodacom.co.za I have received the attached notice, and have the followingquestions/concerns:05/03/2012All traffic entering and exiting Midrand estates currently requires movingthrough the intersection currently being developed at Brakfontein/K109.The peak time traffic is currently stretched to its limits, and will probablynot be materially improved (for Midstream residents) once the intersectionis completed, as the western section of Brakfontein is bottlenecked atShoprite, and furthermore the new K109 may attract more peak time trafficfrom Nelmapius users.Adding a very large development to the east of Midstream, without addingadditional road infrastructure (e.g. building K220 and extending K109 toOlifantsfontein) for all traffic towards Midrand and Johannesburg, willincrease the traffic pressure during peak time at this intersection evenfurther.The time it takes to leave the estate in mornings is currently unacceptable(it takes 5 minutes just after 7AM just to exit from within the estate throughOld Kent Gate and another 10 minutes from the gate to after theBrakfontein/K109 intersection), and further delays will detract perceivedvalue of the estate, may reduce property values or increase selling times,and will increase the risk of fatalities should emergency vehicles need toenter or exit the estate.It seems as if this development only favours the developer, at the expenseand convenience of current Midrand estate residents.Kindly indicate whether it is not possible to first improve the infrastructurebefore approving the development of this town, or provide more detailedinformation of the timing of events regarding this development.5

ResponseSame response as no. 1 above.12 Melanie and BryanCuffCell 082 570 55203plservices@telkomsa.netI live on stand no 1170. 64 Avondale Crescent. Midstream EstateQuestions to be answered please -05/03/2012What is the definition of Township? Township to me means Tembisa!My stand has my fence then the walk way for the guards then the concretefence.Does this space fall away for the next property.Or will there be the walkway and a fence for the guard too (thereby creatinga space between the two gardens.) this was the biggest reason why myhusband bought this property for the privacy of the land behind us.Petty theft is always an issue for building projects. How will we beprotected. Another reason we bought in the more expensive side ofMidrand Estates was to not be involved with the constant influx of builders,noise etc.Currently we have hardly any signal with regards to cell phone reception. IsBondev doing anything about this?There seems to only be a focus on building more.When does the existing owner benefit?Are we going to have more schools built to accommodate all these extrafamilies? Already this is an issue for us to get in and out of this estate. Asmuch as the road to Nellmapius is going to assist we all know there is notmuch we can do about so many cars only having 2 exists.I am opposed to this development taking place if there is no regard for theowners who have lived here for a long time have contributed to this estateand will if this is approved not be given another thought to with regards tonoise levels, dust, petty crime etc.6

13 Wim van Rensburg Cell 082 654 5656wim.vanrensburg@facegroup.co.za14 Nanja Churr Tel: 012 346 4845nanja@kayamandi.comResponseSame response as no. 1 above.Would you be so kind to add me to your mailing list?ResponseSame response as no. 1 above.Please register me as an interested and affected party.I do not have any comments as of yet, but would just like to ask:- Which specialist studies are being commissioned?- Please send me a copy of the draft EIA including specialist studiesfor commentResponseSame response as no. 1 above.06/03/201207/03/201215 Jon BusserUrban DynamicsTel: 011 482 4131jon@urbandynamics.co.zaWe would hereby like to register as an Interested and Affected party inrespect of the MIDRAND ESTATES NEW EXTENSIONS project underreference GAUT. 002/011-12/E0268.07/03/2012Our contact details for the purposes of the public participation process canbe found below:We are the town planners for a number of land owners directly affected bythe proposed development and the functioning of sub-regional roads, civilservices as well as electrical services. Furthermore, our interest extends toland holdings and developments adjoining the land. These include:Sunlawns Agricultural Holdings immediately to the south-west ofyour project;Southdowns Estate;The state owned Argricultural Research Council land adjoining to7

16 André Gouws Tel: 011 550 6900Andre@intaprop.co.za17 Billy Pienaar Cell 083 459 3100bpienaar@softycomp.co.zathe north over which our clients, Irene Estate (Pty) Ltd holds aperpetual notarial right of first refusal in respect of anydevelopment on that land holding.We request that you make your BID document available to us inclusive ofdetailed information on the 3 alternative proposals that intend to considerduring the Environmental Impact process. While your notice does call forcomments, the detail it contains is really not sufficient for us to commenton.ResponseSame response as no. 1 above.I am a resident in Midstream Estate.Please could you provide additional information as detailed below to enableus to form a response to the application:1. Traffic master plan.2. Traffic impact assessment.3. Roads and infrastructure program. (timelines of what will be doneby when and in what sequence)4. Any other relevant information which will enable us to support thedevelopment.ResponseSame response as no. 1 above.As per GDARD reference: GAUT. 002/011-12/E0268I hereby would like to the register myself as an interested and affectedparty and would like to be informed of all information pertaining the abovementionedproject.I would just like for the record to comment on the proposed project:If one looks at the current project area that Bondev is anticipating to07/03/201207/03/20128

18 Gwen Theron Cell 083 302 2116gwen.theron@telkomsa.netdevelop which is about the size of the current Midstream, the traffic load onthe K109 and the Brakfontein Road is going to be totally overloaded withconstruction vehicles and other traffic. We currently do not even knowwhat the traffic volumes on the K109 is going to look after it is opens at theend of March 2012 with incoming traffic that is not bound for Midstream.We cannot really afford another extension without real additionalinformation and other roads being built to give us various exits. Just lettingmy thoughts go, if one looks at the map that was added to the notice, Ithink that the essential roads that is needed to be built before this projectcan be approved or initialised is the K220 and the K111 (The K111 is the onethat BONDEV said that they could never build it because it goes through theAgriculture Research Institute and there is quite a few hurdles that they willhave to overcome before this can happen).ResponseSame response as no. 1 above.Register as an I&AP.ResponseSame response as no. 1 above.08/03/201219 Dr. LeendertHaasbroekCell 072 314 1819ljhaasbroek@gmail.comI refer to the notice of scoping and EIA of the proposed new MidrandEstates extensions referenced above. I understand that comments andsuggestions can be forwarded to you. My comment and suggestion are setout below.08/03/2012As a resident of Midrand Estates since September 2005 I've noticed how thecurrent access route to the estate have become grossly inadequate over theyears as the number of residents, businesses and school attendees graduallyincreased. My main concern with the proposed new development, which Iam confident resonates with other stakeholders in the estate, is that thenew development will exacerbate the current peak-time trafficcongestion. I do notice that mention is made of a new link to the P38-19

20 Ida Bezuidenhout Tel: 012 665 8072Bezuidenhoutl@proteacoin.co.zaRoad, which I interpret as a link to Botha Ave/Main Road which runsthrough Irene. This road is already congested so I fail to see how this roadcan adequately absorb the additional traffic volumes. May I suggest that aspart of the scoping and EIA this aspect be specifically investigated.I am of the opinion that the likely outcome will be that the originallyplanned access routes to Midrand Estates will have to be put in place beforefurther extensions are developed, namely the K220 East and West, K109including the joining thereof with Olifantsfontein Road, and the K111 Northand South. And to prevent a delay with building these required accessroutes it should be stipulated as a condition precedent to the developmentof the proposed new extensions to prevent persistent delays in constructingit as was experienced with the delay in constructing K109 link to the M31Nelmapius Drive.In summary, I am in favour of the new development provided that adequateaccess routes be put in place before these extensions are developed.ResponseSame response as no. 1 above.Please note that I am together with my husband and all friends living inMidstream, in opposition to the new development and thus do not approveof it.I was one of the first residents to buy in Midstream and we bought there forthe exclusivities of the Estate.Then the Bondev “Mafia” only saw money and started adding on Midfieldand Midlands, and now they just want to make more money.Now it is horrible staying in the once peaceful estate, the traffic is terribleand the infrastructure cannot handle the amount of people.Please do not approve the new development.The animals and beautiful landscapes are being destroyed.09/03/201210

21 Theunis Schoeman Tel: 011 384 8134theunis.schoeman@pkf.co.za22 Melanie Bosman Cell 083 700 5019melbosman@mweb.co.zaResponseSame response as no. 1 above.I would like to register as an Interested and Affected party as part of theabove EIA.Can you forward me details of the proposed extensions and alternatives?ResponseSame response as no. 1 above.We are residents at Midstream Estate and have received, via the MidstreamHome Owners Association, a notice of scoping and environmental impactassessment process of the Midrand Estates New Extensions.I want to object to the proposed establishment of Midrand Estates NewExtensions on the basis of the impact that it will have on the currentresidents of the estate.The infrastructure of the estate as far as access to the main roads leadingout of the estate is concerned is already inadequate. The pending openingof the new road that links with Nellmapius Road may provide some relief ofthe traffic congestion but this is negated to a greater extent by the largenumber of new families that take up residency in the estate on daily basis.Midlands Estates is still in its infancy and when that estate is fully built upthe current traffic situation will already be a nightmare.The proposal to expand Midrand Estates as proposed in this project willresult in the estate have more residents and vehicles than what theinfrastructure can possibly handle. This will cause serious frustration for allresidents (old and new) and will undoubtedly have a negative impact on thequality of life of all residents. It will also negatively impact on the value of allproperties on the estate.09/03/201210/03/201211

ResponseSame response as no. 1 above.23 Jack PrenticeCenturus (Pty) Ltd.Tel: 011 667 1147jack@southdownestate.co.zaRegister as an I&AP.Response12/03/2012Same response as no. 1 above.24 The ChairmanSouthdowns HOATel: 011 667 1147jack@southdownestate.co.zaRegister as an I&AP.Response12/03/2012Same response as no. 1 above.25 Martin Boyd boydmlm@gmail.com Register as an I&AP.12/03/2012I would like to see the traffic plan for the new development and the trafficengineer’s proposal.ResponseSame response as no. 1 above.26 Thilo vonWesternhagenTel: 011 585 0870Thilo.Westernhagen@neotel.co.zaPersuant to the above development, I strongly object to the development,as per e-mail notification received from Midrand Estates on 07 March 2012,for the following reason:12/03/2012Extremely poor development of the road infrastructure in the immediatearea of Midrand Estates.The following points are relevant:1) The current traffic situation is well known and documented.2) The current link road to Brakfontein Road, the proposed K220 link12

oad and the soon to be completed K109 North will not be sufficientto carry the daily traffic need of Midstream Estates.3) Once the remaining +- 1000 vacant stands in the first 4 residentialestates are occupied (adding +- 4000 vehicle movement per day),the above 3 roads will again be insufficient to handle this.4) Adding another phase(s) to the east (presumably higher densitydevelopments (3000 stands and a school) , will make movement inand out of the Estate a challenge, at best, even with the proposedlink road to the P38-1.5) It is well known that most of the current and future congestion isdue to movement of non residents dropping/collecting learners atthe respective schools, which nessitates two double movements perday. It will be unfair to burden residents to cater for this.It is thus suggested that the development should only be given the goahead, provided the following roads are developed up front and not as anafterthought, other than the one road mentioned in the brief, inconjunction with the relevant departments, nl.1) Doubling of the Brakfontein link road up to K101, as this road willcarry the bulk of users currently, and in future. This may be delayed,depending on the completion of other roads to the south (K109 &K111)2) Completion of the K109 South up to K562. This road should havebeen part of the original development (Midstream, Midfield andMidlands), as it would afford access for the labour force for thisarea (which predominantly originates from Tembisa), instead ofhaving to traverse via Brakfontein Road, and the temp contractorentrance via permits at the K220 East Security Gate. The informal“road” network evident to the east and south of the current estateis testament of this. The 4 th township development (betweenRandjesfontein and Midlands) will require daily movement of largelabour and material components, most of which is sourced fromTembisa and Olifantsfontein.3) Completion of the K111 South up to the K562. The rational for thisis to provide not only an alternative route south, but to avoid traffic13

27 Andries Stydom Cell 082 415 3337Andries.Strydom@bwhouse.co.zaof going through the inner estate roads to get to the finaldestination. The 5 th and other township developments (to the east ofMidlands) will require daily movement of large labour and materialcomponents, most of which is again sourced from Tembisa andOlifantsfontein.4) The rational of security against the building of any road to the southmust be rejected, as residents and movements by non residentstowards the south is crucial for the short to medium termsustainability of Midrand Estates.5) K111 North towards Southdowns should not be a priority, providingthat link road to P38-1 comes to fruition.ResponseSame response as no. 1 above.As per GDARD reference: GAUT. 002/011-12/E0268I hereby would like to the register myself as an interested and affectedparty and would like to be informed of all information pertaining the abovementionedproject.I would just like for the record to comment on the proposed project:If one looks at the current project area that Bondev is anticipating todevelop which is about the size of the current Midstream, the traffic load onthe K109 and the Brakfontein Road is going to be totally overloaded withconstruction vehicles and other traffic. We currently do not even knowwhat the traffic volumes on the K109 is going to look after it is opens at theend of March 2012 with incoming traffic that is not bound for Midstream.We cannot really afford another extension without real additionalinformation and other roads being built to give us various exits. Just lettingmy thoughts go, if one looks at the map that was added to the notice, Ithink that the essential roads that is needed to be built before this projectcan be approved or initialised is the K220 and the K111 (The K111 is the onethat BONDEV said that they could never build it because it goes through theAgriculture Research Institute and there is quite a few hurdles that they will12/03/201214

28 Graeme Sim Cell 082 949 2505Graeme.Sim@bwhouse.co.zahave to overcome before this can happen).ResponseSame response as no. 1 above.As per GDARD reference: GAUT. 002/011-12/E0268I hereby would like to the register myself as an interested and affectedparty and would like to be informed of all information pertaining to theabove-mentioned project.My concerns are listed below:1. The existing road network is hopelessly inadequate for the existingMidrand Estates development. This is evident in the extreme trafficvolumes experienced during peak periods. This is not onlyinconvenient but also dangerous as any emergency vehicles areunable to enter or leave the estate due to the trafficcongestion. Any further traffic load, be it temporary or permanent,will not be sustainable.2. The effect of the new K109 road will only be to increase traffic intoBrakfontein Road. This will worsen the already impossible trafficsituation3. The schools on the estate are already unable to accommodatechildren living on the estate. Further extension will worsen thisproblem.4. Safety issues during further extensions, both traffic wise(construction vehicles) as well as due to a large workforce on site.5. Property values are already suffering due to the poor access to theexisting estate. Further devaluation is guaranteed if thedevelopment continues6. The environmental impact of this development will be devastating7. Electricity supply in the estate is already under pressure withnumerous electricity blackouts during peak periods. This willexacerbate the problem8. The existing estate is still not fully developed, why the need to12/03/201215

29 Francois Greeff Tel: 011 295 8690FrancoisG@Nedbankcapital.co.za30 Chesney Tager Cell 083 441 2024chesney@bishopbroker.co.zafurther develop vacant land at this stage?In my opinion, at least 3 further access roads (plus the widening ofBrakfontein Road) are required to alleviate the current and futurecongestion. These access roads need to be built BEFORE any furtherextensions commence development. (to prevent a recurrence of the K109 5year delay!) It seems the interests, wellbeing and investments of theexisting homeowners are largely being overshadowed by Bondev’s need tomake money. This is highly offensive and morally wrong.ResponseSame response as no. 1 above.Ons het geen keuse as om beswaar te maak teen die beplande ontwikkelingnie.Die area is reed te ver ontwikkel vir die infrastruktuur wat bestaan. Dit hetmy gisteroggend om 7:08, 17 minute gevat om die 1kilometer van my huisaf tot by die torings te ry. Dit is onaanvaarbaar. Dit is tewens vir myongelooflik dat die huidige ontwikkelings goedgekeur is met die beperktetoegang to Midstream. Brakfontein is reeds ver oor sy kapasitiet enMidfield is nog nie eers 50% klaar ontwikkel nie. Die Nelmapius verkeer watvewag word (350 karre per uur oor spits tyd) is ook nog nie eers op die padnie.Ek maak beswaar teen die beplande ontwikkeling en sal dit op prys stelindie die HOA kan beswaar aanteken.ResponseSame response as no. 1 above.I purchased and built in Midstream Estate in 2005. I work in CenturionCentral and a big draw card for me was the completion of the K109 roadwhich Bondev promised would be built in a year or two. It is now 7 yearslater and the road will hopefully be completed soon. This however I believe13/03/201214/03/201216

will have little impact on easing the traffic because when I bought inMidstream, there were no Midlands and Midfields.There is no way that the existing road infrastructure can handle anadditional extension of that size. As it is at the moment there is a solidtraffic jam going up Brakfontein Road every morning between 7 and 8am. (Iam prepared to take photos or video if you would require).The traffic bottlenecks at the “grey Owl” robot and at the robots onto theold Jhb road. With the inclusion now of all the trucks that are using the newCheckers Brakfontein Road entrance, it has only made the problem worsebecause when a truck breaks down on Brakfontein, the traffic is totallyblocked because there is only 1 lane in each direction and this is the onlyaccess point into the estate.Another concern is the amount of traffic that Brakfontein road carries and Idon’t think that the road was designed to take so much traffic so what arethe long term implication to the maintenance of that road? There arealready pot holes forming that just get “patched up” until the pot holeappears again after rains.A compromise would be that the new extension has no access toBrakfontein Road, only access to the K111.Bondev need to seriously look at the road infrastructure because currently abig talking point among residents is the terrible traffic situation andultimately if this rapid expansion continues along with the traffic problems,it will start to have a negative effect on the value of property within theestate.31 Elaine Greyvenstein Tel: 012 663 2064ElaineG@scantracksa.comResponseSame response as no. 1 above.I would like to add my “pennies worth” to the comments of the existingcomments regarding the new development proposed.14/03/201217

