PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

Transcription

1 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF THE VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT SENCE DE LIEU AND ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE ON PORTION 3 OF FARM 845, PAARL PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 1. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS Public participation is the involvement of all parties who potentially have an interest in a development or project, or may be affected by it. The principal objective of public participation in an Environmental Impact Assessment process, in particular this Basic Assessment, is to inform and enrich decision-making. GENERIC PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS SHOWING STEPS WHERE INTERESTED AND AFFECTED PARTIES CAN BE INVOLVED

2 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF THE VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT SENCE DE LIEU AND ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE ON PORTION 3 OF FARM 845, PAARL 2. PROCESS FOLLOWED TO DATE Application was made to the Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning in August 2014, therefore under the 2010 EIA Regulations. Under these amended regulations, an initial 30-day Interested and Affected Party Registration Period was required and subsequently this registration period commenced on the 20 th November Comments were received on the Background Information Document which was hand delivered to residents within 100m of the Erf boundaries of the site and Notification letters were sent via registered post to neighbouring land owners, potentially affected state departments, NGO s and commenting authorities. The proposed development has been subject to two public participation periods. The initial 30 day Interested and Affected Party Registration Period commenced on 20 November 2014 until 12 January Numerous issues hindered the progress of the studies and the first file at the DEA&DP was then closed. In 2015 a Notice of Intent to Apply was submitted to the DEA&DP and the file was subsequently re-opened. The first Draft Basic Assessment Report was published for comment by the registered Interested and Affected Parties on the 3 rd of June 2016 and ended on 4 July Comments received during this time were captured and addressed in the Comments and report to follow. The 3 rd Draft BAR was made available for comment on 22 September 2017 until the 25 th of October Comments received during this time will be incorporated into the Final Comments and Report to be submitted to the DEA&DP for review. The activities following process was undertaken to facilitate the above mentioned public participation periods Site notice To inform surrounding communities and immediately adjacent landowners of the proposed development, two sets (one set includes one Afrikaans and one English notice) of site notices were erected on site at visible and accessible locations close to the site on 20 November 2014 and again on the 3 rd of June Direct notification of identified I&APs Identified I&APs, including key stakeholders representing the following sectors, were directly informed of the proposed development by post on 20 November 2014, 3 rd of June 2016, 5 th of June 2017 and 22 nd of September 2017 Provincial Authorities Local Authorities Service providers Ward Councillors

3 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF THE VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT SENCE DE LIEU AND ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE ON PORTION 3 OF FARM 845, PAARL Non-governmental organizations, and Directly adjacent landowners. 2.3 Hand-delivered notifications Letters were hand-delivered to adjacent landowners within 100 metres of the proposed residential development on the 20 November 2014 and on the 3 rd of June 2016 to notify and inform them of the proposed project. 2.4 Concerns raised by I&APs I&APs registered by completing registration forms and forwarding comments by , fax, post and telephonically. Comments received from I&APs are captured on a stakeholder database, acknowledged by personal letters and forwarded to the relevant environmental specialists for consideration. 1. COMMENT AND RESPONSE REPORT Comments and issues of concern contributed by I&APs were listed, along with the I&APs name and means of communication in the Comment and Report. 2. CONCLUSION The most significant concerns to be raised by I&APs will be summarised here as a conclusion to the Public Participation section: I&APs to respond and who are most likely to be affected by the proposed development are: NGO s Directly adjacent neighbours Provincial Authorities

