<strong>Basic</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong> <strong>Report</strong>4. Inconsistent with the planning framework for the site- Both the preferred site, as well as the alternative site as indicated in the diagrams fall within the aviationprecinct. As a way of background, the DTP site is partially zoned “Special Zone 10: Airport”, with thereminder of the site zoned as “undetermined”. A diagram showing the outline of a special zone 10 ismarked “Attachment 2”.- Special Zone 10: Airport is flexible in terms of the types of uses that can occur within it, however theregulations clearly state that a development framework plan is to be prepared, to guide development onsite. This framework plan outlines a package of plans that need to be developed and complied with. Thesite is essentially divided into precincts, which provide detail around the distribution of land uses.- The precinct plan for the airport precinct does not, remotely, show a service station, and an extract fromthis is shown in attachment 3. As such, we believe that from a statutory point of view an amendment tothe existing aviation precinct plan will need to be approved by council prior to any application beingaccepted. The proposals, in their current form, are in stark contradiction with the planning framework ofthe site.- The two sites in question are currently used as staff parking, and to park coaches. These sites weredesignated for certain uses through the planning process. If the proposed site was to be developed as aservice station, this would result in a loss of parking for the overall development and will possiblycompromise the effective operation of the airport.5. Traffic ConcernsThe land close to the proposed site, and proposed alternative site, has been earmarked for a futuremultilevel interchange. This interchange will become necessary as the Tradeport starts to developfurther. A point of concern is the proximity of the service station to this interchange, and the potentialeffect that this could have on the infrastructure and design.Ms. Angie Wilken, Mount Moreland Ratepayers and Environmental Association (10 June 2011):Mount Moreland Ratepayers and Environmental Association, had the following comments on the BackgroundInformation Document:- The association would like to see details in the basic assessment of site drainage and storm watermanagement.- In the event of a spill what is the procedure?- Is drainage from this site into Froggy Pond wetland?BP, c/o Mr W. Le Febour and Mr. J. Marshall (16 May 2011 and 10 June 2011):Mr. Le Febour asked that BP be registered as an IAP and asked for clarity on the process/ procedure to follow.The following comments on the Background Information Document were raised:- BP was successful in a proposal to develop a Petrol Filling Station (PFS) at King Shaka InternationalAirport and Dube TradePort. The proposal was forwarded in August 2010 in response to La Mercy JVProperty Investments (Pty) Ltd request for submissions.- <strong>SRK</strong>’s Background Information Document indicates that the above mentioned PFS is to be located inclose proximity to BP’s site.- As both sites have been planned by ACSA, it is possible that there is sufficient demand to support bothproposed sites. However, this issue needs to be addressed as part of the Environmental Process.Mr. Marshall on <strong>SRK</strong>’s request provided further information on BP’s PFS proposal.Shell, Mr. McRae (11 May 2011):Mr. McRae requested telephonically to be registered as an IAP and that he be provided with a copy of the BID.Mr. Geoff Pullan – Ward 58 Councilor (10 June 2011):Mr. Pullan provided the following comment::As a Councilor in this area, Ward 58, I have no objection to a petrol filling station in the King Shaka airportprecinct - PROVIDED - there are no future counter objections from King Shaka against applications for any petrolfilling stations in the vicinity of the N2.Mr. Richard Evans, Richard Evans & Associates (13 September 2011):Mr. Evans inquired as to the status of the environmental application on the 13 September 2011, <strong>SRK</strong> respondedvia email and Mr. Evans responded back thanking <strong>SRK</strong> for the email, the contents of which were noted andfurther advice was awaited in due course.Mr. G. Veerasamy, Tongaat Hulett Developments (12 May 2011):Requested clarity of the fuel quantities and the PFS.Department of Agriculture,Environmental Affairs & RuralDevelopment, KwaZulu-Natal<strong>Basic</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong> <strong>Report</strong> 2010Version 2: August 2010Page 38 of 46
<strong>Basic</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong> <strong>Report</strong>Mr. Kevin Duke, Kevin Duke Attorneys (03 August 2011):Mr. Duke, who represents a number of property developers telephonically requested to be registered as an IAPand requested a copy of the BID be emailed to him.Mr. Duke had the following queries:1. In terms of the food-outlet component, does Sasol have a preference towards certain companies, if sowhom?2. In terms of the Petrol Station Managers, as well as the fast food outlets, does Sasol have a preferencetowards BEE Companies? If so: to what degree of compliance would be expected, and would Sasolfavor companies with woman directors/owners?3. Within the layout plans contained in the BID, what is envisioned in each section, and what are thedimensions for each division?Mr. Mohammed Dada – Tongaat Petrol Station (17 July 2011):Mr. Dada requested telephonically to be registered as an IAP and that he be provided with a copy of the BID.Mr. Vasu Naidoo – Property Developer (02 August 2011):Mr. Naidoo requested telephonically to be registered as an IAP and that he be provided with a copy of the BID.Department of Agriculture,Environmental Affairs & RuralDevelopment, KwaZulu-Natal<strong>Basic</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong> <strong>Report</strong> 2010Version 2: August 2010Page 39 of 46
Change language