PLEASE how will the infrastructure be able to handle the additional traffic. Iknow that it has been made clear that impact studies will be done regardingthe traffic problems, but is seems as though the current problem is justbeing ignored.PLEASE GIVE URGENT ATTENTION TO THE IMPACT ON THE TRAFFIC !!!!!!!!!This is a major drawback to our beautiful Estate !!!!!!!!ResponseSame response as no. 1 above.32 Teresa Taljaard andWerner le Rouxteresat@bafokengholdings.comPlease can you register Teresa Taljaard and Werner le Roux as interestedand affected parties with the below comment for the proposeddevelopment at Midstream Estate.14/03/2012I&AP Comment: As the developers are aware there are significant trafficpressures on the residents and road users accessing the estate, theconstruction of the new township will pose further impacts on the alreadystressed traffic system. I would therefore like to oppose the newdevelopment unless a traffic mitigation strategy is put in place prior to thecommencement of any activities. This should include the upgrade of roadinfrastructure and/or alternative routes prior to the development.ResponseSame response as no. 1 above.33 Annelize Jansen vanRensburgTel: 012 428 8088Annelize.JansenVanRensburg@afsb.co.zaWe have been requested to comment or raise issues in respect of the newproposed development as quoted above.I am a resident in Midstream Estate and extremely concerned about thecurrent traffic congestion experienced in Brakfontein Road, both inside theestate and outside the estate leading up to Old Johannesburg road. There is14/03/201218

only one exit road throughout the whole estate namely Brakfontein Road. Ittakes me at least 30 minutes in the mornings to travel from my house to OldJohannesburg Road. The opening of the new road in Midstream Estatejoining Brakfontein Road did not help in this regard as all traffic are stillrouted along the same Brakfontein Road.Various incidents where trucks broke in the circles of Midstream Estateresulted in traffic not being able to enter or exit the estate. Furthermore,trucks traveling to and from Checkers warehouse make the access to andfrom Midstream Estate almost impossible, especially when they break downjust before the Checkers entrance gate. I have been a eye witness to foursuch incidents in the last few months.Yesterday an accident occurred at the corner of Old Johannesburg Road andBrakfontein Road resulting in vehicles being stuck in the traffic for morethan an hour. I was a witness to see that the ambulance exiting from theBrakfontein off-ramp could not enter the road leading to the accident andending up traveling in the opposite direction of oncoming traffic inBrakfontein Road.The traffic increased in respect of the huge amount of trucks that enters thepremises of the Checkers warehouse situated in Brakfontein Road whichadds to the traffic congestion.Furthermore, Brakfontein Road is not being maintained as there arepotholes created by these trucks and further traffic will add to this problem.The applicant must first ensure that there is an exit route planned to theopposite side in the direction of Southdowns/Centurion and to the R562towards Tembisa before these traffic problems will be solved. Properplanning needs to be put in place and the roads must be completed to avoidthe existing problems.ResponseSame response as no. 1 above.19

34 Phillip Raath Cell 082 998 5569Phillip.Raath@vodacom.co.zaRegister as an I&AP.ResponseSame response as no. 1 above.14/03/201235 André Gouws Andre@intraprop.co.za I am a Midstream resident and I also represent a number of friends residingin Midstream, Midfields and Midlands Estates.We are all concerned about the further extensions of Midrand Estates.14/03/201236 Dr. Shane Hodgson Tel: 011 562 9740zimpsych@hotmail.comThe current road infrastructure is not adequate to handle the trafficvolumes and any new development will exacerbate the problem unlessprovision is made for additional access and link roads.Apart from the portion of the K109 which is currently under construction,none of the other link roads have been built while residential developmentin the estate has been extensive.The current traffic problem has had a negative impact on our propertyvalues.Please register me as an Interested And Affected Party and provide me withdetail regarding the development such as Development Plans, Precinctplans, Traffic Impact Assessments etc…I am sure lots of other residents will register as Interested And AffectedParties but if you need a list of people I represent, please let me know and Iwill provide it to you.Please acknowledge receipt of this email.ResponseSame response as no. 1 above.Dear colleaguesIn connection with the GDARD reference number: GAUT. 002/011-12/E026814/03/201220

I would like to raise the following concerns1) Existing transport infrastructure is completely inadequate in meeting thecurrent demand - it can take 20 - 30 minutes for residents just to leave theestate in the mornings and this is with the current development being onlyabout half occupied, and also the vast amount of domestic workers andbuilding contractors coming in or leaving at the same times exacerbates thesituation.2) Existing air quality is poor, with prevailing winds bringing in pollutionfrom adjacent factories and from the high traffic volumes (check with localmedical practitioners about the abnormal levels of respiratory ailments) andto add in thousands more cars idling on the clotted roads will make thingsworse.3) Existing infrastructure like sewage lines, schools, shops etc. (which arethe unique selling point of Midrand Estates) are already proving inadequatefor the current 50% population levels and, given BONDEV's stated positionto not increase these facilities, will become severely overburdened.I fear that the proposed expansion will destroy the last remaining uniquequalities of our home estate, not to mention the actual property values. Ithink that the prospect of commercial gain in the short term has blinded thedevelopers to the quality of life of the residents, the proper carryingcapacity of the little valley and its roads and the needs and wants of theresidents not only of Midrand Estates but also of Heritage Hill, Candlewoodsand other estates who will end up being swamped by a doubling of trafficon the already congested and crumbling roads (which are also, I remindyou, suffering under high volumes of trucks coming to Checkers warehousefrom the highway) and who will have their lives impoverished by theconcreting over of yet more virgin bush.Without the developers providing meaningful detail on how they plan todeal with bottling yet more thousands of people up in an area which isalready without sufficient proper roads or services, I must strongly opposethe proposed development.21

37 Michelle Bouwer Cell 072 292 4600Michelle.bouwer@vodamail.co.zaResponseSame response as no. 1 above.We are very much concerned about the traffic implication on moredevelopment in Midrand Estate.My neighbour was killed on the road next to the Checkers Warehouse inmid 2010 and that was chaos on the road. I am sure you know of thisaccident.There was an accident on the Old Johannesburg Road on Tuesday, 13/03/12(in this week).I left the Windsor gate at 7:05. I could only reached the highway at 7:55 –50 minutes later!We need to make our Estate more exclusive, not try expand and throughthis put more strain on our environment.ResponseSame response as no. 1 above.15/03/201238 Alwyn and AnnetteLouwCell 083 260 1754alwyn.louw@gmail.comOur house, stand 1087, is neighbouring the proposed new development.I am not sure whether you will be able to assist me, if not I wouldappreciate assistance in directing me to the relevant person.15/03/2012Our biggest concern is that the value of our property would not beinfluenced by the new development therefor the following questions:1. What will the average size of the stands be?2. What will the price/average price for these stands be?3. Will there be a direct road connection be to the existing X9?4. Is there provision for separate access routes?5. Will the current security walls stay?22

39 John Bisschoff Cell 083 291 0950bisschoff@mweb.co.zaResponseSame response as no. 1 above.The above mentioned project refers.As affected and interested party please note the following comments:1. As resident of the existing township development access is experiencedas extremely problematic. This refers to access of both Residents andWorkers coming mainly from Tembisa and surrounds. It is clear that thecurrent road infrastructure cannot cope withexisting traffic volumes as the only entry/exit into the township isBrakfontein Road. The planned completion of the K109 Road will notalleviate the troublesome situation as all traffic is forced through the“bottleneck junction” at the main entrance to the existing township inBrakfontein Road. Failure to create additional access roads will impactnegatively on current and future residents. To overcome this problem it issuggested that the development makes provision for the followingadditional access roads which should be completed prior to thecommencement of construction activities inside the proposed project area:a. An additional (in addition to the K109) access/link road with NelmapiusRoad to the North of the existing township.b. An additional (in addition to Brakfontein Road) access/link road withOlievenhoutbosch Road to the West of the existing township.c. An additional access/link road with Olifantsfontein Road to the South ofthe existing township.d. An additional access/link road with the M18 to the East of the proposednew township.2. No construction vehicles should be allowed to travel through the existingtownship to the proposed new township development as it will negatively15/03/201223

impact:a. Traffic volumes,b. Safety,c. Security, and;d. Living quality (increased levels of dust and rubble).3. The responsibility for internal reselling and distribution of electricity forboth the existing and new proposed townships should fall to the respectiveHome Owners Associations. The current practice where private institutionsbenefit over the long termfrom a monopolistic electricity distribution model should be corrected as itcreates an unfair and unnecessary financial burden for residents.I trust that my comments and concerns will be taken into account and that Iwill receive feedback in due course as to how it will be addressed.40 Willem van den Berg Cell 082 574 2958Willie.vdberg@gmail.com41 Gunther Witthoft Cell 082 465 7927guntherw@worldonline.co.zaResponseSame response as no. 1 above.I just want to ask about the main road that would service Midrand Estatesand this new development. I think it is common sense to realise thatBrakfontein won’t be able to cope with the traffic load from BOTHdevelopments, as it does not cope with Midrand Estates as it is at themoment. Is the new development in line with timelines of other roads thatcan service the estate? I think this should be a discussion point in all yourmeetings.ResponseSame response as no. 1 above.In response to the notice of 1 March 2012 (in terms of regulations that will,according to your notice, seemingly and rather surprisingly only be officially15/03/201215/03/201224

42 Louis Botha Cell 082 854 6804springfontein@vodamail.co.zapublished on 18 June 2012) on the above-mentioned proposeddevelopment by Bondev Midrand (Pty) Ltd., I wish to comment as follows:-The adequacy of access roads to the existing Midrand Estates appears tohave been hopelessly underestimated from the start and this frequentlycauses extremely chaotic traffic situations in the area. This alreadyfrustrating and rather intolerable state of affairs will get even worse asmany new houses in the existing Midrand Estates have still to be built andoccupied. The present situation should therefore definitely not be allowedto get even more unacceptable by permitting new extensions to bedeveloped!The bottom line of my objection is simply that, until the only existing accessroad has been properly widened to carry two lanes of traffic in eachdirection and throughout its length and a number of new access roads haveactually been built and opened to the public to ease and facilitate trafficflow in more than one direction only, no permission should be granted forthe development of further extensions in the area!Your cooperation and an acknowledgement of receipt will be muchappreciated.ResponseSame response as no. 1 above.Plaas ons asb op die lys as IAAP vir GAUT002/011-12/ E0268Ons is eienaars van gedeelte 9 (40ha) en my ma is eienaar van gedeelte 40(4ha) van Olifantsfontein 410JR.ResponseSame response as no. 1 above.16/03/201243 Willie Barnard Willie.barnard@mtnloaded.co.za I saw the public notice for the proposed new development to the east tothe estate.18/03/201225

I am very concerned about the traffic situation with such an additionaldevelopment. In my opinion the current infrastructure cannot handle thetraffic volumes. I would like to know how this will be addressed.ResponseSame response as no. 1 above.44 Sean CullinanGilliemead Pty Ltd.Sunlawns EstateCell 083 458 8289sean.cullinan@telkomsa.netCould you please register Gilliemead Pty Ltd and Sunlawns Estate as IAP’s?Could you please forward me the layout plan for the proposed developmentin DWG and PDF if possible?19/03/2012ResponseSame response as no. 1 above.45 Ronel le Roux Cell 082 701 9433ronelleroux@mweb.co.za46 Callie Pienaar Cell 082 337 7340cpienaar@mogale.co.zaHiermee my sterkste beswaar teen enige verdere ontwikkeling in MidrandEstates totdat die probleme met die huidige infrastruktuur uitgesorteer is.Klagtes aan die huiseienaarsvereniging en Bondev val op dowe ore.Die struktuur kan nie nog verdere ontwikkeling dra nie!ResponseSame response as no. 1 above.Please register me as an interested and affected party (I&AP) with regardsto: GDARD reference: GAUT. 002/011-12/E0268.The current road infrastructure cannot cope with the current traffic (andthe current proclaimed developments of Midstream Estate are not evenfully developed) an additional development of that size will most definitelynot be viable unless proper roads are constructed beforehand (not after thedevelopment has already started).Additional INFO is needed (such as all required expert studies required foran EIA) to comment further.19/03/201220/03/201226

47 Francois Greef Tel: 011 295 8690FranscoisG@Nedbankcapital.co.za48 Peter Walker Cell 083 650 9937peterwalker@gmail.comResponseSame response as no. 1 above.I want to object against the above planned development and my reasonsare as follows:The area has been develop way past what the infra-structure cansustain. The traffic during peak hours in Brakfontein Road is of such anature that it takes me 18 minutes to get from my house in Coventry StreetMidstream Estate to the newly established intersection with the K109. Thedistance is about 1km.The area known as Midlands Estate has not even been fully developed andthe traffic is already a disaster.Another factor that will add traffic to Brakfontein Road, and that has notmaterialised as yet, is the completion of the K109 linking Nellmapius withBrakfontein. This road will worsen the situation even more during peakhours. If I remember correctly the Road will add about 350 vehicles perhour to Brakfontein during the peak hours.ResponseSame response as no. 1 above.I am the owner of Stand 274, 78 Old Kent Drive, Midstream Estate. I wouldlike to register concern re some of the traffic aspects of the proposed newdevelopment, and at the same time be recognised as an I&AP.In principle I am not opposed to the development. The MidstreamHomeowners Association will act in the best interest of all the homeownersand I will support their recommendations once agreed by them. Inconnection with the issue of traffic congestion I would like to comment asfollows:20/03/201223/03/201227

a) Brakfontein Road is already carrying a high volume of traffic.b) The initial development of the proposed new extension will entail ahigh volume of large construction vehicles. Once the extension isproclaimed there will also be a high volume of large vehiclescarrying building materials, as well as a high volume of buildingcontractors, into and out of the new extension.c) There are incidents of large construction and transport vehiclesbreaking down on Brakfontein road through the Estate. Abreakdown by a large vehicle at a critical point could havedisastrous effects on the normal traffic flow through MidstreamEstate.My recommendations to counter the possible effects of the above are asfollows:a) Access to the new extension is limited to the P38-1 Road during theprovision of basic services and building of roads etc.b) The proposed “Link road” from Brakfontein Road is only establishedonce the new extension is proclaimed, and/or marketing of thestands begins. Once it is established access be strictly controlled.Deliveries of building materials and all building contractors arecompelled to access via the P38-1.Your consideration of the above is appreciated.ResponseSame response as no. 1 above.49 Thulani and GuguDlaminidlaminht@vodamail.co.zaKindly register me as an interested party on this project.I will have to evaluate the whole project once the relevant informationbecomes available but my main concern at this point is the traffic. The newroads are great but are still not able to manage the traffic23/03/201228

50 John Skews Cell 083 408 2688skewsjk@icon.co.zaefficiently. Once this new development is complete we will go back towhere we were just recently.ResponseSame response as no. 1 above.As a resident of Midstream Estate I wish to register as an Interested andAffected Party to the Scoping and Environmental Impact Assessment for theMidrand Estates Extensions (GDARD ref. non GAUT.002/011-12/E0268).The Midstream Estates Home Owners Association will be making asubmission on behalf of the owners of properties of Midrand Estates. WhilstI agree with most of the content of the submission, I have concernsregarding proposed changes to the road infrastructure described in thesubmission. To extend the K220 to the R101 and to the P38-1 will create athrough road from the R101 to the R38-1 through Midrand Estates. This willcreate an alternative route to both Nelmapius Road and OlifantsfonteinRoad between the R101 and the R38-1. Given the poor condition ofNelmapius Road, this extended K220 will become a major route for trafficbetween the R101 and the R38-1. So, whilst the intention of the proposedextension to the K220 is to improve access to Midrand Estates, I believe itwill attract so much outside traffic that it will be more of a problem than ahelp.My further concern is the noise from the increased traffic volume on theK220. This will be a particular problem for the residents ofRetire@Midstream that borders on the K220, and for those residents ofMidlands that also border on the K220.As an alternative I suggest that the K220 be extended not to the R101 but toOlivenhoutbosch Road and that the proposed extension of this road to theR38-1 be dropped. I fully support the construction of the K111 fromMidrand Estates to South Downs. With this route, the extension of the K220to the R38-1 will not be necessary for the foreseeable future.25/03/201229

ResponseSame response as no. 1 above.51 Tjaart van der Walt Tjaart.vanderwalt@gmail.com Thank you for the notice on 1 March 2012. I would like to make use of theopportunity to raise some of my comments and concerns. Kindly forward amore detailed map with better resolution indicating accessroads as mentioned.26/03/2012I have a number of concerns with regards to development in the area asshown but until I receive a more detailed map from which I may raiseadditional concerns, I list them as follows:1. The first concern is that of noise pollution.Development in this area will significantly increase the traffic and with thatthe noise levels experienced by residents of Midstream and Midfield next tothe K111 and K220. I am particularly concerned thatany measures taken to reduce the noise levels may be sufficient for a fewyears only, leaving residents with little recourse later when the traffic levelsare even higher. The R21 will effectively be connected to the N1 throughour estate. Any traffic backup on either freeway will result in extremely highlevels of traffic and noise pollution by non-residents. Planning for noisescreening based on the number of proposed residents in the area willtherefore fall short of beingadequate. If berms are to be erected along the K111 and K220, such bermswould have to be of sufficient height (>6m) to screen the top stories of allthe houses along the K111 from very high noise levels.2. The second concern is that of traffic congestion.If the R21 is connected to the N1 North/South as well as the N1 East/West,this will result in non-residents using the traffic infrastructure that wasdesigned according to the number of residents for a daily commute. Anytraffic congestion on any of the threesections of freeway will lead to congestion in Midrand Estatesinfrastructure.30

3. The third concern is that of wildlife.The wildlife sounds we experienced every night abruptly stopped at the endof last year. We have not heard any jackal calls at night and this raises thequestion of what happened to these animals. Have they been relocated ordestroyed? We would ask that any development be sensitive to speciessuch as (and this is not an exhaustive list):1) Agrostis eriantha2) Hypoxis hemerocallidea3) Eucomis autumnalis subsp. clavata4) Atelerix frontalis5) Dasymys incomtus6) Mystromys albicaudatus7) Myosorex varius8) Mellivora capensis9) Tyto capensis10) Mirafra cheniana11) Falco naumanni12) Homoroselaps dorsalis13) Python natalensis14) Pyxicephalus adspersusThank you for keeping me updated.In addition to the concerns mentioned in my previous email, I would alsolike to add the following:1) On noise pollutionThe K111 South runs down a steep hill and it is a major concern that truckswill be using air brakes to prevent excessive speeds. It is proposed that truckeither not be allowed on the k111, or the bermsbuilt to be at least 1m higher than the exhaust point as seen from the firstfloor from the houses in Midstream and Midfield bordering on theK111.2) On endangered flora31

52 Cindy Turner Cell 072 143 6233turner@midrand-estates.co.zaPrevious impact studies in the vicinity established that Cheilanthesdeltoidea as well as Melolobium subspicatum are prevalent in the area andattempts to relocate Melolobium subspicatum failed.ResponseSame response as no. 1 above.I have been having plenty potential buyers who are querying this new areain Midstream Estates which a request has been put in regarding thedevelopment thereof. Will it be like the rest of Midstream or could there below housing – this is the concern of the clients and also a traffic concern. Iam really not clued up on this and would like an explanation in “plainEnglish” which I can convey to my clients.ResponseSame response as no. 1 above.27/03/201253 Midfield HomeOwners AssociationTel. 012 661 1177chriss@midrand-estates.co.zaPlease register the Midfield Home Owners Association as an interested andaffected party.27/03/2012ResponseSame response as no. 1 above.54 Henry M Hill Cell 082 573 1938henry.hill@za.ibm.comI have been a resident of Midstream Estate Erf 232 for more than 6 yearsnow.My key concern is adequate provision should be made for roads out of theMidrand Estate complex. The single road - mainly Brakfontein is verycongested andonly provides access on the north (K101) and West of the estate. Accesstowards Oliver Tambo airport and Pretoria is urgently required.I fully support the notion that these roads should not become through fares,27/03/201232