4 Cor van der Walt with Department of Agriculture 20 February 2015 Letter Your application of 12 November 2014 has reference. Please note that this development will affect abutting agricultural land as well. The Western Cape Department of Agriculture has a mandate to preserve agricultural land for future use and please not that miss-use of underutilised agricultural land is not considered motivation for alternative usage. Please furnish this office with an Agricultural Impact Assessment (eg. Soil Potential, impact on food security, water registration, impact on abutting farming enterprises and opportunities etc). Please not Section 3 (f) and (g) of SALA (Subdivision of Agricultural Land Act No 70 of 1970) reads as follows: Prohibition of certain actions regarding agricultural land: Subject to the provisions of Section 2 (f) No area of jurisdiction, local area, development area, periurban area or other area referred to in paragraph (a) or (b) of the definition of agricultural land in Section 1, shall be established on, or enlarged so as to include, any land which is agricultural land, (g) No public notice to the effect that a scheme relating to agricultural land or any portion thereof has been prepared or submitted under the ordinance in question, shall be given unless the Minister has consented in writing. The farm concerned is regarded as agricultural land under the provisions of SALA and is not excluded under Section 2. This is an extension of the Urban Edge and therefore the provisions of SALA are applicable and the Development of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry remains the consenting authority for SALA. Please note: That this is comment to the relevant deciding authorities in terms of the Subdivision of Agricultural Land Act 70 of 1970: Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act 43 of 1983 and the Land Use Planning Ordinance 15 of Kindly quote the above-mentioned reference number in any future correspondence in respect of this application. The department reserves the right to revise initial comments and request further information based on the information received. Dear Mr van der Walt, Thank you for your time and comment on the proposed development. As per your request, an Agricultural Impact Assessment which assessed the soil quality of the site was conducted by Bennie Schloms and was included in the Basic Assessment Report. The study concluded that the proposed site does not have the optimal clay content in it s soil to support viable agricultural practices. The study therefore recommends that the site should not be used for this purpose and can be developed.

5 Please note that application under the Agricultural Land Act 70 of 1970 will be made by Jan Hanekom partnerships during the Town Planning Application. It should be noted that the proposed site is included in the updated Drakentein Spatial Development Plan as located within the Municipality s Urban Edge. The Spatial Development Plan is currently under review and application has been made to reclassify the proposed site from Rural Landscape to Residential area. Kind regards, Euonell Visagie. Jonathan Windvogel of Heritage Western Cape 29 October The above mentioned application was assessed by Heritage Western Cape. Since there is reason to believe that heritage resources will be impacted upon. HWC requires an HIA in terms of Section 38(2) of the NHRA (Act 25 of 1999) assessing the: 1. Visual impacts the proposed development will have on its receiving environment being the cultural landscape and other resources of heritage significance as well an indication of the future development of the area according to the Municipal Spatial Development Framework including an indication of the urban edge boundaries and whether the property falls within or outside these boundaries. 2. The comments of the registered conservation bodies and the Municipality should also be requested. Please feel free to contact this office for any other information Good day Mr Windvogel. Thank you for your comment. A Heritage Impact Assessment and Visual Impact Assessment is currently underway to address the comments made by your office. These assessments will be submitted to your office for consideration. Kind regards. Mr Paul Henry with Boschenmeer November 2014 to BID We are an interested and affected party and want to be consulted prior to any approvals. Good day, Thank you for your interest in this development. You will be added to the Interested and Affected Party Database and updated on any new information pertaining to this development. Kind Regards. Mrs Marion Stewart November 2014 to BID Noise Pollution; Pollution oil spillage; stormwater Impact run off into the course causing the course to become waterlogged and therefore unplayable. Good Day Mrs Stewart, Thank you for your comment on the proposed development. The issues you raised will be controlled through the implimentation of the Environmental Management Plan, attached to this report. Furthermore, please refer to the Stormwater Management Plan included in the Civil Engineering Report. Kind regards.

6 Mr S Opperman November 2014 to BID Mr Opperman had no comment but was registered as an Interested and Affected Party Mr Opperman had no comment but was registered as an Interested and Affected Party Mr Michael Street November 2014 to BID As our property is directly opposite we want to be kept in the loop as to what is happening. Thanks. Dear Mr Street, Thank you for your comment on the proposed development. You have been registered as an interested and affected party and will be notified of any new information pertaining to the proposed development. Mr Craig Street November 2014 to BID Mr Street had no comment but was registered as an Interested and Affected Party Mr Street had no comment but was registered as an Interested and Affected Party Mr Nicol Erasmus November 2014 to BID Update progress with exact locations for development to wards Farm 845 of R301 Road Good day Mr Erasmus, please refer to the 2nd Draft BAR for a locality map indicating the area proposed for development. Rod Boyes January Attention Euonell Grundling Your correspondence dated 20 November, refers. The DEA&DP Reference for the project is 16/3/1/1/B3/28/1100/14