55 Hendrik Greeff Tel. 012 665 2931hendrik@gtpca.co.zahowever, to much traffic calming is hampering the flow of residential traffic.ResponseSame response as no. 1 above.Your notice dated 1 March 2012 refer.I wish to register as a interested and affected party and more specific havethe following comments.1 Traffic flow during school terms are already unmanageable inthe estate during office hours, how does the developerintended to alleviate the problem if more traffic is added?2 Brakfontein is currently not a road that can be used to goanywhere but to Midrand Estates, this limits the flow trough ofindividuals as they can go nowhere else. The new developmentwill undoubtedly have exits on the eastern side of thedevelopment, making it possible for people to use the road as aflow through to other destinations not just Midrand Estates andthere will thus be an increase in unwanted elements to theEstates which will impact on the security of the estates, howwill this be curbed?3 Confirmation must be given that the supply of electricity, waterand other services will not be negatively impacted, as we knowspecifically electricity is in short supply and additional burdenon the system will impact on the existing estates4 The increased volume of traffic, builders, people and generalmovement will negatively impact on the rural feeling currentlyin MidstreamWe suggest that there be NO roads between the current development andthe new proposed development to ensure that the impact stay outside ofthe existing Midrand Estates walls.28/03/201233

ResponseSame response as no. 1 above.56 Koot MyburghChairman MidstreamHoATel. 012 661 09151 Old Kent Road, Midstream Estate,1692Register HoA as interested and affected party.Comments1.Midstream Estate is part of the greater Midrand Estates precinct. Atpresent the access to Midrand Estaes is limited to Brakfontein Road and therecently constructed K109 from Nellmapius Road. The traffic volumes haverecently increased significantly as more housing has been constructed in theMidfields, Midland and Retire at Midstream estate together with anincrease in learners at the Midstream Primary School and College. This hasresulted in a quantum leap in peak hour congestion in Brakfontein Roadwith a concomitant increase in travelling time from Midstream HoAmembers as they egress and ingress the estate. Further development andassociated traffic volumes can be expected once development at the Midhillestate commences. Any proposed further development in the immediateregion is therefore of great interest to the Midstream HoA with regard tothe additional traffic load such development may cause, particularly in theabsence of significant additional road infrastructure. It is therefore unlikelythat the Midstream HoA will the support the Project unless all additionalroad infrastructure required to support it, as set out in the scientific trafficstudy, was to be constructed before development on the Projectcommenced. The Midstream HoA believes that a minimum this would haveto include: The construction of the K220 from Midstream Estates to the R101; The construction of the K220 from Midstream Estates to the P38-1;and The construction of the K111 from South Downs to MidrandEstates.2.The Midrand Estates precinct has been developed with significant care andforesight by the Propnent. A positive feature of the precinct is its high levelof security. The Midstream HoA will be seeking clarity on how the30/03/201234

Proponent will ensure this level of security is maintained as the Project isdeveloped, and a greater number of roads into the area are constructed,with particular emphasis on Midstream Estates.3.The Midrand Estates precinct has a pleasing aesthetical character. TheMidstream HoA would like undertakings from the Proponent that theProject will both maintain and enhance the aesthetical character of MidrandEstates.4.The Project will see a significant number of new erven being placed ontothe property market. With housing development at Midlands Estates andMidhill Estates also continuing, the Midstream HoA is concerned about theoverhang of housing stock and the effect this will have on property values inMidstream Estates. The Midstream HoA seeks assurances and warrantiesthe Proponent that the Project will be developed in a responsible mannerwhich will maintain property values in adjacent areas, with particularemphasis on Midstream Estates.5.Midstream HoA seeks assurances from the Proponent that all sensitiveenvironmental areas within the Project area are properly mapped, that theeffects of development of the Project are scientifically estimated and thatthe mitigating actions are within world best practices.6.That the Proponent gives undertakings and warranties to the MidstreamHoA that the provision of bulk services to Midstream Estate (particularlywater and electricity) will not be affected by the Project and seeks details ofall current bulk infrastructure which will be used to provide services to theProject and any additional infrastructure that will be constructed tosupplement this.The Midstream HoA hereby formally registers as an Interested and AffectedParty in terms of the process.35

A number of Midstream HoA members have requested the Midstream HoAto act on their behalf in regard to the Process. Each of these members hasprovided a signed power of attorney appointing the Midstream HoA in thisregard (Nominated Members). A list of the Nominated Members is set outin Annexure A to this submission.It would be appreciated if Environomics could acknowledge receipt hereofand confirm that the Midstream HoA in the first instance and theNominated Members in the second instance have been registered asInterested and Affected Parties.Nominated MembersKaren Roets, Trustee of Roets Familty TrustP J Campbell, Trustee of Janzha TrustJanine LemmerAllan Quinton DanielsJM GreylingJohn Hendrik van HeldenPhillippus Johannes Du PlessisCaroline Veronica CoughlanCornelius and Karla BrinkMartinique MavrokefalosPeter de HaanEstelle de HaanGustav PutterJean Louis RaathPierre le RouxSWN PienaarNian Pienaar TrustJ P JoubertUys and Stephnie LourensThilo Ralph Thomas von WesternhagenElizabeth Mary FeltmanJohan and Elmarie de la RayGeorgeand Leonie KlopperColin John and Linda Anne King36

57 Riaan Swart Cell 082 561 8732riaan@prysm.co.zaCJD PienaarJP van den BergMary-Anne LoubserCharles VorsterMarina PretoriusResponseSame response as no. 1 above.The notice was received on 1 March 2012We, Mr AJ Swart and Mrs C Swart ( “The Swarts” ), are the registeredowners of erf 1171, Midstream Estate Township Extensions 11, JR, in theEkurhuleniMetropolitan Municipality.The Swarts, have the following comments/concerns:A) Traffic & Roads: The residents of Midstream Estate are alreadyexperiencing high volumes of traffic on our access roads, being Brakfonteinand the recently completed K109 from Nellmapius Road, as a result of allthe new developments around Midstream Estate. A further increase in traffic volumes can be expected once any new development commences.Of specific concern is the limited additional road infrastructure planned forthis project . The Swarts will therefore not support the Project unlesssignificant additional road infrastructure is constructed before any newdevelopment starts. With reference to the completed traf fic study. TheSwarts believes that at least the following additional roads will berequired,in addition to the link roads mentioned in the notice.These are:1. The K220 from Midrand Estates to the R101; and2. The K220 from Midrand Estates to the P38-1.B) School: Currently the Midstream College classes are overflowing as it is.It is believed that all the additional development already planned around30/03/201237

Midstream Estate will exacerbate this problem. Should all the currentplanned stand be populated, one or even two additional schools will berequired. The Swarts can therefore not support the proposed developmentwithout the prior construction of at least one additional school with asecond constructed as part of the new development.C) Security: The resident of Midstream Estate invested in an estate whichprovides a high level of security. It is feared that the new development willnegatively impact on the security of current residents. In order for TheSwarts to support the new development it must be proven that there willnot be an impact on security.D) Property Value: The release of new property will negative impact on theproperty value of the other estates in the area, and specifically MidstreamEstate and the new development can therefore not besupported by The Swarts.E) Bulk Services and Sewage: It is required that detail be provided on theplanned supply of water and electricity to the new development. Of specificconcern is the sewage handling as it is expected that Midstream Estate willbe directly affected, being the lower lying area. Commitment is requiredthat these services will not be negatively impacted by thenew development .F) Environmental Impact:1. The noise and air pollution on current Midstream Estate residents andresidents of other estates in the area are of concern;2. The weather station is the source of significant noise pollution and it isthe opinion of The Swarts that the area adjacent to the weather stat ion isnot suitable for residential development. This aspect must be specificallyassessed and addressed in the impact study report for The Swarts tosupport the new development.3. It is required that all environmental sensit ive areas are assessed, mappedand actions planned to mitigate the environmental impact of the newdevelopment on these areas.38

The Swarts hereby formally registers as an Interested and Affected Party interms of this Process. We await your feedback regarding our objection.Could you (Environomics) please acknowledge receipt of thiscommunication and confirm that the The Swarts has been registered as anInterested and AffectedParty.ResponseSame response as no. 1 above.58 Justin TruterWerksmansAttorneysTel. 021 870 2240jtruter@werksmans.comObjection to Application for Environmental Authorisation to permit theestablishment of a town known as Midrand Estates ExtensionsWe act on behalf of Shoprite Checkers Pty Ltd.04/04/2012We have previously requested that both our Firm and our client beregistered as Interested and Affected Parties for the purpose of the EIAprocess and the purpose of this letter is to record certain of our client’spreliminary concerns in response to the application for environmentalauthorisation.The comments contained in this letter are in response to the application toconduct a scoping and EIA process, submitted on behalf of Bondev (Pty) Ltdand dated 31 January 2012.Our client is the owner of erven 904 and 905 Louwlardia extension 25,Pretoria (formerly known as Portion 15 (a portion of Portion 71) of the FarmBrakfontein 390 JR (“our client’s property”). Our client conducts andoperates a distribution centre from the property. The significance of thisdistribution centre to our client’s national operations will be described ingreater detail below.The applicant contemplates gaining access to its development via link roadfrom Brakfontein Road and the P38-1 road. Our client’s trucks gain accessto the distribution centre via Brakfontein Road. There are also other39

esidential developments such as Heritage Hill estate who are reliant onBrakfontein Road for access to their estates.The applicant was also the 6 th applicant in a high court application tointerdict our client from utilising a new access road from Brakfontein road.This application was refused with costs. The applicant’s representative MrZeederberg also happened to be the applicants’ principal deponent in itsfailed high court application and is on record under oath alleging that:The Applicants will suffer “huge traffic pilups, frustration, inconvenience andprejudice” as a result of our client’s use of its new access road;The congestion they expect to experience on Brakfontein Road will result ina reduction of the value of their members’ properties;They will have “to mingle on a permanent basis with heavy duty articulatedtrucks entering and leaving the First Respondent’s property;Notwithstanding Bondev’s concerns regarding the congestion onBrakfontein Road and the alleged prejudice which the residents at thevarious Midrand estates stand to suffer, the same developer now seeks touse Brakfontein to gain access to its extended development, therebyexacerbating the very traffic congestion problems that he complains sobitterly about in his high court affidavit. In the process, the efficient use byour client of its distribution centre, in which it has invested considerablesums of money, will be adversely affected. This prejudice will be describedin greater detail below. Suffice it to say that our client and its manyproducers and suppliers stand to be directly affected by the proposeddevelopment. Our client has a self-evident interest in the application andacts herein in its own interests, in the interests of its consumers, producersand suppliers as well as in the interest of the environment and the publicinterest.At the outset we record that our client is of the view that the need anddesirability of the application is doubtful and that is certainly does notconstitute the best practicable environmental option (BPEO) as defined.Our client is further of the view that the application will have significant40

adverse impacts on the receiving and surrounding environment and thatthese impacts cannot be adequately mitigated. Our client contends furtherthat the environmental, social and economic impacts will far outweigh anysio-economic benefits which the applicant purports to rely on.THE APPLICATION:The applicant seeks environmental authorisation in accordance withGovernment Notice R543 of 18 June 2010 to undertake the followingactivity which is listed in the Government Notice R545 of 18 June 2010:Activity 15: The physical alteration of undeveloped, vacant or derelict landfor residential, retail, commercial, recreational, industrial or institutionaluse where the total area to be transformed is 20ha or more. The exceptionsto this activity (linear development and agriculture or afforestation whereactivity 16 will apply) do not apply.The development area is 435ha in extent and is presently zoned foragricultural use.THE GROUNDS OF OBJECTION:Our client is opposed to the application, for reasons which appear in greaterdetail below, but which may be summarised as follows:The proposed development will have significant, adverse economic impactson our client’s business, as well as on its producers, suppliers andconsumers. These impacts will further manifest in adverse social impacts;The proposed development is contrary to the principles contained in section2 of NEMA;The need and desirability of the proposed development is disputed;The proposed development will not constitute the “best practicableenvironmental option” as defined;41

The proposed development will have significant, adverse socio-economicimpacts:For our client, this application comes at a time when:construction of a new access road with traffic signal off Brakfontein Roadhas been completed and is operational;all buildings and internal roads on the property have been completed;all new buildings have become occupied and put to use with stock alreadybeing stored therein;the system of one-directional traffic flow has already been implemented byour client in terms of which all delivery vehicles enter our client’s propertyvia the new access on Brakfontein Road and exit same at OlievenhoutboschRoad at an exit point located on the south-western corner of our client’sproperty; andour client has recently expended an additional R345 million on completingthe second phase of its development with additional buildings positioned sothat it utilises the one-directional traffic flow which is dependent upon thenew access, completing its R5 billion investment up to date.The additional traffic volumes on Brakfontein road which stand to begenerated by the proposed development stand to prejudice our client, itsproducers, suppliers and ultimately the consumer in the following respects:Our client will not be able to fulfil its vision of dominating market share byputting food and products on the shelves of its outlets at the lowestpossible costs to its consumers by relying on a most effective logisticaldistribution network;Our client’s property value will be adversely affected by the likely trafficcongestion caused by the additional traffic volumes created by theproposed development;42

Our client’s flow model in terms of which it had designed and located all itsbuildings and facilities geared towards a one-directional traffic flow system,which is dependent upon vehicles entering the property at the Brakfonteinaccess point and thereafter moving systematically through the securitycheckpoint, fuel depot, goods return warehouse, dry goods warehouse,thereafter to the fresh produce warehouse and exiting at OlievenhoutboschRoad, will be severely disrupted;Without our client being able to utilise the Brakfontein access and the onedirectionalflow design optimally our Client’s distribution centre will not beable to be effectively used as a distribution centre to all its outletsthroughout Gauteng, which will result in all the outlets having to take upexpensive rental space in retail centres in order to have a sufficient on-sitestorage facilities at each outlet;Supply agreements which our Client has concluded with a number ofproducers and which entail that producers on a more frequent basis delivergoods, including fresh produce to our Client’s distribution centre, will bejeopardised;The traffic congestion may be exacerbated even further due to theincreased number of suppliers that have to circle around our Client’sproperty to gain access to Olievenhoutbosch Road if they cannot gain accessto the property via Brakfontein Road;Supply agreements with farmers, which require of farmers to increase theircrop sizes in order to deliver produce on a daily basis to our Client’sdistribution centre, will be jeopardised and fresh produce produced interms thereof will be at risk due to the delays caused by the likely trafficcongestion;Stock losses will result should products become stale due to producers notbeing allowed quick and easy access to our Client’s distribution centre viathe Brakfontein Road entrance, the cost of which will in the final result haveto be borne by consumers; and43

The knock-on effects of the above impacts and concerns at our Client’soutlets will be even more inflationary, all to the detriment of theconsumers.We submit that it will be irresponsible and in breach of NEMA to approve oreven contemplate a development which will have the additional trafficimpacts which will be presented by the proposed development.The proposed development is contrary to the principles contained insection 2 of NEMA:The principles set out in section 2 of NEMA apply throughout the Republicto the actions of all organs of state that may significantly affect theenvironment and guide the interpretation, administration andimplementation of NEMA and any other law concerned with the protectionor management of the environment.Sub-section 3 provides that development must be socially, environmentallyand economically sustainable.Sub-section 4(a) provides that sustainable development requires theconsideration of all relevant factors including the following:(i)(ii)that a risk-averse and cautious approach is applied, which takes intoaccount the limits of current knowledge about the consequences ofdecisions and actions; andthat negative impacts on the environment and on people’senvironmental rights be anticipated and prevented, and where theycannot be altogether prevented, are minimised and remedied.Sub-section 4(b) provides that environmental management must beintegrated, acknowledging that all elements of the environment are linkedand interrelated, and it must take into account the effects of decisions on allaspects of the environment and all people in the environment by pursuingthe selection of the best practicable environmental option.44

Subsection 4(i) requires that “The social, economic and environmentalimpacts of activities, including disadvantages and benefits, must beconsidered, assessed and evaluated, and decisions must be appropriate inthe light of such consideration and assessment.”Subsection 4(l) calls for “intergovernmental co-ordination andharmonisation of policies, legislation and actions relating to theenvironment.”We submit that the proposed development is contrary to the principlescontained in section 2 of NEMA for the following reasons:A risk averse and cautious approach militates against the developmentproposal and particularly any use of the Brakfontein Road to gain access tothe development.Considering the broad definition of environment under NEMA whichincludes the physical, aesthetic and cultural properties of the surroundingswithin which humans exists and the conditions of the aforegoing thatinfluence human wellbeing and health, we submit that the cumulativeimpacts of the proposed development and particularly the impacts on thelives of those persons that utilise Brakfontein Road, militate against anyfurther consideration of the application at this point in time. The proposeddevelopment will necessitate spending on services and infrastructure by theMunicipality that can be better utilized elsewhere, while sanitising a largetract of agricultural land for future agricultural use and, inter alia, on thesegrounds we submit that the proposed development does not constitute thebest practicable environmental option nor does it meet the need anddesirability test under NEMA.It is of concern to our client that the Scoping and EIA Report will not identifyall the possible issues and impacts and as such the social, economic andenvironmental impacts of the proposed activity, including disadvantagesand benefits, and that such impacts will not be adequately considered,assessed and evaluated in the EIR phase. Any such assessment will need toconsider the socio-economic impacts of the development on our client's45

national operations as well as on its producers, suppliers and ultimately theconsumer.Considering the development falls within the Ekurhuleni MetropolitanMunicipality but the major traffic impacts will be caused on BrakfonteinRoad which falls within the Tshwane Municipality, the concern arises thatthe cumulative traffic impacts and cross-Municipal impacts of the proposeddevelopment will not be adequately considered and assessed and furtherthat there will not be adequate inter-governmental co-ordination andharmonization of policies, legislation and actions relating to theenvironment as contemplated in the NEMA principles.“Need and desirability”Financial viability must be considered within the context of justifiableeconomic development, measured against the broader societal short-termand long-term needs. While the financial viability considerations of theprivate developer might therefore indicate that the development is feasible,the “need and desirability” must be determined by considering the broadercommunity’s needs and interests.In order to properly interpret the requirement in terms of the NEMA EIARegulations to consider need and desirability, it is necessary to turn to theNational Environmental Management Principles in terms of NEMA whichserve as a guide for the interpretation, administration and implementationof NEMA and the NEMA EIA regulations. In this regard the Principlesrequire, inter alia, that environmental management must:place people and their needs at the forefront of its concern and equitablyserve their interests;be integrated, acknowledging that all elements of the environment arelinked and interrelated, and it must take into account the effects ofdecisions on all aspects of the environment and all people in theenvironment by pursuing the selection of the best practicableenvironmental option;46

pursue environmental justice “so that adverse environmental impacts shallnot be distributed in such a manner as to unfairly discriminate against anyperson”; andensure that decisions take “into account the interests, needs and values ofall interested and affected parties”;with the environment to be “held in public trust for the people, thebeneficial use of environmental resources must serve the public interestand the environment must be protected as the people's common heritage”.The consideration of “need and desirability” in EIA decision-makingtherefore requires the consideration of the strategic context of thedevelopment proposal along with the broader societal needs and the publicinterest. This requires a long-term approach to decision-making in order toensure that limits are not exceeded and that the proposed actions ofindividuals are measured against the long-term public interest.In light of the above, the need and desirability of the application must beaddressed separately and in detail answering, inter alia, the followingquestions:Should development, or if applicable, expansion of the town/areaconcerned in terms of this land use (associated with the activity beingapplied for) occur here at this point in time?Does the community/area need the activity and the associated land useconcerned (is it a societal priority)? This refers to the strategic as well aslocal level (e.g. development is a national priority, but within a specific localcontext it could be inappropriate).Are the necessary services with adequate capacity currently available (atthe time of application), or must additional capacity be created to cater forthe development?Is this development provided for in the infrastructure planning of themunicipality (in this case both the Ekurhuleni and Tshwane Municipalities),47

and if not what will the implication be on the infrastructure planning of themunicipality (priority and placement of services and opportunity costs)?An associated activity/component essential for the undertaking of aproposed development (i.e. any associated component of the developmentwhich cannot be separated from the development itself; e.g. residentialdevelopment that cannot exist without the essential municipalinfrastructure to serve it in terms of water and electricity provision, wasteremoval, treatment of sewage and management of stormwater) must beconsidered together with the proposed development, before theenvironmental authority decides on the development application. Theenvironmental authority must (be able to) apply its mind to all the impacts(of the development and all its associated activities/components) prior todecision-making. Deferring decision-making on associated components to afuture date constitutes conditional and piecemeal (incremental) decisionmaking,which result in the environmental authority not applying its mind toall the impacts and the pre-empting of decisions on the associatedcomponents – resulting in unsustainable development and legallyimpermissible administrative action.Best practicable environmental option:The desirability of the proposed development relates to its ‘placing’ andrequires that consideration be given to whether the development is thebest practicable environmental option for this land/site.The "best practicable environmental option” is defined in NEMA as theoption that provides the most benefit and causes the least damage to theenvironment as a whole, at a cost acceptable to society, in the long term aswell as in the short term. In determining the best practicable environmentaloption, adequate consideration must also be given to opportunity costs.This begs the question whether considerations related to location favourthis land use (associated with the activity applied for) at this place? Thisrelates to the contextualisation of the proposed land use on this site withinits broader context.48