7 Comment is hereby given on the start of the EIA process fo the proposed construction of Sence de Lieu Development on Portion 3 of Farm 845, division Paarl. The proposed development will include the following: Religious Institutions (± 0.16ha) Retail (± 1.85ha) Petrol Station (± 0.18ha) Institutional Zoning (± 0.50ha) Shared Space Squares (± 0.46ha) High Density Residential (± 1.61ha) Single Residential Plots (± 7.50ha) Village Squares paved area (± 0.77ha) Access Servitude area (± 1.14ha) Open Spaces (± 0.42ha) Bulk Service Infrastructure and Waste Water Treatment Plant which will process less than 2Ml per day. Please register this Branch as an Interested and Affected Party. All documentation and queries should be submitted to Ms Grace Swanepoel of this Branch using the following contact details: Grace.Swanepoel@westerncape.gov.za Address 1 PO Box 2603, Cape Town, 8000 Address 2 Room 335, 9 Dorp street, Cape Town, 8001 Fax Tell This Branch, the Road Authority of Main Road 201 and Minor Road 5253 in the vicinity of the development, has the following initial comments: 1. Obtaining the necessary prior approvals in terms of Act 21 of 1940 and/or Roads Ordinance 19 of 1976 will be a requirement for access onto the proclaimed provincial road network. Access positions shall be in terms of the access policy of this Branch; 2. The geometric and material design of all accesses onto the proclaimed road network as well as the required improvements to the proclaimed road network shall be approved by the design section of this branch. 3. The proposed development will require the submission of a full Traffic Impact Assessment by competent traffic engineers prior to approval

8 4. Building Lines and Building Restrictions in terms of Section 17 of Roads Ordinance 19 of 1976 and Act 21 of 1940 respectively must be adhered to. 5. With the exception of street lighting service are not permitted within the road reserves of the above roads. Stormwater from the development may not negatively affect the above roads. 6. Service crossing or running parallel with the above road reserves require prior approval by this branch 7. Street lighting on the above road requires prior approval by this branch and 8. All fencing adjacent to the above road reserves shall be pedestrian resistant and shall be maintained by the developer and/or the local authority. As this Branch is not opposed to the proposed development, it will comment in detail during the Land Use Ordinance application and/or the approval of service detail stage. Good day Mr Boyes, Thank you for your comment on the proposed development. Grace Swanepoel was registered as the relevant contact person for this office. With reference to your comments: 1. Application for access from the R301 will be applied for by the Consulting Traffic Engineers (Piet van Blerk at ICE Group Pty Ltd). 2. Noted. This will be done during the Town Planning Application Process. 3. Noted. Please refer to the updated Basic Assessment Report for the Traffic Impact Assessment. The full study is included in Addendum F Noted. 5. Noted. Please refer to the updated Basic Assessment report for more information on the Storm Water Infrastructure on site. 6. Noted. 7. Noted. This will be done during the Town Planning Application. 8. Noted. Thank you for your support for the proposed development. Kind regards, Euonell Visagie. 1 ST DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT Renier, Pierre-Jean le Roux (P-J le Roux Town and 8 June Regional Planners) Hoop dit gaan goed daar met jou. Kan jy asseblief vir my die nodige dokumente aanstuur van die aansoek sodat ek namens Boschenmeer kan kommentaar lewer. Jy moet BHOA maar as n I & AP registreer asseblief. Groete

9 Goeie middag PJ, Ek hoop dit gaan goed. Baie dankie vir jou belangstelling in die voorgestelde Sence de Lieu ontwikkeling. Die eerste Basiese Asseseringsverslag is op ons webtuiste beskikbaar. Volg asb die onderstaande skakel en kliek dan op documents on review en dan op 20375_Sence de Lieu waar die verslag en addendums beskikbaar is. Neem asb kennis dat alle skriftelike kommentaar gelewer moet word teen Maandag 11 Julie Boschenmeer Home Owners Association is geregistreer as n belanghebbende party. Baie dankie vir jou tyd en aandag in die verband. Vriendelike groete, Lana Ignjatović with Leads 3 Business 14 June Good afternoon, Construction of the Sence De Lieu Village Development, which will be located to the east of the R301 and opposite the existing Boschenmeer Golf Estate, South East of Paarl, in the Western Cape. Please would you register me as an interested party in the above mentioned EIA process. We are interested in the project once the EA has been issued, and would like to follow the process. We will not be making any comments for or against the proposed project. Please would you forward me any available BIDs related to this proposed project. Your kind assistance will be greatly appreciated. Good afternoon Lana, I hope you are well. Thank you for your interest in this proposed development. Please refer to our website ( for the latest information. The folder you are looking for is located under the documents on review tab on the left pane, and is named :20375 Sence de Lieu.