A further consideration is whether and how the development will impact onpeople’s health and wellbeing and whether the proposed activity or theland use associated with the activity applied for, will result in unacceptableopportunity costs. Opportunity costs relate to, inter alia, the use of limitedresources, for example water and agricultural resources and the pressure onexisting infrastructure and services such as roads, electricity and sewerage.If a limited volume of water is available in an area the most desirable use ofthe water considering the needs in the area must be determined in order toconsider the opportunity costs associated with the different uses of thewater. The same applies to roads, electricity and sewerage.We submit that the proposed development is neither necessary nordesirable and does not constitute the best practicable environmental optionfor the site for the following reasons:It is not a societal priority, will place additional pressure on municipalservices and infrastructure and result in significant opportunity costsincluding loss of a large tract of agricultural land and the allocation ofmunicipal resources where they are not a priority.The impacts of the proposed development on Brakfontein Road and thewider road network must be considered and assessed together with theproposed development, before the environmental authority can decide onthe development application. It will not be competent for the decisionmakerto defer the consideration of the wider impacts of the proposeddevelopment on the road network in the area. Deferring decision-making onassociated components to a future date constitutes conditional andpiecemeal (incremental) decision-making, which result in the environmentalauthority not applying its mind to all the impacts and the pre-empting ofdecisions on the associated components – resulting in unsustainabledevelopment and legally impermissible administrative action.The proposed development will not provide the most benefit and cause theleast damage to the environment as a whole and will come at a cost whichis unacceptable to society in the long term as well as in the short termconsidering the traffic impacts on Brakfontein Road and the surrounding49

oad network and the impacts of this on businesses that rely on access fromBrakfontein Road and on people using Brakfontein Road.The location of the proposed development and its proposed use ofBrakfontein Road do not favour this land use considering the broadercontext described above.The proposed development, and in particular its contemplated use ofBrakfontein Road, will impact adversely on people’s health and wellbeing asa result of the additional traffic congestion that will result.CONCLUSION:For the reasons motivated above we submit that:The proposed development will have significant, adverse economic impactson our client’s business, as well as on its producers, suppliers andconsumers. These impacts will further manifest in adverse social impacts;The proposed development is contrary to the principles contained in section2 of NEMA;The need and desirability of the proposed development is disputed;The proposed development will not constitute the 'best practicableenvironmental option'.We ask that any further actions in relation to the development applicationbe placed on hold until such time as the road network in the area has beenupgraded to the point where alternative access to the development can beobtained without placing any additional pressure on Brakfontein Road andthe surrounding road network.ResponseYour letter, Mr JJ Truter/em/SHOP0010.301 dated 30 March 2012 (received50

via fax and email on 4 April 2012), refers.We have registered you and your client, Shoprite Checkers (Pty) Ltd asInterested and Affected Parties in respect to the abovementionedapplication.We take note of your objection to the proposed development.We take note of the reasons (preliminary) you allege in support of yourobjection.We take note of the motivations you rely on in support of your objection.Your objections, reasons and motivations have been recorded and will beconsidered during the Scoping Phase of the assessment, subsequentspecialist studies as well as the Environmental Impact Assessment phase ofthe assessment.You and your client are invited to attend a Public Open Day on 18 April2012, at the Community Hall, Retire @ Midstream, any time between 15:00and 19:00 where the proposed development project will be on display andwhere various development team members will be present to provide moreinsight into the proposal.A background information document with updated information will also bedistributed to all registered Interested and Affected Parties before the endof April 2012.You and your client will be consulted as Interested and Affected Parties onan on-going basis as contemplated in Regulation 54 of the EnvironmentalImpact Assessment Regulations, 2010.59 Shoprite Checkers(Pty). Ltd.jtruter@werkmans.comRegister as an I&AP.Response04/04/201251

60 Johan Meiring Cell 082 903 8374johanmeiring108@gmail.comSame response as no. 1 above.Sit my asb. op die kennisgewing lys.ResponseSame response as no. 1 above.10/04/201261 Grant Beukes gbeukes@sbcomms.co.za I read with interest and concern about the final phase in the developmentof Midrand Estates.08/04/2012However at the same time, one thing really concerns me , and therefore Ineed to know if you are the right person to talk to about this.I therefore consider myself as with many other as a I&AP. I refer to trafficmanagement.Currently there are only 2 exit points out of Midrand Estates, and boththese exit points converge on the same road infrastructure being the trafficlights at the entrance main entrance just off Brakfontein Road.As you may be aware this road has become congested in the morningsbetween 7 and 8:30 and later again between 4 and 6 PM.This was highlighted last week in my case when I needed to leave the estateon Thursday at 6PM and only managed to get onto the N1, 45 minutes laterdue to traffic congestion between the Shoprite and Old JHB road.I do understand that a road joining onto the Irene – Olifantsfontein Road isplanned but believe that this road will have no bearing on people that enteror leave the estate on a regular basis.I look forward to your reply.52

ResponseSame response as no. 1 above.62 Ben Kriel pinetree@live.co.za Register as an I&AP.11/04/201263 Owen Starita Cell 082 578 2417ostarita@hotmail.comResponseYou have been registered as an I&AP.Register as an I&AP.ResponseYou have been registered as an I&AP.17/04/20121 ST OPEN DAYNO NAME CONTACT DETAILS AND ORE-MAIL ADDRESSINTEREST IN THE PROJECTCOMMENTS OR ISSUES AND RESPONSESDATEREGISTERED64 Boikanyo Leping Cell 082 997 2449kano.leping@vodacom.co.zaThere will never be security issues. This developer will continue tomaintain the current status quo of this already built estate.18/04/201265 Theo Fourie theo.fourie@yahoo.com Very good idea, will improve the total development. 18/04/201266 Janet Jacobs Cell 082 417 7840janetjacobs@gmail.com18/04/201267 Jan Jacobs janjacobs@gmail.com 18/04/201253

68 E.J. van EckAula RentalsCell 082 872 5491ernst@aulaproperty.co.za18/04/201269 G.W. vd WaltElmien & Team70 W. StrydomWikus StrydomProkureurs71 S. BothaBrickworxConstruction ccelmienoffice@gwisa.com 18/04/2012wstrydom@goalnet.co.za 18/04/2012Cell 083 298 3207sbotha@bickworx.co.za18/04/201272 Hennie Engelbrecht Cell 082 789 8803hennie@midteam.co.za18/04/201273 J. vd MerweAnimoanimo@mweb.co.za 18/04/201274 Gert ZwartsGSZ HomebuildersCell 083 227 5026gzwarts@midrand-estates.co.za18/04/201275 Jurgen de Jongh Cell 082 557 2671jdjdtti@iafrica.com18/04/201276 Madelene de Jongh madelene.jacobsz@lancet.co.za 18/04/201278 Bruce Venter Cell 082 782 3836bruce@midrand-estates.co.zaThe high density town option will bring down property value and there isno guarantee what would be developed. Development by another partyhas the same concern, as there will be someone else building on ourdoorstep that might not approach the development with same concerns ofsafety, security and community as Bondev.18/04/201279 Gert van WykVan Wyk WoningsCell 082 576 0770Explore15@absamail.co.za18/04/201254

80 Dirk Potgieter Cell 083 295 5861dirk@potgieter.com81 Vusi Mahlangu Cell 082 440 3024vmahlangu@gmail.com82 Violet Malangu Cell 083 336 8553violetmahlangu@gmail,com83 André Oberholzer Cell 083 235 2973andre.oberholzer@sappi.comFor continuity of the safe community development, the Bondev preferenceis the best option. This will not compromise the excellent security wecurrently have. This development of the Bondev preference will createtraffic calming, especially in the direction of the R21.For continuity of the wonderful safe secure Midrand Estates, the highdensity option will compromise security and safety. Option 1 is the best!!Development will be a further value to exiting developments. New accessroads will improve the current traffic situation. New School will alleviatepressure on current primary school. New development will furtherimprove the perimeter security of Midfield Estate. New road sill makeaccess to the airport easier.18/04/201218/04/201218/04/201218/04/201284 Cornell Kruger Cell 082 572 1937cornell@midrand-estates.co.za85 Lydia Kruger Cell 082 555 3705krugerei@mweb.co.zaKan net 'n voordeel wees. 18/04/201218/04/201286 Gunther Witthoft guntherw@worldonline.co.za A low to medium density housing development is preferred in order tomaintain property values and avoid any further traffic congestion in andaround Midrand Estates. The building and provision of additional accessand exit roads should be a fundemental requirement for the establishmentof any new township in the area. It would indeed be preferable if a newand more direct link could be provided to the existing roads east ofMidrand Estates. This would provide a much needed alternative route inand out of the area.18/04/201287 Manny RaposoAmarac TrustCell 082 653 4903mraposo@mweb.co.zaGood luck, I would like a large stand. 18/04/201255

88 L. GregorowskiRealNet MidrandEstatesCell 083 543 5246lynetteg@realnet.co.za18/04/201289 Anneliese Gericke Cell 082 694 6018annelieseg@realnet.co.za90 Lorrian Rajaruthnam Cell 082 821 3246lrajaruthnam@gmail.com91 André Ferreira Cell 082 781 3277andre6.ferreira@gmail.com18/04/2012Please inform me once property prices are out. 18/04/201218/04/201292 Nico BarnardH.N. BarnardDevelopmentCell 083 628 0207barnard@nashuaisp.co.za18/04/201293 Ben van Zijl Cell 084 580 6180bvanzijl@mweb.co.za94 C. Kriel Cell 079 512 6866ckriel@superway.co.za95 Z. Kriel Cell 082 565 4011zhane@myuniform.co.za18/04/201218/04/201218/04/201296 Johan OosthuysenJanu PropertiesCell 082 820 3463johan@janu.co.za18/04/201297 Carine BeukesPPGCell 082 870 0509carine@ppg.org.zaGoeie ontwikkeling solank verkeerskwessies uitsorteer is (veralBrakfonteinweg) Sterkte.18/04/201298 Mpho RabothoAblii Trading BlueFalcon TradingCell 083 400 3957mpho@ablii.co.zaLower traffic as oppose to option 2. Keep the estate exclusive. Values inproperty will appreciate.18/04/201256

99 Retha BeukesPPGCell 082 447 1673retha@ppg.org.zaPositive about the idea as long as traffic concerns are addressed. 18/04/2012100 Zukiswa Rabele Cell 073 600 2434gongxeka@gmail.com18/04/2012101 Gerrit van NiekerkConradie en VanNiekerk ProjekteCell 083 449 6175gestac@mweb.co.zaSeems nice and well thought through and workable proposal. 18/04/2012102 Pieter SaaymanCendev Projects ccpietercendev@gmail.com Maintain the high quality standard that Midstream offers. 18/04/2012103 Leon BarnardLJR ProjectsCell 082 801 2218barnard@3gi.co.za18/04/2012104 Qiniso Kubheka Cell 084 576 3501kubhekaq@eskom.co.za18/04/2012105 Kevin Cell 083 799 4444 18/04/2012106 Cindy TurnerElmien and TeamCell 072 143 6233turner@midrand-estates.co.zaLarger stands - maintain high standard that Midstream has set as abenchmark. Try and include "Bush parks" as has been done Midstream asthis is a huge "want" by clients which they feel Midfield and Midlands donot offer. We need more landscaped parks.18/04/2012107 Maureen van Zyl Cell 083 269 5585maureen@midrand-estates.co.za108 Johan van Zyl Cell 083 409 2999johan@midrand-estates.co.za18/04/201218/04/2012109 Cobus van der LindeAcrylic ArtCell 082 859 5395cobus@acrylicart.co.zaGreat, well done, very professional.18/04/2012110 W. Zeederberg waz@midrand-estates.co.za 18/04/201257

111 Linda HobbsAcrylic ArtCell 071 071 7700linda@acrylicart.co.zaStunning development. 18/04/2012112 Hein Sander Cell 072 598 3265hein@datavest.co.za113 W.H. van Zyl Cell 079 695 7529willie.van.zyl@daimler.comLooks exciting. 18/04/201218/04/2012114 Andries ReitsmaCloudberryInvestments 9Cell 083 708 2598andries.kainos@gmail.comGreat opportunity to create more jobs for the community. 18/04/2012115 Johan Pretorius jp@midteam.co.za 18/04/2012116 Annelene KuylerMidteamCell 082 850 1041annelene@midteam.co.za18/04/2012117 Ferdi du Plessis ferdiduplessis@midrand-estates.co.za 18/04/2012118 Irma Mans Cell 083 339 5339irma.mans@mweb.co.zaGeen hoë digtheid nie. 18/04/2012119 Fiona DreyerProperty.coza120 André ReitsmaCloudberryInvestments 9Cell 083 294 8091fiona.dreyer@propertycoza.co.zaCell 071 896 1466andre.karhos@gmail.com18/04/2012Prefer to have lower density due to less traffic. 18/04/2012121 Robert PenistonAround and AboutProjectsCell 082 812 3869aaprojects@vodamail.co.zaI think it's great that Bondev is going green with this new development. Iprefer the low density with larger stands and realistic volumes of people sothat the roads and other systems can work. I am a little concerned as tothe roads for east and west, getting through to the N1. I'm excited and18/04/201258

looking forward to being part of it. Please email through a contact andstructure list for Bodev and "all involved".122 Dewald BekkerDekor Real EstatesCell 082 455 3107dewaldbekker@telkomsa.netHoë digtheid sal meer verkeer beteken en afbreek doen aan die huidigebeeld van Midrand Estates.18/04/2012123 S.M. Untiedt everest@iafrica.com As per Environomics key issues. 18/04/2012124 Louise du PlessisRealOne PropertyCell 082 900 8891louiseduplessis@realone.co.za18/04/2012125 Cheryl Guo Cell 082 228 3228cherylguo99@gmail.com18/04/2012126 Mike EvansPLC DevelopmentsCell 083 440 8110evansfam@iafrica.comPlease consider some bigger stands in the development, +- 1500 sqm andsome around 2000 - 2500 sqm.18/04/2012127 Tanja LourensRawson Cent EastCell 082 853 4094tanja.lourens@rawson.co.zaErnstig aandag gee om verkeer te verlig/herlei op Brakfonteinweg.Parkering en vloei van verkeer rondom skool (in- en uitgange meer as 1).18/04/2012128 E.C.L. Rousseau Cell 083 251 1159estelle.rousseau@vodamail.co.za18/04/2012129 Zelda RallSuzel Estates ccCell 083 445 4699zelda.suzel@gmail.com18/04/2012130 Susan RallSuzel Estates ccsusan@suzelestates.co.za 18/04/2012131 Marelize Strydom Cell 082 877 2124quintin73@gmail.com132 Quintin Strydom Cell 082 877 2124quintin73@gmail.com18/04/201218/04/201259

133 Laura Els Cell 083 228 1178laura.brand@vodamail.co.za18/04/2012134 D. de BeerProdecon ccCell 082 772 6100prodeconplumbing@gmail.com18/04/2012135 Eugene Kruger eugene.kruger@vodamail.co.za 18/04/2012136 Alex BuregyeyaKusilebakjhiConstructionalexburegyeya@yahoo.com More schools, extra roads and easy access. 18/04/2012137 R.E. Schoch Cell 083 709 8933theorene@gmail.com18/04/2012138 George Wiehahn georgew@pinnacle.co.za 18/04/2012139 Jana Wiehahn Cell 082 898 3206jana.wiehahn@gmail.com140 M.M. Simons Cell 084 329 8153jbsa@mtn.blackberry.com18/04/201218/04/2012141 Elmarie SnymanSuzel Estates ccCell 082 782 7341elmariesuzel@telkomsa.net18/04/2012142 José Caetuno Cell 082 887 0286jose1@acenet.co.za18/04/2012143 Morne van RensburgIncredible Spaces ccCell 082 320 2288morne@incrediblespaces.co.za18/04/2012144 R.T. van Niekerk rtvn@yahoo.com 18/04/2012145 Marie-Louise BotesPlatinum Key Prop.Cell 083 409 3736mbotes68@gmail.comImpressive. 18/04/201260

146 Marco van WykMarnell Construction147 Natasha MieniePlatinum KeyProperties148 Rozelle du PlooyPlatinum KeyPropertiesCell 083 629 9350marnell@hotmail.co.zaCell 082 568 7131natasha@platinumkeyproperties.co.zaCell 082 554 4756rozelle@platinumkeyproperties.co.za18/04/201218/04/201218/04/2012149 Lindiwe Khumalo lindiwekis@gmail.com I prefer low to medium density town as it will be secured and private. 18/04/2012150 Mellis Walker Cell 083 651 6516mellis.walker@exxaro.com151 Mpumelelo Khumalo Cell 082 457 6897khumalomp@gmail.com152 Gerhard Jacobs Cell 083 289 5330gerhard@digitalarchitect.co.zaWe must try and keep the 'Midstream" feel with this development - I thinka high density development will compromise this. In all instances we mustensure that all utilities, security, traffic and ease of entry and exit (withoutcompromising security) are sufficient to handle the new increasedvolumes.To maintain property value I opt for option 1. This will also ensure lesstraffic on roads.18/04/201218/04/201218/04/2012153 Alida le Roux alida.leroux@murrob.com 18/04/2012154 Leon le Roux Cell 078 802 0701leonleroux76@me.com155 T.A.R. Schoch Cell 083 387 3361theorene@gmail.com156 Leon Slabbert Cell 083 709 9782info@xhomes.co.zaGoed, goeie werkskeppings geleenthede. Dit sal deifnitief die waarde vandie omgewing en omliggende dorpe positief beinvloed.18/04/201218/04/201218/04/201261

157 Dries Hamman Cell 083 448 6975driesh@goalnet.co.za158 N. Petersen Cell 082 880 2555nelliep@goalnet.co.za18/04/201218/04/2012159 A. CoetzerExquisite Homes160 W. KlerckJoshua James 9 Ass.082 771 4499annekec05@gmail.comCell 072 322 9357wklerck@jon.co.zaGaan voort met opsie 2. 18/04/201218/04/2012161 T. Muller mmuller@midrand-estates.co.za 18/04/2012162 Elmarie Booyens Cell 072 319 0178elmarie.booyens@gmail.com18/04/2012163 J. van DullemenViko ConsultingCell 082 796 9357hannes.viko@gmail.com18/04/2012164 Tarryn Venter Cell 079 694 6668t.venter9@gmail.com165 I. van Dullemen Cell 082 940 9411ineke.edu@gmail.com166 Jeffrey Senoelo Cell 082 338 1723jsenoelo@gmail.com167 Landi Vorster Cell 076 545 8931landivorster@gmail.comIn favour of the access road (k220) to the airport. I feel a Bondevdevelopment will increase the value of my current property. I am in favourof a new school being built by Bondev Developments which will be thesame standard as Midstream College.18/04/201218/04/201218/04/201218/04/201262

168 Madeleine Burger burger101@telkomsa.net A development to be proud of. 18/04/2012169 Lizelle Botha bothalizelle1@gmail.com 18/04/2012170 D.C. Esterhuysen Cell 082 372 5576biz.afrika@vodamail.co.za171 Zelda Viljoen Cell 082 447 6437zelda.rsa@gmail.com18/04/2012Ek hou van die ontwikkeling, dit sal die waarde van my eiendom verhoog. 18/04/2012172 Francois Retief retieffj@gmail.com 18/04/2012173 Elizaan Claassens Cell 082 717 1849elizaancl@vodamail.co.za18/04/2012174 Leoni van der Bergh leoni.vanderbergh@bcx.co.za 18/04/2012175 Gerhard van derBerghgerhard.vanderbergh@shaden.co.za 18/04/2012176 Piet van Vuren Cell 084 583 0451pieta-ina@hotmail.comHierdie ontwikkeling sal werkskepping ontwikkel en sal die waarde van onseiendom verhoog.18/04/2012177 C du Toit christo.dutoit@za.eg.com 18/04/2012178 Robert Dobson rob@amac.co.za 18/04/2012179 C. Goncalves Cell 082 457 0223cecil@ezeefile.co.za18/04/2012180 E.L. van Wyk vanwykel@mics.co.za 18/04/2012181 Annemi Strydom astrydom@its.jnj.com 18/04/2012182 M.K. Choonilal Cell 083 783 2792manny.choonilal@thalesgroup.comTraffic studies required for current new roads built. 18/04/201263

183 J.F. van der Merwe 082 887 7225jvdmerwe@telkomsa.net18/04/2012184 Davy Vaneetvelde davy.vaneetvelde@gmail.com I am afraid that the exclusivity of Midrand Estates will get lost. 18/04/2012185 André Oosthuizen Cell 083 447 1575andre@waterborne.co.za186 N. Coetzee Cell 082 650 8407nic.coetzee@midrand-estates.co.zaCasino? 18/04/201218/04/2012187 Jaco VenterNMS Venter FamilieTrustCell 082 904 8592jacoventer@vodamail.com18/04/2012188 S.W.N. Pienaar Cell 083 459 3100bpienaar@global.co.zaTraffic roads and routes to be well researched. All other key issues shouldbe addressed as per list.18/04/2012189 Betsie Lourens glourens@goggaconnect.co.za 18/04/2012190 Harold PramhasAula RentalsCell 084 403 7462harold@aulaproperty.co.za18/04/2012191 Jason van der Bergh calculus17@calacc.co.za 18/04/2012192 Anita van der Veer anita.vanderveer@wesbank.co.za 18/04/2012193 Ananda du PlessisRealNet MidrandEstatesCell 082 789 9080anandadp@realnet.co.za18/04/2012194 Jaco Venter Cell 082 904 8592jacoventer@vodamail.co.za18/04/2012195 Theunis Schoeman Cell 082 373 4275 Access roads to east/main road to be constructed before commencement 18/04/201264

theunis.schoeman@pkt.co.zaof construction.196 Spheni Ngcongo spheni12@gmail.com As a resident of Midstream Estate, I fully support the "Bondev Preference"for the following reasons: The development will attract more interestedfamilies who can relate to the lifestyle of the current successfuldevelopment. It will allow for more schools of the current development,the school can't provide for the current demand. Building high density willcreate congestion as there are more than 4000 stands available in light oflimited road infrastructure18/04/2012197 Rapula Modibane rapula@midrand-estates.co.za Make sure that traffic is well looked after and avoid traffic congestion. 18/04/2012198 L. Cwele Cell 071 878 6594lindocwele@hotmail.co.uk199 Dirk Odendaal Cell 082 784 2627dirkodendaal1@afrihost.co.zaI definitely support the low to medium density option. I am also interestedin purchasing property. Kindly contact me as the development progresses.Please consider developing a pre-primary/high school to allow schoolcapacity to support residents of the proposed development.18/04/201218/04/2012200 Cesar Filipe Cell 083 415 4641cesar@betterect.co.za201 Francois Vos Cell 082 824 1401fvos@africanbank.co.za202 Philip du Plessis Cell 082 850 4607philipdup@mweb.co.za203 Ishmael Noko Cell 082 377 2008noko@bluewin.co.za204 Werner Mack Cell 082 853 5272wmack@sars.gov.zaGreat idea and will improve traffic flow. 18/04/201218/04/201218/04/201218/04/201218/04/2012205 Persemie Mack Cell 082 857 5046 Hou van die groter erwe – noordoos. 18/04/201265

persemie@gmail.com206 Lourens WintleLouani Dev.lourens@louanidev.co.za 18/04/2012207 Mariette Barnard Cell 082 415 8205mb@mbdarch.co.za208 Thabo Mans Cell 083 708 0333thabo.mans@mixtelematies.com18/04/2012Support low density - Midstream development. 18/04/2012209 Esmé Erasmus es@live.co.za 18/04/2012210 Jacques Retief Cell 082 786 3645jretief@uti.co.za211 P. Walker Cell 083 650 9937petergwalker@gmail.com212 Johan du Plessis Cell 083 417 8132johan@sensoryfx.co.za213 Jaco Els Cell 083 303 1341ojels@goalnet.co.za214 E. Wohlitz Cell 082 460 3645wohlitz@vodamail.co.zaPlease add me to the new stand burgers register. 18/04/201218/04/201218/04/201218/04/201218/04/2012215 R. Walker petergwalker@gmail.com 18/04/2012216 Carel van Heerden Cell 082 850 9852carel@gardeningconcepts.co.zaRepeat current developments. Good for urban needs. Good for traffic flow. 18/04/2012217 Chris KrugerGardening ConceptsccCell 082 411 5525chris@gardeningconcepts.co.zaMaintain current great standards. Improve property values and contributeto secure lifestyle. Trusted developer will deliver high quality development.18/04/201266

218 Lizelle du Toit Cell 0832 924 4903lizellehealth@hotmail.com219 G. Walton Cell 083 326 0888grantw@elephantlifting.co.zaWill help to add value to existing homes and estates. 18/04/2012Will add value to existing homes and estates. 18/04/2012220 Liesl Ströh Cell 083 417 8303docströh@midrand-estates.co.za221 Johan Meiring Cell 082 903 8374johanmeiring108@gmail.com222 Suzanne Harrop-Allin Cell 082 851 0327suzanne.wearing@za.pwc.com223 George Harrop-Allin Cell 083 702 3803george@harropallin.co.za224 J. Roos Cell 083 451 2255jcrj@midrand-estates.co.zaPlease keep up the excellent work and maintain the high standard of livingwe have become accustomed to.18/04/201218/04/201218/04/201218/04/201218/04/2012225 Izak A. Brink Cell 082 564 1347izakb@westvaal.co.za18/04/2012226 Suzelle Brink suzelle.brink@gmail.com 18/04/2012227 Henry Hill Cell 082 573 1938morty.hill@gmail.com228 Ettiënne Rossouw Cell 082 966 6632ettienner@midrand-estates.co.zaRoads must be developed first and ensure that the Midstream character isnot lost.Beste ontwikkelings geleentheid. Beste plek om te woon en die bestesekuriteid.18/04/201218/04/2012229 Alec Chauke Cell 073 377 6930alecchaukeconstruction@telkomsa.netHigh density investment - good investment. 18/04/201267

230 Danie JoubertAvalon HomesCell 082 447 2923danie@avalonhomes.co.za18/04/2012231 Mark Venter Cell 072 336 5330m-c@midrand-estates.co.za18/04/2012232 Colleen JoubertAvalon Homescolleen@avalonhomes.co.za 18/04/2012233 Pine PienaarGoldex 75 (Pty) LtdCell 082 465 3559pienaar@woodlandsnet.co.za18/04/2012234 G. Gamble graham.gamble@civ.co.za 18/04/2012235 Palesa Mathebula palesac@webmail.co.za 18/04/2012236 Ronel Grobler Cell 082 787 9297ronel@fseattorneys.co.zaDaar is n tekort aan groen areas in die middel gedeelte van dievoorgestelde ontwikkeling.18/04/2012237 C.J. Grobler cj@squirreldirect.co.za 18/04/2012238 J. Alberts Cell 082 335 3717junelle.dejager@gmail.com239 Thato Malakalaka Cell 072 333 6373thato.malakalaka@kpmg.co.za240 Zelda Nel Cell 083 357 1505zeldanel@mweb.co.za241 Shaye McInnesShaydetteConstructionsCell 082 415 9968shaydette@gmail.com242 M. Dlwati Cell 082 786 7935mdlwati@capi.co.za18/04/201218/04/2012Largest stands as possible, all stands should be above 3000m² 18/04/2012These estates are affordable to middle income people who want to feelsafe in their own houses.18/04/2012Do roads first before development. 18/04/201268

243 Bodhan de Wet Please build the road infrastructure first, before any development is doneon Midstream Ridge Estate. Preferred road to be built (K220) not thesection on the greenband on Midfield side.18/04/2012244 Rinus & EsmariLeeuwnerCell 082 315 3444eleeuwner@gmail.comPlease ensure traffic congestion is something of the past. 18/04/2012245 Adele de Wet Cell 082 446 1433dewet02@vwsa.co.zaConsideration of traffic in Brakfontein. 18/04/2012246 Louis Botha louis.botha@aelms.com 18/04/2012247 Suzaan Pretorius Cell 083 999 8881suzaan@middel.co.za18/04/2012248 Stephunus vanStaden249 Vera KrugerPam GoldingCell 083 325 0562nux@nux.co.zaCell 083 627 0796vera.kruger@pamgolding.co.zaPlease no high density development - kids need to cross roads. 18/04/201218/04/2012250 S.J. CornelssenMidteamsurine@midteam.co.zaKeep going Bondev. Another Bondev development will increase thedevelopment and growth of Midstream. We are one of a kind, has to bedeveloped just as the old Midstream , we feel safe.18/04/2012251 G.P. Jansen Cell 082 771 7887gpjansen@ewation.co.za252 Khulile Radebe Cell 083 357 5861khulile.radebe@gmail.comHigh density development would reduce property values in Midfield and inthe entire Midstream.18/04/201218/04/2012253 K. Ramantsi Cell 083 564 4517kbthato@gmail.com18/04/201269

254 Phillip UysVoldanoCell 082 854 7478phillip@voldano.com18/04/2012255 Annine Dalinq Cell 083 297 9202annine.dalinq@up.ac.zaWill definitely be interested in buying a stand here. 18/04/2012256 M. Kapp mkapp@lantic.net 18/04/2012257 Petro VisagieRealNet MidrandEstatesCell 083 289 2851petrov@realnet.co.za18/04/2012258 E du Pisance Cell 083 372 7205ernie@midrand-estates.co.zaPositive towards new development. 18/04/2012259 Chantelle van BlerkRealty1Cell 082 493 1762chantelle@realty1midstream.co.zaI like the fact about the gas lines and electricity, but I think the estateneeds another school.18/04/2012260 Linda DunneChas EverittCell 083 309 9362adunne@absamail.co.zaCommunicate the positive outcome, the new road that will be built. 18/04/2012261 Adv G MyburghMidstreamHomeownersAssociationCell 082 880 8920koot_myburgh@yahoo.comI am satisfied with the presentations and answers to my questions that theprocess will address the fears expressed by residents provided that regularfeedback be given to Midstream HOA of the process.18/04/2012262 Qumi Pöhl qumi@goalnet.co.za The development is very well planned. The future road upgrades andextentions seems well planned to ensure effective in's and out's to theMidstream town.18/04/2012263 Callie Pienaar Cell 082 337 7340cpienaar@vodamail.co.zaIn watter mate het die ontwikkelaar voldoen aan die BAA voorwaardesgestel deur GDARD vir die verbindingspad op die K109 se lyn?18/04/201270

264 Diane Botma Cell 083 254 4898diane1@midrand-estates.co.zaThe Bondev alternative has been part of the Midrand Estates developmentfrom 2002. Therefore this is no surprise it has been part of all mapsdisplayed and the original ROD. As a owner of 2 properties I feel that weshould continue with the same development so that our existinginvestments can grow. The extension of Midway Boulevard to Pinedenestation is a must as it will provide easy access to O.R. Thambo Airport.18/04/2012265 Jaap CoetzeeGQ Constructionjcsn@telkomsa.net Thanx guys for the new road linking Nelmapius. 18/04/2012266 Tracey FultonRealty1Cell 083 628 3699tracey@realty1midstream.co.zaLooks great, another school really needed. 18/04/2012267 Ansie Retief Cell 083 357 0952ansie.retief@leapfrog.co.za18/04/2012268 Lizelle BothaZenith Real EstateCell 082 388 3404lizelle@zenithestate.co.zaRoads very important. Great development concept. Private schools a must. 18/04/2012269 Riaan Smit Cell 082 903 3742riaan.smit@momentum.co.zaLow density stands 2000+ m². 18/04/2012270 T.V. Eeden veedent@gmail.com271 Louise van Hees Cell 082 838 6192louisevanhees@midrand-estates.co.za272 Samantha Fourie Cell 082 338 2090samantha.fourie@sc.comI prefer stands of 2000 m².Sluit K111 af deur 2 mure op noorde en suide grens by Midfield, sal waardetoevoeg tot Midfield Estate.Ons wil graag die K111 tussen Midfield en Midstream Ridge deur 2 mure tebou aan die noorde en suide kant. Dit sal die pryse en sekuriteit in Midfieldverbeter.18/04/201218/04/201218/04/2012273 Michelle SmitLeapfrog PropertiesCell 072 670 0541michelle.smit@leapfrog.co.za18/04/201271

274 Chris Morkel Cell 079 495 6481chris.morkel@bhpbilliton.comI would prefer the security and lower traffic volumes a low densitydevelopment would provide. A high density development will have anegative impact on surrounding property values.18/04/2012275 J.A. van Niekerk javanniekerk@gmail.com No high density. 18/04/2012276 André Klopper Cell 083 292 0910andreklopper@gmail.com18/04/2012277 MarlezeAvalon HomesCell 084 335 8331marleze@hotmail.com18/04/2012278 Jacques Viljoen jacques@czeng.co.za 18/04/2012279 P. Engelbrecht pengelbrecht@specpharm.co.za 18/04/2012280 Elna Joubert elnaj@execmail.co.za 18/04/2012281 T. Benson Cell 079 879 6424tbenson@tzprojects.co.za18/04/2012282 Heidi Oosthuisen heidi@waterborne.co.za 18/04/2012283 C.L. Ströh Cell 082 428 5732chrystal.ströh@gmail.com284 G. Lombard Cell 082 337 7619bluesands898@gmail.comMaintain high standard of living as currently experienced. Better trafficflow - one road out of estate proved disastrous.18/04/201218/04/2012285 Thinus du Toit Cell 082 454 302618/04/2012Cendev Projects cc thinuscendev@gmail.com286 Anthon Lombaard anthon@acplumbing.co.za 18/04/2012287 Marthie BaylissGeyer EstatesCell 082 339 4996geyer@geyerestates.co.zaInsiggewend. 18/04/201272

288 Lydia Steyn Cell 082 339 4996lydiasteyn@mailbox.co.za289 D.L. Hildyard Cell 082 567 4061dhildyard@mweb.co.zaWhy change something that works so well? 18/04/201218/04/2012290 Albert Els Cell 083 456 2615mwali@mweb.co.zaRoads should be developed at time of house construction. Do not let trafficproblems become impossible before a solution is sought after.18/04/2012291 Anne-Marie MorkelTeam1 WaterfrontPropertiesmeraai.morkel@telkomsa.net 18/04/2012292 Ria PelserSeeff CenturionCell 083 556 5192ria@interpast.comImportant to rather develop another high security, high class estate withgood schools et. Development by a third party may lower the value ofMidrand Estates in general and also be a security risk to these estatesshould low cost housing be planned on this premises.18/04/2012293 Magda OosthuizenSeeff Centurionmagda.oosthuizen@seeff.comThe development would make a huge difference as it is a jewel in Gauteng.The security is major in our country, having the estate grow is incredible.18/04/2012294 Renate Dippenaar Cell 084 247 4903home@dippenaar.co.zaHoekom 2 laerskole? Kan die bestaande laer- en hoërskool nie omskepword in net ‘n laerskool en dan die nuwe skool net 'n hoërskool nie?18/04/2012295 Chris SmithBondevTel. 012 661 1177chriss@midrand-estates.co.za18/04/2012296 Jaco Strydom Cell 083 656 1977strydomj@kc.co.za297 C. van Blerk Cell 083 441 1432charleenvb@gmail.com298 W. Tollemache tollemache@goalnet.co.za Not supportive of high density solution, there is a Clayville option for this.Bondev to develop the property.18/04/201218/04/201218/04/201273