10 You will be registered as interested and affected parties and will be kept updated with the process. Thank you for your time and attention in this matter. Kind regards, Alana Duffell-Canham with CapeNature 15 June CapeNature would like to thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposed activity and which to make the following comments: 1. Historically, the proposed development site was covered by Boland Granite Fynbos and Swartland Alluvium Fynbos which are considered Vulnerable and Critically Endangered respectively. However, the site has been completely transformed by agricultural activities and there is no significant natural vegetation remaining. 2. There are no wetlands on site. The man-made irrigation channel south of the development site has been determined as an Ecological Support Area but is likely to have only low ecological importance and sensitivity and should not be impacted on significantly by the proposed development. Ecological constraints on the site are thus considered to be low. 3. Please provide some more details regarding storm water management and where storm water will ultimately be diverted to. 4. The development must not commence without sufficient water and sewage capacity being confirmed. 5. Please note that there is an error in the Environmental management Programme under Flora this section refers to the incorrect vegetation type (De Hoop Limestone Fynbos). Whilst it is unlikely that any part of the site will be rehabilitated, landscaping should still make use of locally indigenous plant species. 6. There is also an error under recommendations in Section F7 of the main report where the document states that audit reports should be submitted to the City of Cape Town Municipality this should be changed to Drakenstein Municipality. CapeNature reserves the right to revise initial comments and request further information based on any additional information that may be received. Good day Mrs Duffell-Canham, thank you for your comment on the first Draft BAR for Sence de Lieu. With reference to your comments, please see the project team s response below: 1. Noted. 2. Noted.

11 3. Please refer to the updated Basic Assessment Report for a detailed discussion on the proposed Storm Water Management Measures to be implemented. Furthermore, please find the Stormwater Management Plan attached to the Civil Engineering Report in Addendum F Confirmation of sufficient bulk service capacity (water, sewerage, storm water, electricity) will be included in the final BAR. 5. Noted. The EMP has been updated to include the correct vegetation type as well as replace the need for rehabilitation of the site with landscaping of open spaces with indigenous vegetation post construction. 6. Noted. The 2 nd Daft BAR has been updated with the correct Municipality. N Muller / M Seward with Drakenstein 28 June 2016 Postal Letter Municipality Your basic assessment report dated 3 June 2016 refers. 1. The applicant proposes to undertake a mixed use development on the above-mentioned farm which will include the following: A mixed development consisting of residential, commercial and institutional facilities with a total area covering approximately 18ha; High-density residential component consisting of apartments/group housing; Low density residential development consisting of single residential units and semi-detached units; Institutional development in the form of a church; Business development consisting of a petrol station and retail outlets; Public and private green open space network; and Roads and access 2. The proposed development is generally in line with the Drakenstein SDF (2015) in so far that it is located inside the urban edge. However, it appears to exacerbate the separation of developments targeting upper income households from other social groups. It is recommended that a social impact assessment be competed that specifically addresses the issue of social inclusion and integration with the municipality as a whole specifically addresses the issue of social inclusion and integration with the municipality as a whole. 3. Based on the environmental features contained on the site, the Draft Drakenstein Environmental management Framework (EMF) (2015) classifies the subject property to be situated within Environmental management Zone 2. There is clear guidance on the type and intensity of land transformation that may be acceptable and it appears that the proposed development aligns with the management guidelines that are set out by the Draft EMF. 4. Recommendations and mitigation measures as set out in the visual impact assessment report, the draft heritage scoping report and the soil survey report shall be adhered to.