299 N.D. Hamman nickha@goalnet.co.za The development proposed by Bondev is my prefered option. I t will sit inwell with the current and existing development. It will also provide a newprimary school, for which there is a great need, will enhance thecommunity.18/04/2012300 M. van WykiKhambi CareCell 082 966 2782mvanwyk@ikhambicare.com18/04/2012301 D.G. Williams davidglyndwyr@absamail.co.za 18/04/2012302 T.C.V. Ströh Cell 082 953 7545theo.ströh@gmail.com303 Clinton dos Santos Cell 082 777 8627clintondossantos@gmail.comTraffic flow in and out of the estate needs to be better and safer.Midstream Drive has already provided much relief. Please maintain currenthigh standard of living.Happy with Bondev to take us forward.18/04/201218/04/2012304 R.M. Boshoff rudolph@boshoffsmuts.co.za 18/04/2012305 Gustav Gericke ggericke@tmsg.co.za 18/04/2012306 Louis Botha springfontein@vodamail.co.za Due to our and my mother’s property to be fenced in with walls on threesides and the river which floods often I do have a concern with accessroutes to both properties. I would like to be assured that adequateprovision will be made.28/05/2012There is various servitudes (road and pipeline) and a water furrow whichshould be taken notice of.I spoke to Rian Bothma about developing our property together or Bondevbuying it for a more meaningful development but could’t reach anagreement.At the moment the land lies derelict with about 5 hectares being utilisedby Sunherbs. We also have a borehole which supplies potable water to CoTfrom an aquifer which extends about 1,5 ha.74

307 Theo Jooste Cell 083 629 7911TJooste@barloworldpower.comThere is about 12ha of land that includes portion 40 that borders on theMixed used (Pinedene) side that is suitable for futuredevelopment(residential or commercial). Adequate road access should beanticipated and costs can be shared if necessary.ResponseThe plans of both Alternative 1 and 2 layouts make provision for access toyour properties. Provision will be available to future roads in accordancewith the requirements of the relevant roads authority – either Gautrans orEkurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality.All the road servitudes and your pipeline servitude have been mapped andwill be taken into account in the detail design of the development.The only water furrow we are aware of is the historic furrow (not usedanymore) that runs along the river edge and past the old lime works. It hasbeen recorded as a historic feature that must be left as it is.If there is another furrow that we do not know about please contact me sothat we can confirm its location.It is correct that you and the applicant were not able to reach anagreement on price and therefore a transaction was unfortunately notpossible.The 12ha (portion 40) that you refer to has already been provided for inthe concept layout plans. Thank you for the offer to contribute to thedevelopment costs of future access.Please include me in ALL correspondence regarding the development ofthis area.ResponseYou have been registered as an I&AP.30/05/201275

308 Sizwe Jongolo sizwe.jongolo@gmail.com I unfortunately missed the public information day for I&AP in 18 April thisyear regarding the discussion on the draft layout plans and provisionalresults of the initial studies.30/05/2012309 Jaco van der Merwe Cell 083 417 7169jvandermerwe@jhb.dvt.co.zaKindly confirm if you are able to email me information regarding thesession and outcomes thereof.ResponsePlease find attached a newsletter for further information. The ScopingReport has been submitted to the Gauteng Department of Agriculture andRural Development. Please send your comments on the Scoping Report todebbie@environomics.co.za on or before 15 June 2012.A hardcopy of the document is available for scrutiny at the offices ofMidteam (Shop No. 23, Square @ Midstream). The report can also bedownloaded from the Midrand Estates webpage (www.midrandestates.co.za)click on "Urgent Notice: Midstream Ridge".Could you please include me in the project specific newsletter for the newMidstream Ridge Estate.ResponseYou have been registered as an I&AP.30/05/201276

COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT SCOPING REPORT (COMMENT PERIOD 14 MAY 2012 TO 15 JUNE 2012)NO NAME CONTACT DETAILS AND ORE-MAIL ADDRESSCOMMENTSDATEREGISTERED1 Grant Beukes gbeukes@sbcomms.co.za Question: There is a proposed primary school forMidstream Ridge.16/05/2012What is to happen to the current primary school?Will this school be kept as is or will the scholars atMidstream Primary have to move over to the new schoolwhile the current school is converted into a high school?I need to understand what Bondev intends doing here.It is rumoured that Bondev needs to build a new primaryschool as alterations to the current school will be toodisruptive and will impact on the learners due to noiseand other issues.Therefore the idea was to build a new primary school withthe required classrooms and move all existing learners tothat school. This would also resolve issues surroundinghigh school pupils and primary school kids mixing, andissues surrounding exams for the high school kids, sportsfields and access to them, etc etc...the list is veryextensive.I therefore need a written undertaking from Bondev thatthis is not the case and that they have no intension ofdoing this in the future.Not sure if this is the right way of asking for this but, so beit. I believe from the undercurrents that there are manyparents that fear this possible development and a77

published undertaking from Bondev that this is not on thecards would go a long way in resolving this matter.2 Johan Bisschoff bisschoff@mweb.co.za Kan ek die verslag in Afrikaans kry asb?3 Dr. Leendert Haasbroek ljhaasbroek@gmail.com I’ve read the scoping report dated May 2012 and have thefollowing request:16/05/20121. In the scoping report reference is made to roadplanning proposals (p25 thereof) that waspresented during the April open day, and thatopen-day attendees responded positivelythereto. I cannot find any information on theseroad proposals in the scoping report, apart fromthe maps which is not clear (see next comment).2. The map labelled as Preferred Alternative (map2.pdf) indicate several roads that are not currentlyin existence. It is not clear which of these roadsare going to the constructed as part of the newdevelopment. Since there appears to be greatfocus on the road infrastructure as evidenced bythe response register in Annexure B of the ScopingReport, I suggest to be very clear on which accessroads will be constructed as part of the newdevelopment and which not. Showing all theproposed roads without this caveat on the mapmight deceive interested parties into assumingthat all these proposed roads will be constructedwhich I assume is unlikely due to it being theprovincial government’s responsibility, and theymight have other priorities. Also note thefollowing errors on this map - some access roadsare indicated with solid lines thereby giving theimpression that these roads already exist, namely(i) Road K109 South from Mount Cliff Drive, (ii)78

4 Stephen Froneman Cell 082 577 0283Stephen.froneman@nsn.comRoad K220 West of the K109, (iii) Road K220extending East of Midway Boulevard, and (iv)Midway Boulevard East of the Midfield trafficcircle. This needs to be corrected to preventmisinterpretation of the “as is” roadinfrastructure.In summary, the scoping report is not sufficiently clear onwhich of the proposed roads surrounding and intersectingMidrand Estates will be constructed as part of MidstreamRidge, and which will remain proposed roads untilprovincial government eventually decides to build it,which may or may not coincide with the Midstream Ridgedevelopment.Can you then please add my inputs to the EIA study asfollows:As a result of the construction of the recommended newresidential estate called Midstream Ridge, a newroad (K111) is planned between this new estate andMidfield estate. This new road could cause noise pollutionto Midfield estate as well as the new Midstream Ridgeestate. It is requested that the road noise and/or vehiclenoise pollution is controlled by constructing noise barriersor noise embankments (approx. 4m high) to limit thevehicle noise and/or road noise to the existing residentialareas of Midfield & Midstream Estate.16/05/20125 Tjaart van der Walt tjaart.vanderwalt@gmail.com Thank you for the report. Also a big thank you to Paul fortaking me with to inspect the area. It will make many newresidents very happy.I (and a growing number of my neighbours) are extremelyconcerned about the location of the proposed roadpassing effectively right next79

to our bedrooms. This poses a serious noise and safety riskto us, our families and our property.Please advise whether Bondev will accommodateMidstream and Midfield residents in the same way asresidents were accommodated by moving theK109 away from the border and the addition of the safetyberm. Because the K111 will be on the living areas side ofthe properties, a low (1.8m) wall on top of the bermwould provide adequate noise insulation for all theresidents along the road. Just over a month ago there wasa vehicle accident on Nellmapius and the vehicle plowedthrough theconcrete fence. This could have been somebody's gardenor bedroom. The K111 has a significant gradient and aheavy vehicle such as a bricktruck could easily cause extensive property damageand/or human casualties.I believe that willingness on the part of Bondev toaccommodate its existing residents will illustrate toprospective Midstream Ridge residents how serious thedeveloper is about new customers.6 Louis Botha springfontein@vodamail.co.za Due to our and my mother’s property to be fenced in withwalls on three sides and the river which floods often I dohave a concern with access routes to both properties. Iwould like to be assured that adequate provision will bemade.There is various servitudes(road and pipeline) and a waterfurrow which should be taken notice of.28/05/2012I spoke to Rian Bothma about developing our propertytogether or Bondev buying it for a more meaningfuldevelopment but could’t reach an agreement.80

At the moment the land lies derelict with about 5 hectaresbeing utilised by Sunherbs. We also have a borehole whichsupplies potable water to CoT from an aquifer whichextends about 1,5 ha.There is about 12ha of land that includes portion 40 thatborders on the Mixed used (Pinedene) side that is suitablefor future development residential or commercial).Adequate road access should be anticipated and costs canbe shared if necessary.7 Werksmans Attorneys jtruter@werksmans.com OBJECTION TO SCOPING REPORT (DATED MAY 2012):APPLICATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AUTHORISATION TOPERMIT THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A TOWNSHIP KNOWN ASMIDRAND ESTATES EXTENSIONS ON PORTIONS 35, 39, APORTION OF 48 AND 128, REMAINDER OF PORTION 34AND THE REMAINDER OF THE FARM OLIFANTSFONTEIN410J, EKURHULENI METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY ("THEPROPERTY")We have previously submitted preliminary comments onbehalf of our client, Shoprite Checkers (Pty) Ltd inresponse to the Notice of Scoping and EIA process dated 1March 2012.15/06/2012The comments contained in this letter are in response tothe Scoping Report submitted on behalf of Bondev (Pty)Ltd and dated May 2012. We ask that the commentssubmitted previously be read with these comments.Our client is the owner of erven 904 and 905 Louwlardiaextension 25, Pretoria (formerly known as Portion 15 (aportion of Portion 71) of the Farm Brakfontein 390 JR(“our client’s property”). Our client conducts andoperates a distribution centre from the property. The81

significance of this distribution centre to our client’snational operations was described in our preliminarycomments.The applicant contemplates gaining access to itsdevelopment via a link road from Brakfontein Road andthe P38-1 road. Our client’s trucks gain access to thedistribution centre via Brakfontein road. There are alsoother residential developments such as Heritage Hillestate who are reliant on Brakfontein road for access totheir estates.As we have previously recorded, the applicant was alsothe 6 th applicant in a high court application to interdict ourclient from utilising a new access road from Brakfonteinroad. This application was refused with costs, as was thesubsequent appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal. Theapplicant’s representative, Mr Zeederberg also happenedto be the applicants’ principal deponent in its failed highcourt application and is on record under oath allegingthat:The Applicants will suffer “huge traffic pileups, frustration,inconvenience and prejudice” as a result of our client’suse of its new access road;The congestion they expect to experience on BrakfonteinRoad will result in a reduction of the value of theirmembers’ properties;That they will have “to mingle on a permanent basis withheavy duty articulated trucks entering and leaving theFirst Respondent’s property”.Notwithstanding Bondev’s concerns regarding thecongestion on Brakfontein road and the alleged prejudice82

which the residents at the various Midrand estates standto suffer, the same developer now seeks to increase thepressure on the existing road network considerablythereby exacerbating the very impacts that he complainsso bitterly about in his high court affidavit and creatingfurther additional impacts which will be to the prejudiceof the existing residents. The developer’s commercialinterests appear to outweigh any concern in relation tothe impacts which his development stands to create forthe existing residents in the area. In the process, theefficient use by our client of its distribution centre, inwhich it has invested considerable sums of money, will beadversely affected. This prejudice was described in ourpreliminary comments. Suffice it to say that our client andits many producers and suppliers stand to be directlyaffected by the proposed development. There are alsolikely to be considerable associated socio-economicimpacts which require full and proper investigation andassessment.As we have previously recorded, our client has a selfevidentinterest in the application and acts herein in itsown interests, in the interests of its consumers, producersand suppliers as well as in the interest of the environmentand the public interest.At the outset we record that the description of theproposed development and the preferred alternatives isdistinctly lacking in detail. This lack of detail makes itdifficult to identify and comment on the potential impactsof the development and its cumulative impacts, asrequired in a Scoping Report. It also makes it impossible toascertain whether the EAP has identified all the activitieswhich are listed under NEMA in GN R544, 545 and 546 of18 June 2010 which may be relevant to the development.Our client remains of the view that the need and83

desirability of the application is doubtful and that itcertainly does not constitute the best practicableenvironmental option (BPEO) as defined. The Scopingreport does nothing to alleviate these concerns and, wesubmit, the superficial manner in which it addresses, interalia, need and desirability does not meet therequirements of the NEMA EIA Regulations published inGN R543 on 18 June 2010 and the relevant guidelines inrespect of the consideration of need and desirability in anEIA process. Furthermore, the identification andassessment of alternatives is hopelessly inadequate anddoes not meet the requirements under NEMA, the NEMAEIA Regulations and the relevant guidelines.Our client is further of the view that the application willhave significant adverse impacts on the receiving andsurrounding environment and that these impacts cannotbe adequately mitigated. Our client contends further thatthe environmental, social and economic impacts will faroutweigh any socio-economic benefits which the applicantpurports to rely on.THE APPLICATION:The applicant seeks environmental authorisation inaccordance with Government Notice R543 of 18 June 2010to undertake the following activity which is listed inGovernment Notice R545 of 18 June 2010:Activity 15: The physical alteration of undeveloped, vacantor derelict land for residential, retail, commercial,recreational, industrial or institutional use where the totalarea to be transformed is 20ha or more.The exceptions to this activity (linear development andagriculture or afforestation where activity 16 will apply)84

do not apply.There may be other activities associated with theproposed development which have not been identified inthe Scoping report and it is the EAP’s duty to ensure thatall the relevant activities are identified and assessed.Under GN R544 of 18 June 2010 the following activity mayalso be triggered:Activity 9: The construction of facilities or infrastructureexceeding 1000 metres of length for the bulktransportation of water, sewerage or stormwater –with an internal diameter of 0.36 metres or more, orwith a peak throughput of 120 litres per second or more,excluding wheresuch facilities or infrastructure are for bulk transportationof water, sewage or stormwater or stormwater drainageinside a road reserve, orwhere such construction will occur within urban areas butfurther than 32 metres from the watercourse, measuredfrom the edge of the watercourse.Neither of these two exceptions are applicable in thepresent instance.The clearance of vegetation which constitutes indigenousvegetation may also require authorisation in terms of GNR546 of 18 June 2010.THE GROUNDS OF OBJECTION:As we have previously motivated, our client is opposed to85

the application, for reasons which appear in greater detailbelow, but which may be summarised as follows:The proposed development will have significant, adverseeconomic impacts on our client’s business, as well as onits producers, suppliers and consumers. These impacts willfurther manifest in adverse social impacts;The proposed development is contrary to the principlescontained in section 2 of NEMA;The need and desirability of the proposed development isdisputed;The proposed development will not constitute the 'bestpracticable environmental option' as defined 1 ;All the above grounds were motivated in detail in thepreliminary comments submitted on behalf of our clientand remain germane.At this point we submit further that the Scoping reportand Plan of Study for EIA (“POSEIA”) are inadequate andincomplete, do not meet the statutory requirements andthat the competent authority cannot apply his/her mindto the report in its current form and that it should bereferred back to the EAP for amendment andsupplementation before being re-circulated for publiccomment.We expressed the concern in our preliminary commentsthat the Scoping and EIA Report will not identify all thepossible issues and impacts and as such the social,economic and environmental impacts of the proposed1 'best practicable environmental option' means the option that provides the most benefit or causes the least damage to the environment as a whole, at a cost acceptable to society, in thelong term as well as in the short term.86

activity, including disadvantages and benefits, will not beadequately considered, assessed and evaluated in the EIRphase. With this in mind it is of concern to note that thereis no specialist Socio-Economic assessment or SocialImpact Assessment listed in the POSEIA as tasks to beundertaken as part of the EIA process. It is also noticeablethat there is no Agricultural or Soil Impact study listed. Wesubmit that both these specialist studies are fundamental.Considering the scale of the development there arenumerous socio-economic impacts which stand to becreated which require specialist assessment. We recordedthat any such assessment will need to consider the socioeconomicimpacts of the development on our client'snational operations as well as on its producers, suppliersand ultimately the consumer. The influx of job-seekersand the effect of the proposed development on theexisting residents and businesses in the area from a socioeconomicpoint of view, including in respect of theirproperty values and the possible flooding of the marketalso needs to be assessed by an expert before thecompetent authority can apply his/her mind to thesustainability of the development in the light of its effecton residents and businesses in the area. Furthermore, theagricultural potential of the property needs to be assessedby a specialist and the use of the property for agriculturalpurposes should have been identified as one of thealternatives in the Scoping report for further assessmentin the EIA phase.Considering the numerous concerns and objectionsexpressed in relation to the traffic congestion whichstands to be exacerbated by the proposed development, itis astounding that the EAP does not include in the POSEIAthe need for a detailed independent specialist trafficimpact assessment (as opposed to a traffic impactstatement) at the top of the list of tasks to be performed87

as part of the EIA. Instead the EAP seems to defer theassessment of this fundamental impact to the localauthority. We submit that this is an unlawful abdication ofthe duty under NEMA to assess the full extent of theimpacts which stand to be created by the developmentand to report on these impacts.Considering the development falls within the EkurhuleniMetropolitan Municipality but the major traffic impactswill be caused on Brakfontein Road which falls within theTshwane Municipality, the concern arises that thecumulative traffic impacts and cross-Municipal impacts ofthe proposed development will not be adequatelyconsidered and assessed and further that there will not beadequate inter-governmental co-ordination andharmonization of policies, legislation and actions relatingto the environment as contemplated in the NEMAprinciples.Section 28 of the Environmental Impact AssessmentRegulations, 2010 contained in GN R543 prescribes theinformation that must be contained in a scoping report inorder to form a proper understanding of the nature ofissues identified. The following are relevant to thisapplication:(i)(ii)(iii)a description of any feasible and reasonablealternatives that have been identified;a description of the property on which theactivity is to be undertaken and the location ofthe activity on the property;a description of the environment that may beaffected by the activity and the manner inwhich activity may be affected by theenvironment;88

(iv)(v)(vi)(vii)an identification of all legislation andguidelines that have been considered in thepreparation of the scoping report;a description of environmental issues andpotential impacts, including cumulativeimpacts, that have been identified;a description of identified potentialalternatives to the proposed activity, includingadvantages and disadvantages that theproposed activity or alternatives may have onthe environment and the community that maybe affected by the activity;a plan of study for environmental impactassessment which sets out the proposedapproach to the environmental impactassessment of the application, which mustinclude—a description of the tasks that will be undertakenas part of the environmental impact assessmentprocess, including any specialist reports orspecialised processes, and the manner in whichsuch tasks will be undertaken;a description of the proposed method of assessingthe environmental issues and alternatives,including the option of not proceeding with theactivity.We submit that the Scoping Report and POSEIA, do notcomply with the minimum requirements contained insection 24(4) of NEMA and section 28 of the EIARegulations; that they are incomplete in a number of89

material respects and that it is not possible for thedecision-maker to approve the report in its current form.The list of legislation and guidelines recorded in section 8of the Report is incomplete. Considering the nature of thereceiving and surrounding environment, and the natureand extent of the impacts which stand to be generated bythe proposed development, the provisions of the NationalEnvironmental Management: Biodiversity Act, theNational Environmental Management: Protected AreasAct and the National Environmental Management: WasteAct appear to have been overlooked.Section 8.4 of the Scoping Report lists only one activityunder the NEMA that is triggered by the development. Aswe have already stated, this list appears to be incompleteand a number of further activities which are listed underthe NEMA in GN R544 and 546 of 18 June 2010 may needto be included.Section 6 of the Scoping Report deals with the“Description of feasible and reasonable alternatives”. TheReport fails to consider the development in the context ofreasonable alternatives, as contemplated in the NEMA EIARegulations (GN R543 of 18 June 2010), read with theguideline on the consideration of alternatives.The density and layout alternative which has beenincorporated does not constitute a reasonable alternativeor the only reasonable and feasible alternative, ascontemplated in the NEMA EIA Regulations. Alternativelayouts and densities are but one of the alternativeoptions that the applicant is required to address andcertainly not the only one."Alternatives" is defined as "different means of meeting90

the general purpose and requirements of the activity,which may include alternatives to –(a) the property on which or location where it isproposed to undertake the activity;(b) the type of activity to be undertaken;(c) the design or layout of the activity;(d) the technology to be used in the activity;(e) the operational aspects of the activity; and(f) the option of not implementing the activity."We submit that it is the responsibility of the EAP toproperly describe reasonable alternatives and to assessthe impacts of such alternatives comparatively. The EAP isnot limited to alternatives that the developer regards asbeing financially viable. The need for the comparativeassessment of all reasonable alternatives is to enable thedecision-maker to use such reasonable alternatives as abenchmark and to consider the development proposal inthe light thereof.In this case we remain of the view that the Scoping Reporthas failed to identify, describe and assess reasonablealternatives that were sufficiently different in scale,density or land use and that responded positively to thepolicy context and receiving environment.What the Report does is propose a preferred alternativeand to provide a superficial comparison of the preferredalternative with one further layout alternative that is evenless appropriate in respect of need and desirability, BPEO,91

scale, nature and intensity.Furthermore, the EAP fails to assess the no-go (status quo)alternative at all, seemingly on the basis that this isdeemed not to be a reasonable and feasible alternative.This is not compliant with the requirements under theNEMA EIA Regulations which expressly requires theassessment of the positive and negative impacts of the nogo option as an alternative for the competent authority toconsider. This assessment should not only focus on thealleged negative socio-economic impacts of notproceeding with the development but assess and describe,inter alia, the social benefits for neighbouring landowners,including visual, noise, traffic and other benefits of notproceeding with the proposed development and thebenefit of this option in respect of maintaining therural/agricultural character of the area, not to mentionthe agricultural benefits of retaining high potentialagricultural land.The selection of alternatives should be aimed ataddressing significant issues that have been identified,and not merely provide a range of options with similar andmore significant impacts.Section 10 of the Scoping report purports to describe theenvironmental issues and potential impacts of theproposed development. What it in fact does is list theissues raised by I&APs during the initial publicparticipation process. This is not what the NEMA EIARegulations contemplate. Regulation 28(1)(g) requires adescription of environmental issues and potential impacts,including cumulative impacts, that have been identified. Itis the EAP's duty to identify and describe these issues andimpacts. The requirement to list a summary of the issuesraised by interested and affected parties, the date ofreceipt of and the response of the EAP to those issues is92

listed separately under Regulation 28(1)(iv).As we have already motivated, the list of potentialsignificant impacts identified and which need to beassessed in the EIR phase is not complete. In light of thecharacteristics of the receiving and surroundingenvironment and the inherent site characteristics, wesubmit that the potential socio-economic impacts of theproposed development are significant and requiredetailed specialist assessment, as do the impacts on trafficand the suitability of the land for agriculture.Furthermore, Section 28(1)(j) requires a description ofidentified potential alternatives to the proposed activity,including advantages and disadvantages that theproposed activity or alternatives may have on theenvironment and the community that may be affected bythe activity. We have already motivated the basis onwhich we contend that the EAP's identification ofalternatives is inadequate and does not comply with theNEMA EIA Regulations. The manner in which the EAPdescribes the advantages and disadvantages of theidentified alternatives is also inadequate and fails todescribe such advantages and disadvantages in thecontext of the environment and the community that maybe affected by the activity as required in Regulation28(1)(j).Furthermore, we point out that the Scoping Report doesnot make any attempt to engage with or address any ofthe comments received from I&AP's.We have already motivated the basis on which we believethe plan of study for EIA is inadequate and listed theadditional specialist reports which we believe areessential. Furthermore, we submit that the plan of studyfor EIA should include the independent specialists' terms93

of reference.Finally we maintain that need and desirability of theproposed development is doubtful. The scoping reportdoes not address need and desirability to the extentrequired under NEMA and the relevant guidelines.“Need and desirability”Financial viability must be considered within the contextof justifiable economic development, measured againstthe broader societal short-term and long-term needs.While the financial viability considerations of the privatedeveloper might therefore indicate that the developmentis feasible, the “need and desirability” must bedetermined by considering the broader community’sneeds and interests.In order to properly interpret the requirement in terms ofthe NEMA EIA Regulations to consider need anddesirability, it is necessary to turn to the NationalEnvironmental Management Principles in terms of NEMAwhich serve as a guide for the interpretation,administration and implementation of NEMA and theNEMA EIA regulations. In this regard the Principlesrequire, inter alia, that environmental management must:place people and their needs at the forefront of itsconcern and equitably serve their interests;be integrated, acknowledging that all elements of theenvironment are linked and interrelated, and it must takeinto account the effects of decisions on all aspects of theenvironment and all people in the environment bypursuing the selection of the best practicableenvironmental option;94

pursue environmental justice “so that adverseenvironmental impacts shall not be distributed in such amanner as to unfairly discriminate against any person”;andensure that decisions take “into account the interests,needs and values of all interested and affected parties”;with the environment to be “held in public trust for thepeople, the beneficial use of environmental resourcesmust serve the public interest and the environment mustbe protected as the people's common heritage”.The consideration of “need and desirability” in EIAdecision-making therefore requires the consideration ofthe strategic context of the development proposal alongwith the broader societal needs and the public interest.This requires a long-term approach to decision-making inorder to ensure that limits are not exceeded and that theproposed actions of individuals are measured against thelong-term public interest.In light of the above, the need and desirability of theapplication must be addressed separately and in detailanswering, inter alia, the following questions:Should development, or if applicable, expansion of thetown/area concerned in terms of this land use (associatedwith the activity being applied for) occur here at this pointin time?Does the community/area need the activity and theassociated land use concerned (is it a societal priority)?This refers to the strategic as well as local level (e.g.development is a national priority, but within a specificlocal context it could be inappropriate).95

Are the necessary services with adequate capacitycurrently available (at the time of application), or mustadditional capacity be created to cater for thedevelopment?Is this development provided for in the infrastructureplanning of the municipality (in this case both theEkurhuleni and Tshwane Municipalities), and if not whatwill the implication be on the infrastructure planning ofthe municipality (priority and placement of services andopportunity costs)?An associated activity/component essential for theundertaking of a proposed development (i.e. anyassociated component of the development which cannotbe separated from the development itself; e.g. residentialdevelopment that cannot exist without the essentialmunicipal infrastructure to serve it in terms of water andelectricity provision, waste removal, treatment of sewageand management of stormwater) must be consideredtogether with the proposed development, before theenvironmental authority decides on the developmentapplication. The environmental authority must (be able to)apply its mind to all the impacts (of the development andall its associated activities/components) prior to decisionmaking.Deferring decision-making on associatedcomponents to a future date constitutes conditional andpiecemeal (incremental) decision-making, which result inthe environmental authority not applying its mind to allthe impacts and the pre-empting of decisions on theassociated components – resulting in unsustainabledevelopment and legally impermissible administrativeaction.Best practicable environmental option:96

The desirability of the proposed development relates to its‘placing’ and requires that consideration be given towhether the development is the best practicableenvironmental option for this land/site.The "best practicable environmental option” is defined inNEMA as the option that provides the most benefit andcauses the least damage to the environment as a whole,at a cost acceptable to society, in the long term as well asin the short term. In determining the best practicableenvironmental option, adequate consideration must alsobe given to opportunity costs.This begs the question whether considerations related tolocation favour this land use (associated with the activityapplied for) at this place? This relates to thecontextualisation of the proposed land use on this sitewithin its broader context.A further consideration is whether and how thedevelopment will impact on people’s health and wellbeingand whether the proposed activity or the land useassociated with the activity applied for, will result inunacceptable opportunity costs. Opportunity costs relateto, inter alia, the use of limited resources, for examplewater and agricultural resources and the pressure onexisting infrastructure and services such as roads,electricity and sewerage. If a limited volume of water isavailable in an area the most desirable use of the waterconsidering the needs in the area must be determined inorder to consider the opportunity costs associated withthe different uses of the water. The same applies to roads,electricity and sewerage.We submit that the proposed development is neithernecessary nor desirable and does not constitute the bestpracticable environmental option for the site for the97

following reasons:It is not a societal priority, will place additional pressureon municipal services and infrastructure and result insignificant opportunity costs including loss of a large tractof agricultural land and the allocation of municipalresources where they are not a priority.The impacts of the proposed development on Brakfonteinroad and the wider road network must be considered andassessed together with the proposed development, beforethe environmental authority can decide on thedevelopment application. It will not be competent for thedecision-maker to defer the consideration of the widerimpacts of the proposed development on the roadnetwork in the area. Deferring decision-making onassociated components to a future date constitutesconditional and piecemeal (incremental) decision-making,which result in the environmental authority not applyingits mind to all the impacts and the pre-empting ofdecisions on the associated components – resulting inunsustainable development and legally impermissibleadministrative action.The proposed development will not provide the mostbenefit and cause the least damage to the environment asa whole and will come at a cost which is unacceptable tosociety in the long term as well as in the short termconsidering the traffic impacts on Brakfontein road andthe surrounding road network and the impacts of this onbusinesses that rely on access from Brakfontein road andon people using Brakfontein road.The location of the proposed development and itsproposed use of Brakfontein road do not favour this landuse considering the broader context described above.98

The proposed development, and in particular itscontemplated use of Brakfontein road, will impactadversely on people’s health and wellbeing as a result ofthe additional traffic congestion that will result.In the circumstances we submit that the competentauthority is unable to properly apply his or her mind to theneed and desirability of the proposed development. Theabsence of any specialist socio-economic assessment andthe identification and assessment of other reasonable andfeasible alternatives, including the retention of the landfor agriculture, underscores this inadequacy.CONCLUSION:For the reasons motivated above and in our earlier letterwe maintain that:The proposed development will have various significantadverse impacts which are incapable of adequatemitigation, including adverse economic impacts on ourclient’s business, as well as on its producers, suppliers andconsumers. These impacts will further manifest in adversesocial impacts;The proposed development is contrary to the principlescontained in section 2 of NEMA;The need and desirability of the proposed development isdisputed;The proposed development will not constitute the 'bestpracticable environmental option';The Scoping Report and Plan of Study for EIA does notcomply with section 24 of NEMA, read with theregulations in GN R543 (in particular regulation 28), GNR544 and R546 of 18 June 2010,99

The Scoping report is incomplete and the provincialcompetent authority cannot properly apply his/her mindto the Report in its current form;In the light of the above we request that the ScopingReport and POSEIA be referred back to the EAP forcorrection, further study and amendment and that it bere-circulated for comment once this has been done.8 J F LegadimaActing Director: AirQuality and ClimateChange EnvironmentalResource ManagementEkurhuleni MetroTel: 011 999 3984care of Jan Bodensteinjanbo@ekurhuleni.gov.zaA site inspection of the area carried out on 25 July 2012revealed that the site is situated next to existingresidential areas, industrial areas, a municipal sewerwaste treatment plant, the Olifantsfontein stream, arailway line and several main roads.In terms of the requirements within the NationalEnvironmental Management Act, Air Quality Act and theGauteng Noise Control Regulations it is required that thefollowing environmental impact assessments to beconducted to ensure compliance to the said legislationsand also to determine the impact or possible impact onthe proposed development and vice versa and theprovision of certain mitigation if required or feasible.26/07/20121. Due to the possible air quality impacts from theindustrial area and the waste management treatmentplant it is required that passive sampling of theambient air be conducted to determine the groundlevel concentrations of SO2, CO, NOx, Total VOCs, O3,HCI, lead Hg (mercury). The monitoring must beconducted over a minimum period of 30 days asaccording to the Radielo methodology and analyses aswell as Particular matter including PM10, PM2, 5.2. It is further required that the dust deposition bedetermined through a dust fall programme in eight100

wind directions as prescribed by SANS 1929 for acontinuous three month rolling period.3. Due to the possible noise impacts within the area anoise impact assessment is required in accordancewith the National Standards, SANS 10103 of 2008.All impact reports must include all sources, distances fromthe sources, the metrological conditions and any otherrelevant information.During the development phase dust suppression at allexcavations, gravel roads and service roads must beimplemented in order to prevent dust nuisances withinthe area. The prevailing wind direction must also beconsidered to prevent dust having an impact on thenearby residential areas.Noise pollution from construction vehicles and equipmentmust be prevented by proper maintenance of equipmentand operations only to be allowed during day time.COMMENTS RECEIVED AFTER THE SCOPING PHASE310 Deon Theron Cell 082 322 2393deont@prestigecredit.co.zaKindly forward me the latest newsletter and put me on yourmailing list for future correspondence regarding MidstreamRidge.ResponseYou have been registered as an I&AP. Attached the latestnewsletter for your records.04/06/2012311 Eli and Shirley vander MerweCell 082 821 2383elishirl@vodamail.co.zaPlease put us on your mailing list for all info re MidstreamRidge. Thank you.05/07/2012101

ResponseYou have been registered as an I&AP.312 André Reitsma andre.kainos@gmail.com Thank you so much for the feedback. It may be interested ifall the people with complaints start thinking what willhappen if Bondev decides to sell the piece of land to eitherthe state or another developer.08/07/2012A lot of low cost housing developments are taking place in''richer'' areas in South Africa. Do the complaint-ants reallythink that they will be able to stop any sort of low costhousing in South Africa.We rather support Bondev that have done wonders thgusfar than a new developer that is only in for it to make thebest profit.Hope the development will proceed as planned.ResponseWe hereby remind you of the public open day for theMidstream Ridge EIA process that will be held on 7 August2012, from 15:00 to 18:00, at the community hall, Retire @Midstream, Midrand Estates.The open day will be a condensed version of the previousevent and will focus on a more detailed layout; the trafficimpact assessment; specialist inputs; and identifiedimpacts.We would appreciate it if you could indicate yourattendance beforehand.313 Dr. Gwen Theron gwen.theron@telkomsa.net I recently had a disturbing discussion with my clients(Sunlawns) across the river from Midstream Ridge.17/08/2012and102

There is a valid servitude for water use that is registered inportions of the application land, in favour of Sunlawns, thatdoes not show up on any of your plans.21/08/2012The associated furrow (Voor) is clearly seen on the 2528CC1:50 topocadastrals.Please acknowledge this email and please contact the landowners of Sunlawn to address their requirements in thisregard.ResponseWe are fully aware of the canal/voor/furrow. It isdocumented in the cultural historical specialist study andalso indicated on the layout plan of the proposeddevelopment. The canal falls within an area that isdesignated for conservation and related use. It has beenidentified as a cultural historical feature on the site. Thecanal is currently in a state and disrepair and it would begreat if your client could maintain it to the extent requiredby the Heritage Resources Act and as suggested in thecultural historical study. We do not have anydocumentation in respect to the nature and extent of theregistered water use rights of your client on the applicationproperty and would be glad to receive a copy of it from youfor our consideration in the EIA. Sean is welcome to contactus in this regard at any time and he can also attend thePublic Open Day on 21 August 2012 where we would behappy to discuss the matter with him.I find the tone of your email concerning and NOT engaging.The specialist studies are not freely available from theinternet so we have not had a chance to review the103

specialist studies. In this context – the comments are valid.The plans that have been provided are on the cover of theScoping report – which cannot be considered a detaillayout.The point is not that the furrow exist or not – it does notshow on any layout plan that we can read.We are concerned about the water rights. – the condition ofthe furrow is not important – the rights associates with it ISand must be acknowledged. The right of way and/orservitude must be shown on the applicable title deeds,which the applicant should have a copy of, and we wouldlike to have a copy please.We hope to engage on a friendlier tone in future.We wish to provide you some comment from my clients.We retain our rights to provide additional feedback in thefuture.The Cullinan family has been here for many years and hadbeen witnessed to untold levels of development and changein the Irene and Olifantsfontein area over the past 20 years.Although the development is welcomed, it often comes withoverly senseless destruction of all grasslands, riverlands,ridgelands or other environmental areas. We are aware ofecological support areas that reaches wider than the reddata species that occur in the area and that warrantsstatutory protection. We have not seen the specialiststudies and thus cannot make specific requests, but weknow that many species occur here.Furthermore, comment cannot be given in detail since thedevelopment areas and options have not been clarified. Itleaves a sense of concern since the ultimate proposal is so104

long in the making and the developer is not making adefinitive decision. Making changes can be considered agood sign, but too many options are currently presented.We thus wish to submit, timelously, a proposal to theMidstream Ridge developers, of our requests and views: Please recognise our legal servitude rights as awater user registered across the Midstream Ridgeland. To date these rights have not been recognised.We wish to request a copy of the applicable titledeeds to verify these servitudes. Allocate land for conservation purposes, in additionto that which is required as a minimum. Identify with the assistance of the specialists, goodhabitat areas and habitat areas worthy ofprotection. These should include a variety ofvegetation communities to provide the widestrange of habitat areas. Provide corridors for species movement betweenvarious open areas. Recognise the heritage value of the land and notonly the heritage features. The features can be usedto demonstrate the importance of the area and canbe exploited and linked to commercial facilities,such as being done with the Red Barn. Recognise the current agricultural land uses in thearea and support these by providing buffer areasbetween development land and the agriculturallands.ResponseThank you for providing us with your request and views.Our response is as follows:In respect to the water use rights, servitudes in that respect,etc. we are following up with the applicant, who is also in105

contact with your client in that regard. The proposeddevelopment does not affect the use of water in any wayand we presume that the status quo would be preserved.This is a matter that can be laid to bed outside the contextof the EIA. We have contacted Mr. Cullinan in this regard,as you suggested, and will meet with him in due course.Approximately 45ha has been set aside for natureconservation, in addition a further 27ha has been set asidefor combined natural and cultural open space with relatedfacilities. 8.5ha have been set aside for urban parks. Thishas been done with the assistance of ecological andheritage specialists in a manner that provides significantcorridors and also opportunities for neighbours tocontribute land to these corridors and areas. To date wehave unfortunately been unable to get any indication ofplanned layouts/planned future land uses on theneighbouring properties which means that we have to caterfor any eventuality. Please find the attached draft map thatindicates preliminary open space allocations.Adequate areas around heritage features have been setaside for potential future conservation initiatives. It ishowever not foreseen that any of these will be developedwithin the next 5 to 10 years as it would only becomefeasible during the later phases of the proposeddevelopment.The only area where the proposed development of the areawill be close to current agriculture practices is in the northeastern corner and downstream of these agriculturalactivities where there is an existing buffer of at least 100mwide. We don’t know why a buffer in this area is deemednecessary at all. Please be more specific in this respect.106