12 Good day, thank you for your comment on the proposed development. Please refer below to the project team s response: 1. That is correct. 2. Noted. A social impact study was conducted and included in the 2 nd Draft BAR for review. Please refer to Addendum F.2 for the Socio Economic Impact Assessment. 3. Noted. 4. Noted. The specialist recommendations will be incorporated into the final BAR and will form part of the conditions of approval to the DEA&DP. Mr Wessel Fourie 1 July as a response on the BID Herewith the initial concerns identified by Boschenmeer for which we need assurances that the developer will deal reasonably with the issues that such a development will cause to ourselves: 1. We have a major concern regarding the dust, noise and security issues that will result from, particularly the civil works and building construction phases of the project. 2. Nature of the development: Visual Impacts: In the interest of preserving the natural beauty and tourist value of the region on the popular tourist road it would seem reasonable to require that no constructions higher than two stories must be allowed and to move commercial activity deeper into the development so as to be in keeping with the nature of this road and its surrounds. 3. The traffic density on Wemmershoek Rad is increasing at an alarming rate due to developments at Val de Vie, Pearl Valley, Fraaigelegen, Zanddrift and now Sence de Lieu (which are the ones of which we are aware, there may be others) A traffic impact survey must be done to assess both the impact of Sence de Lieu as well as the combined impact of these various developments with proposals for the consideration of the affected parties. Traffic impacts of both the construction and operational phases need to be considered and impacts mitigated. 4. During the development phase reasonable access to the site as well as documentation by AIP s may not be refused. The ECO must be available for regular meetings with the IAP s Good day Mr Fourie, thank you for registering as an Interested and Affected Party and your comments on behalf of the HOA for Boschenmeer on the first Draft BAR for Sence de Lieu. With reference to your comments, please see below the project team s response:

13 1. The construction phase of the proposed development will be regulated by an Environmental Management Plan which is on review with the draft Basic Assessment Report. This document stipulated stringent mitigation measures to be implemented by the contractor during the construction phase in order to minimise possible dust and noise pollution, to name just two. This document will also be subject to fortnightly audits by an independent Environmental Control Officer to be appointed by the developer. Dust management includes the correct stockpiling (could include covering the stockpiles with netting or dampening the top layer) of topsoil and construction material in order to minimise wind blown sand and other material. In relation to noise pollution, construction will be limited to office hours and will not be allowed to carry on into the night or over weekends. This will also be a temporary impact, only lasting the duration of the construction period. It is not foreseen that any over night camps for construction crew on site will be necessary as the proposed site is located in close proximity to Paarl. In the instance were machinery is left on site during the night, a security guard will be appointed to see over the access and movement on site. 2. As part of the Heritage Impact Assessment, a Visual Impact Assessment is currently underway. This assessment includes consideration of height restrictions. More detail will be provided in the 2 nd Draft BAR once this assessment is complete. The location of the commercial portion of the development was selected to be along the Wemmershoek Road mainly for two reasons: firstly it will provide easy access to services not only for road users between Paarl and Franschhoek, but also for residents of surrounding estates and farms without having to travel into a residential area. Secondly, moving the commercial development, which will most likely generate more frequent traffic than the residential portion of the development, will have a negative impact on the future residents of the proposed Sence de Lieu as outside traffic will have to move through the security complex to make use of the services located inside. This will furthermore pose a safety risk for residents and their children. 3. ICE (Infrastructure Consulting and Engineering) was appointed to conduct the Traffic Impact Study. More details relating to the significance of the impact on traffic due to the proposed development as well as mitigation measures will be provided in the 2 nd Draft BAR which will be made available for review in conjunction with the Traffic Impact Study once complete. 4. Noted. This will be included as a condition of approval and part of the ECO s duties. Hennie van Wyk with HLM 4 July Dear Guillaume Nel Environmental Consultants, Do you perhaps know if this project is still in need of Architectural & Interior input? Regards, Good morning Hennie,

14 I hope you are well. Jan Hanekom Partnership (Architects) was appointed to conduct the architectural designs for this development. Please let me know if you have any further queries in this matter. Kind regards, David Gass 4 July Attention: Evonell Grundling I am a resident of number 537 Boschenmeer Estate situated adjacent to the above proposed project. Please register me as an interested party and keep me informed of progress and when comment is required. Are you able to me any relevant documents? Please acknowledge receipt Regards Good day Mr Gass, I hope this finds you well. My sincerest apologies for only now replying to your request. Please note that the entire report and addendums are available on our website ( under the Documents on Review tab for your convenience. You can still send me your comment on the report if you so wish. Please let me know if there is anything else I can assist with. May you have a lovely day. Mrs Marion Stewart with Paarl Golf Club 5 July response to BID We are concerned about the increase storm water run-off. This could cause our golf course to become soggy water saturated and unplayable which would result in lost revenue Good day Mrs Stewart, Thank you for your comment on the proposed development. Please note the Basic Assessment was updated with the new Storm Water Management Plan. For the full study, please refer to the Civil Engineering Report where it is attached as an addendum Mr Zwelibanzi Shiceka with HeritageWesternCape 5 July

15 Dear Ms Grundling, The matter above has reference. This serves to acknowledge receipt of your letter date07 June Please be advised that in order for Heritage Western Cape (HWC) to comment on the above matter, HWC requires that a Notice of Intent to Develop form be submitted. Please before submitting the form, make sure that you HWC.HWC@westerncape.gov.za and request the reference number and the relevant information. Good day Mr Schiceka, I hope you are well. Thank you for your comment. Please note that this office submitted a Notice of Intent to Develop on the 14 th of October 2014 for which we received feedback from HWC. The comment included a request for a HIA and VIA, which is currently being conducted and for which the Scoping has been under review by HWC. Kind regards. Rod Boyes with WC Department of Transport & 7 July Public Works Attention Euonell Grundling 1.The following refers :- 1.1.Your correspondence dated 7 June 2016, a) The DEA&DP reference for the project is now 16/3/3/6/7/1/B3/28/1076/16 b) Your correspondence includes inter alia a preliminary traffic study by ICE Group (Pty) Ltd dated 2 June The two s of 8 January 2015 from Mr Rod Boyes of this Branch. 2. Comment is hereby given on the start of the first public participation process for the proposed Sence de Lieu Village Development on Portion 3 of Farm 845, division Paarl. The proposed development will include the following :- Religious Institutions (±0,16ha) ; Retail (±1,85ha) ; Petrol Station (±0,18ha) ; Institutional Zoning (±0,50ha) ; Shared Space Squares (±0,46ha) ; High Density Residential (±1,61ha) ;

16 Single Residential Plots (±7,50ha) ; Village Squares paved area (±0.77ha) ; Access Servitude area (±1,14.ha) ; Open Spaces (±0.42ha) ; Bulk Service Infrastructure and Waste Water Treatment Plant which will process less than 2Ml per day. 3. As detailed previously all further documentation and queries should be submitted via Ms Grace Swanepoel of this Branch using the following contact details:- Grace.Swanepoel@westerncape.gov.za Address 1 PO Box 2603, Cape Town, 8000 Address 2 Room 335, 9 Dorp Street, Cape Town, 8001 Fax: Tell: This Branch, the Road Authority of Main Road 201 (R301 / Wemmershoek Road) and Minor Road 5253 (OP05253) in the vicinity of the development, has the following additional initial comments: Until such time as this Branch has placed the upgrading of Main Road 201 (MR00201) on its budget the developer could be liable for the upgrading of portion of MR00201; 4.2. Access to the proposed development will only be permitted at positions as will be determined by the Access Management Plan for MR00201which is in the process of being finalised; 4.3. The initial comments in the s of 8 January 2015 apply mutatis mutandis to the proposed development. 5. As this Branch is not opposed to the proposed development, it will comment in detail during the Land Use Ordinance application and/or the approval of service detail stage. 6. Please use 16/9/6/1-10/68 (Job 22785) as reference for this correspondence. Good day Mr Boys, Thank you for your comments on the proposed development. With reference to the above, please refer to the section below for the project team s responses: 1. Noted