2 ND OPEN DAYNO NAME CONTACT DETAILS AND ORE-MAIL ADDRESSINTEREST IN THE PROJECTCOMMENTS OR ISSUES AND RESPONSESDATEREGISTERED314 Elmarié Cell 082 782 7341elmariesuzel@telkomsa.net 21/08/2012315 E W Ferreira Cell 082 565 9700mcwferreira@mweb.co.za 21/08/2012316 Victor Mokaba Cell 083 236 0218mokaba.vic@gmail.com 21/08/2012317 Susan Rall Cell 082 893 1829susan@suzelestates.co.za 21/08/2012318 Karen Barr Cell 083 632 3833karenb@realnet.co.za 21/08/2012319 Louise du Plessis Cell 082 900 8891louisduplessis@realone.co.za 21/08/2012320 Gail v d Westuizen Cell 082 465 4336gail@realitycheck.co.za 21/08/2012321 GJ v d Westhuizen Cell 082 456 3499geat@realitycheck.co.za 21/08/2012322 Lorraine du Plessis Cell 082 815 2338lduplessis@huizemark.com21/08/2012323 Kobus du Plessis Cell 082 318 7850kduplessis@huizemark.comWell explained.21/08/2012107

324 Elna Joubert Cell 083 506 3035elna.joubert@engelvoelkers.com21/08/2012325 Lydia Vlok Cell 083 458 2142lvlok@huizemark.com 21/08/2012326 Shanelleda Costa Cell 079 358 9952shanelledc@realnet.co.za 21/08/2012327 Petro Visagie Cell 083 289 2851petrov@telkomsa.net 21/08/2012328 Hennie Engelbrecht Cell 082 789 8803hennie@midteam.co.za 21/08/2012329 Lizelle Botha Cell 082 388 3404Lizelle@zenithestate.co.zaMidrand Estates is a unique town.21/08/2012330 Gerald Farmer Cell 083 252 3330gfarmer@telkomsa.net 21/08/2012331 Johan Pretorius Cell 074 158 6766jp@midteam.co.zaVery good, thanks.21/08/2012332 Surine Kruger Cell 073 212 3007Surine@midteam.co.za 21/08/2012333 Johan Beukes Cell 082 551 0405info@anzarproperties.co.za21/08/2012108

334 Harold Pramhas Cell 084 403 7462harold@aulaproperty.co.za21/08/2012335 Persemie Mack Cell 082 857 5046persemie@gmail.com 21/08/2012336 Fiona Dreyer Cell 083 294 8091fiona.dreyer@propertycoza.co.za21/08/2012337 Retha Beukes Cell 082 447 1673retha@ppg.org.za21/08/2012338 Kitty v Blerk Cell 082 873 4228kitty@reality1midstream.co.za21/08/2012339 T Anderson Cell 083 486 1359talieta@lantic.net340 Chantelle v Blerk Cell 082 493 1762chantelle@reality1midstream.co.za 21/08/2012341 Linda Dunne Cell 083 309 9362adunne@absamail.co.za21/08/2012342 L Vorster Cell 076 545 8931londivorster@gmail.com 21/08/2012109

343 S Galinos Cell 082 657 4557stephen.galinos@pamgolding.co.za 21/08/2012344 Michelle Cooke Cell 082 631 3780trinestates@gmail.com 21/08/2012345 Natasha Mienie Cell 082 568 7131natasha@platinamkeyproperties.co.za 21/08/2012346 Ansie Retief Cell 083 357 0952Ansie.retief@leapfrog.co.za21/08/2012347 Annemarie Venter Cell 082 854 4011annemarie@midteam.co.za21/08/2012348 Marida Snyman Cell 082 578 5283marida@remax-jawic.co.za21/08/2012349 K G Key Cell 082 334 2933havendey@gmail.com 21/08/2012350 Christo Maritz Cell 083 629 5222christo@remaxinfo.co.za21/08/2012351 Dalene Berman Cell 072 241 0745daleneb@fineandcountry.com21/08/2012352 Ruanda Gildenhuys Cell 082 301 9332ruanda@lantic.net 21/08/2012110

353 Ria Fouche Cell 083 456 7552riaf@vodamail.co.za 21/08/2012354 Marelize Cell 076 864 6820marelize@vodamail.co.za21/08/2012355 Wendy Strydom Cell 076 677 5154karenjonkeroffice@midrandestates.co.za21/08/2012356 Yolandi v d Bijl Cell 082 786 2992yolandivdb@vodamail.co.za 21/08/2012357 Cindy Roberts Cell 071 466 8713karenjonkeroffice@midrandestates.co.za21/08/2012358 S du Randt Cell 072 069 5330sonia@reality1midstream.co.za 21/08/2012359 Madeleine Burger Cell 071 363 7288madeleineb@realnet.co.za 21/08/2012360 Zelda Rall Cell 083 445 4699zelda.suzel@gmail.com 21/08/2012361 E J van Eck Cell 082 872 5491ernst@aulaproperty.co.za 21/08/2012111

362 Annalise Marx Cell 079 389 0768annalisemarx@propertycoza.co.zaThank you for the information. Looking forward to it.21/08/2012363 L Gregorowski Cell 083 543 5246lynetteg@realnet.co.za 21/08/2012364 Elmien vd Walt Cell 082 551 7399elmienoffice@gwisa.com 21/08/2012365 Corné Kotzé Cell 076 402 2823landscaping@gardeningconcepts.co.zaJust a suggestion to move the high school to the newschool to keep all children the same age together. 21/08/2012366 René Hogendoorn Cell 082 344 2826rene@cafeconcepts.co.zaEk wonder net hoekom word die huidige MidstreamCollege nie die laerskool nie en die nuwe skook,Midstream High nie?21/08/2012367 Werner Rossle Cell 083 676 7027wernerr@erwat.co.za 21/08/2012368 Marcia Moller Cell 082 307 7732marciamoller1@gmail.com 21/08/2012369 Sifiso Motsa Cell 083 736 8618sifisomotsa@gmail.com 21/08/2012370 Louis Botha Cell 082 563 360221/08/2012371 T Jooste Cell 083 629 7911tjooste@barloworldpower.com 21/08/2012372 Sizwe Jongolo Cell 083 354 7632sizwe.jongolo@gmail.comKindly add me onto the Midteam list for buying ofproperty. 21/08/2012112

373 Theo Stroh Cell 082 953 7545theo.stroh@gmail.com 21/08/2012374 Leone Schoeman Cell 082 373 4275theunis.schoeman@pkf.co.za 21/08/2012375 Coenraad van Staden Cell 082 430 5202coenraad.vanstaden@t-systems.co.za 21/08/2012376 Adrian Burger Cell 079 899 9408adrianburger@acl.com21/08/2012377 J du Plessis Cell 083 417 8132johan@sensoryfx.co.za 21/08/2012378 P Walker Cell 083 650 9937petergwalker@gmail.comRestriction of contractors from Brakfontein Road duringpeak traffic. 21/08/2012379 T van der Walt tjaart.vanderwalt@gmail.com Assurances on the K111.21/08/2012380 Louise van Hees Cell 082 838 6192louisevanhees@midrand-estates.co.zaMountain bike track through open areas of the estate.21/08/2012381 Ken Greve Cell 082 323 8652ken.greve@hindsight.co.za382 A Beukes Tel: 012 661 3209Happier with roads but important to schedule building tocoincide with the sale of the stands. 21/08/201221/08/2012383 Dr. Liesl Stroh Cell 083 417 8303docstroh@telkomsa.net 21/08/2012113

384 Cornell Kruger Cell 082 572 1937cornell@midrand-estates.co.za 21/08/2012385 Lydia Kruger Cell 082 555 3705krugerl@mweb.co.za 21/08/2012386 Anne-Marie Morkel Cell 084 619 6386meraai-morkel@telkomsa.net 21/08/2012387 Jemima Badenhorst Cell 083 258 1484japieb@mweb.co.za 21/08/2012388 Maureen van Zyl Cell 083 269 9985maureen@midrand-estates.co.za 21/08/2012389 Carine Beukes Cell 082 870 0509carine@ppg.org.zaMore roads.21/08/2012390 Annelise Olivier Cell 082 775 6538annalise@thirstylight.co.za 21/08/2012391 Brian Richter Cell 083 442 9582richterbrian52@gmail.comWhy was the meeting mostly in Afrikaans?21/08/2012392 J Mollentze Cell 083 377 5018jamesm@icon.co.za 21/08/2012393 Alicia Cell 082 927 7723aliciaquiggin@yahoo.comWhere will vacancies for the new school be advertised?Thanks 21/08/2012394 Christa Potgieter Cell 071 674 9179christa.potgieter@makro.co.za 21/08/2012395 Anna-MarieOosthuizenCell 082 873 7317ame@midrand-estates.co.za 21/08/2012114

396 Manny Raposo Cell 082 653 4903mraposo@mweb.co.za 21/08/2012397 Kevin Venketiah Cell 083 799 4444venketm@eskom.co.za 21/08/2012398 Werner Koekemoer Cell 083 393 3567werner@tiscon.co.za 21/08/2012399 Marnus Meyer Cell 083 263 8294mmeyer@hatch.co.za 21/08/2012400 Johan van Zyl Cell 083 409 2999johan@midrand-estates.co.za 21/08/2012401 J W Kleynhans Cell 083 309 2455jkleynhans@infraset.com402 Louis Kock Cell 082 663 5184louisceleste@yahoo.comWhen will roads be built which will give access to R21?21/08/2012COMMENTS RECEIVED AFTER THE SCOPING PHASE403 Cullinan Family Sean.Culliman@telkomsa.net Dear Riaan and Jan07/09/2012Thanks for the time spent explaining the new MidstreamRidge development, we were impressed with your vision,particularly with the amount of open space that you leftwithin the development to minimize the effects it wouldhave on the natural fauna and flora.115

We however raised the following concerns:The transport node at Pinedene station.We explained that for the past 30 years we have beenopposing the Olifantsfontein Industrial/Commercial type ofdevelopment to the south of us, and we would definitelynot like to be sandwiched between two unpleasanttransport nodes.However your explanation on managing the nodes as youdo in your present developments, hasremoved some of our concerns.We were concerned about the commercial industrialpurple zone.Mrs Cullinan pointed out that the views on that particularsight with the two railway bridges are spectacular and havebeen painted by Walter Battiss; they should be accountedfor and perhaps resident friendly alternatives should belooked at.The new road intersection with Irene main road.It was pointed out that this particular portion of the road asit comes around the corner downtowards the river next to your property was particularlydangerous.The other concern was whether Main rd road particularlywith regards to the Nelmapius intersection towards Irenecould take the additional traffic.Our future plans are certainly on the same lines as yourMidstream developments. Our objective is topromote and sell a concept that is based on a safe activefamily lifestyle, appealing to the LSM 10 group. We believethe Barn with its Acrobranch “ZIP LINES “and mountainbiking tracks will set the tone for our development.116

With regards to ideas about the open land between theedge of Midridge and the river we would like toreciprocate with land on our side of the river to create arecreational area were residents from the developmentswould be able to partake in activities such as Strawberrypicking, walking, trail running, mountain biking and horseriding, within a managed and safe environment. We believeGroenkloof nature reserve in Pretoria which offers all theseactivities except Strawberry picking offers a good model tofollow.The ideal would be to have this area running from Strydomsfarm in the West to the Railway line to the East of theproperties and to include as many Historical sites such asthe old ZAR bridge and Lime kilns on both properties muchas possible.We were also very encouraged by your enthusiasm in tryingto organize some sort of rehabilitation for the OlifantsSpruit.We would like to invite you to visit our site particular to ournew project The Big Red Barn.ResponseDear Cullinan Family,TIE-IN BETWEEN FUTURE PLANS ON CULLINAN LAND TOTHE BONDEV PROPOSED MIDSTREAM RIDGEDEVELOPMENTIn respect to our discussion in September and your letterreceived on 7 September 2012 in respect to the above.1. The transport node117

We believe that the proposed transport node closeto the Pinedene Station is necessary over themedium to long term in order to tidy up the intermodaltransport function which is currently slowlydeveloping informally in an unplanned andunmanaged fashion in the area. It is quite possiblethat it will alleviate traffic along the Irene/Olifantsfontein road as it will be much cheaper totravel to Pinedene Station by train and then transferto a taxi for local commute than to travel from farby taxi. For that reason it would be best to place itclose to the station and adjacent to a main collectorroad. It is our current estimate that the facility willonly be established after 2015.2. The commercial/industrial zoneWhilst your letter refers to a commercial/industrialzone in the planned development we wish toemphasise that no provision has been made forsuch land uses. The purple zone you refer to isproposed for mixed use with the land usedescription including the following possibleelements: Medium to high density residential (one andtwo storey security cluster units);Churches;Restaurants;Entertainment venues;Retails shops;Commercial activities (including servicessuch as banks); andOffices.118

We believe the land uses envisaged arecomplimentary to residences and as such fits in wellwith the residential land uses we are planning andwant to emphasise that we do not see the mixeduse land uses as being detrimental to the lowdensityresidential development where 5 to 6houses are placed per hectare. For that reason webelieve it will also not be detrimental to similardevelopments on the land of adjoining land owners.3. On the protection of important featuresThe studies completed as part of the current studyshowed that the Imperial Military Railways bridge(anno 1901) is the only known one of its kind(design and material used) that is still surviving inthe world today. Our consultant advised that thearea between Glen Road and the current railwaybridge (including the old bridge) is also the only partof the application site that is classified as"Irreplaceable" in the Gauteng Conservation Plan(version 3). It is also a habitat for the Half-collardKingfisher which is the only known Red Listedspecies that are likely to occur on the applicationsite.For these reasons we see that an area ofapproximately 50m wide next to the river bankbetween Glen Road and the current railway bridgeshould be preserved as a nature conservation areawith very limited and well controlled access. Wehave made provision for this in the layout. We planto treat the adjoining land-uses as very sensitive tothe area and undertake to take care in this regard.We look forward to protect this area with ourneighbours for potential upstream and downstreamlinkages.119

4. Glen Road and other regional roadsThe new intersection with Glen Road (Main Road)can only take place at a position approved byGautrans to ensure a safe intersection withadequate capacity is provided. The intersectionforeseen is for a controlled intersection with trafficsignals and calming mechanisms. This shouldgreatly improve the current safety situation on thatportion of the road.Development of the area is dependent on the ongoingevolutionary development and expansion ofthe road network and system in the broader area.In this regard we have undertaken traffic impactassessments that indicate adequate capacity ofroads in the area and also determined whereintersection upgrades will be required and the roadsto be build by us on our property to keep track withthe anticipated program of development.5. Use of shared open space along the Olifants SpruitThe recent studies concur with your letter, namelythat the riverside parts of properties, that alsoinclude important cultural/historical as well asnatural features, should be protected andmaintained in an appropriate manner. It is our viewthat this area could stretch from the current railwaybridge in the north-east to as far south-west aspossible along the Olifants Spruit.The layout seen as our "preferred development"layout provides for non-consumptive, low impactactivities that will be to the benefit of all theowners, including new owners within120

developments. It is however important for thesuccess of the initiative that it is formalised in amanner that includes the following: Subject to the approval of our study byGDARD we will be obliged to submit ourtown planning applications accordingly;For envisaged similar land uses on bothsides of the river, a more formal agreementwill be required between the differentlandowners about what facilities andactivities will be allowed in the area;With an agreement in place between landowners it is proposed that a zoning plan beprepared that takes the needs of theindividual land owners into account and atleast include:Zones for different activities; Sensitivity control zones (e.g.cultural historical areas) whereaccess should be limited to belowthe established carrying capacity;Safety control zones (e.g. dangerousplaces around quarries and atcertain places along the river)where access should be prohibited;Security measures to ensure thesafety of neighbours and personsusing the area;Controlled access points;Parking lots;Hiking, cycling and horse ridingroutes (paths) if and where they121

might be appropriate; andNecessary amenities such as toiletfacilities. A cultural historical plan that mustappropriately nominate and declare all thecultural resources in the area and that alsoprovide for adequate management criteria,monitoring mechanisms and enforcementobligations;A business plan that must: Clearly indicate the valueopportunities and risks associatedwith the initiative;Establish performance parameters;Allocate accountability;Identify income streams and costelements; andEnsure that the value of the land iscaptured and that derived income(profit) is distributed fairly amongstparticipating landowners.For the time being the land has been reserved in the"preferred layout" to confirm our commitment withregards of the above and we hold ourselvesavailable to engage in further discussions as soon asyour studies have reached a similar stage.6. The Olifants Spruit rehabilitationUnfortunately, it is general knowledge that thewater quality of the Olifants Spruit is extremelypoor at the moment. This is a direct result of the122

failure of authorities to perform the functions it isobliged to do in terms of its various mandates in itsdifferent spheres of government. The failures havebecome systemic and any attempt to rehabilitatethe spruit will have to address these root causes tohave any chance of success. It is our view that theeffort must therefore be focussed on getting theauthorities (constituted by the EkurhuleniMetropolitan Municipality, The Department ofWater Affairs, the Gauteng Provincial Governmentand the ERWAT sewage works) to manage thevarious components properly. The first step beingin ensuring that Tembisa sewage gets into thesewage network in the first place, move on tobuilding waste traps in storm water drains,constructing upstream attenuation structures in theKaal Spruit before it enters the Olifants Spruit andensure that the sewage works perform optimally.We would be most interested in establishing astrategy for action that would benefit all the landowners.At the moment we are focussing on getting approvals fromall the different authorities in respect to the MidstreamRidge development proposal. Subject to obtaining the prerequisiteapprovals, we hope to commence with thedevelopment phase of the residential component in early2014. We would need to address the future land uses ofthe open areas at that stage and look forward to coordinateour efforts with your planning.123