17 2. Noted. 3. Noted. The I&AP database was updated Noted. The developer was made aware of this Noted Noted. These comments will be dealt with during the Town Planning Application. 5. Noted. Loretta Osborne with DEA&DP 10 July 2016 Fax The draft Basic Assessment Report ( BAR ) and the letter dated 3 June 2016, as received by the Department on the same day, refer. The following is the Department s provisional comment on the pre-application BAR and must be addressed in the in-process BAR: 1. Page 7 of the report, the locality map, indicates that the development will be undertaken on a Portion of Portion 3 of Farm Hartebeeskraal No. 845, Paarl and page 9, the site development plan, refers to phase 1. Please verify if only a portion of portion 3 will be developed and whether the remainder of farm will be developed in future. Note that all phases of a development must be included in a proposal. 2. The report specifies that no other alternatives were considered. In terms of the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998) Environmental Impact Assessment ( EIA ) Regulations, 2010 and EIA Regulations, 2014 all Basic Assessment Reports, Scoping Reports and Environmental Impact Reports must contain a description of any feasible and reasonable alternatives that have been identified, including a description and comparative assessment of the advantages and disadvantages that the proposed activity and alternatives will have on the environment and on the community that may be affected by the activity. Every Environmental Impact Assessment process must therefore identify and investigate alternatives, with feasible and reasonable alternatives to be comparatively assessed. If, however, after having identified and investigated alternatives, no feasible and reasonable alternatives were found, no comparative assessment of the preferred alternative and the option of not proceeding are required during the assessment phase. What would, however, have to be provided to the Department in this instance is proof that an investigation was undertaken and a detailed motivation indicating that no reasonable or feasible alternatives other than the preferred option and the no-go option exist. 3. Final comment from the relevant authorities, i.e. Heritage Western Cape, the District Roads Engineer etc. must be obtained, addressed if applicable and included in the in-process BAR submitted for comment/ decision-making. 4. All original signed declarations (applicant, environmental assessment practitioner and specialists) are to be included in the in-process BAR.

18 5. Comments received during the Public Participation Process from the Interested and Affected Parties and a Comments and Report that adequately address any highlighted issues must be included in the in-process BAR. 6. The Department notes that the advertisement, referred to on page 35, was not included in Appendix F. Proof of all notifications during the Public Participation Process must be provided in the in-process BAR. 7. The recommendations and mitigation measures made the Specialist Studies must be incorporated into the in-process BAR and Environmental Management Programme, where appropriate. 8. Page refers to open spaces that will be approximately hectares and page 5 refers to private open space that will be approximately 1.64 hectares and public open space that will be approximately 4.2 hectares. Clarity with regards to the above-mentioned statements are required. 9. The Notice of Intent refers to Curvex (Pty) Ltd and the pre-application BAR refers to Recurvex (Pty) Ltd. The correct name of the company must be included in the application form. Good day Mrs Osborne, thank you for your comment on the proposed Sence de Lieu Development s first Draft BAR. Please refer to the responses on your comments below: 1. The proposed development will only be located on Portion 3 of Farm Hartebeeskraal 845, Paarl. The first alternative was to develop the remainder of the farm, however this was deemed undesirable and is no longer the preferred alternative. 2. The initial layout alternative was to develop the remainder of Farm Hartebeeskraal 845, however this was deemed undesireble. Please refer to the updated Basic Assessment Report for an in depth assessment of the first alternative. 3. Noted. Comment was requested from the following parties: a. Drakenstein Municipality; b. Department of Transport and Public Works; c. Western Cape Department of Agriculture; d. Department of Water and Sanitation; e. CapeNature; f. Heritage Western Cape; g. Drakenstein Heritage Foundation; h. Paarl 300 Foundation; i. Registered Interested and Affected Parties.

19 4. Noted. 5. Noted. 6. Noted. Please refer to the updated Addendum E: Public Participation Period. 7. Noted. 8. The project desription was updated to reflect the correct area of approximately 4ha in total for the open spaces. 9. Noted. The correct name for the applicant is Recurvex (Pty) Ltd. The application will reflect this name. Mr Mxolisi Dlamuka with HWC 20 July 2016 Letter Heritage Western Cape is in receipt of your application for the above matter received on 13 June This matter was discussed at the Impact Assessment Committee (IACOM) meeting held on 13 July The committee noted that: The site is located within the amended Drakenstein SDF urban edge. No visual indicators have been identified by the visual specialist yet and would be important in informing the development proposal. Consideration should be given to the location of the site on the urban periphery and development should respond to the scenic qualities of the R301 and protection of mountain views. Although at a preliminary stage, the Committee felt the indicative development proposal, as tabled, does not appear to respond to the initial heritage resource indicators, or the Grade IIIC heritage context within which the site is located. INTERM COMMENT The committee supported the identification of heritage resources and heritage indicators contained in the scoping report. HWC reserves the right to request additional information as required. Good day Mr Dlamuka, thank you for your comment on the Scoping HIA and VIA. Please note the full HIA and VIA will be included in the 2 nd Draft Basic Assessment Report for your review. Mr Jimmy Knaggs with Drakenstein Municipality 26 August 2016 Letter Your letter dated 07 June 2016 refers. 1. Water 1.1 Drakenstein has sufficient bulk capacity within the water supply source to accommodate the proposed development 1.2 There is no water reticulation infrastructure in the area 1.3 The developer must consult GLS engineers to determine the extent of the upgrading and impact to the bulk infrastructure for the development. 1.4 Note that any water upgrades must be included in the EIA process. 2. Sewage

20 2.1 Drakenstein Municipality has sufficient bulk capacity within the Waste Water sewage Treatment Works source to accommodate the proposed development. 2.2 There is no sewer reticulation infrastructure in the area. 2.3 The developer must consult GLS engineers to determine the extent of the upgrading and impact to the bulk infrastructure for the development. 2.4 An onsite waste water treatment plant is not the preferred alternative. The sewer system must be connected to the existing and proposed bulk system. 2.5 Note that any water upgrades must be included in the EIA process. 3. Stormwater 3.1 There is no stormwater reticulation in the proposed development area and a detailed study needs to be undertaken by the developer. 3.2 Runoff shall be limited to the pre-development runoff with suitable pollution control at the outfall 3.3 No seepage water drainage is allowed as this will adversely affect the level of ground water in the area. 4. Roads 4.1 The analysis of the impact of the proposed development on Drakenstein s Traffic Network Master Plan has found that the development can be accommodated. 4.2 However TIA is required that takes into account the other development proposal in the area (cumulative Impact) 4.3 Any new roads/streets and accesses will be the responsibility of the developer, including all internal and bulk connectors. 4.4 As access will be onto a proclaimed road, the Provincial Roads Engineer s comments/conditions are required 4.5 Any alterations to the existing road network will be the responsibility of the developer, including design, approval and construction for any extra traffic control and or traffic calming. 5. Solid Waste 5.1 The current waste removal service in the area is available as a kerbside service. 5.2 Residents of the development must manage the internal waste removal amongst themselves. 5.3 On refuse removal days the waste bins must then be put out on the kerbside at the access point to the development, to be serviced. 5.4 provision must be made, at the access point to the development, but the developer, for a storage area for the correct number of 240L waste bins for the development. 5.5 A waste recover/recycling initiative has been implemented in Drakenstein and the development will have to be prepared to comply with any requirements as the project rolled out. 6. Environmental: General 6.1 The bio-diversity corridor formed by: any river (a minimum of 32m on both sides of the river measure from the 1:20 floodline), All wetland areas (including a 32m buffer around them) a buffer/transition area/zone of at least 60m adjacent to any large natural area whether declared as a nature reserve or not,

21 6.1.4 any special habitat areas (such as silcrete patches) and the 15m buffer zone around them must be shown and no development is allowed within these areas. 6.2 A river maintenance management plan/schedule must be designed and implemented to keep the box culverts and Vergesig River clear, especially during the drier summer months. 6.3 The proposed residential development borders on agricultural land and measures should be put in place to protect the undeveloped agricultural land f From urban development and vice versa. 6.4 The incorporation of passive solar design and the use of solar hot water geysers, energy efficient lighting and energy efficient appliances should be considered. 6.5 As the effects of climate change are being felt the development shall implement serious water saving measure. 7. Environmental: Noise 7.1 Measures shall be put in place so to ensure that the outside noise levels are at all times maintained within the relevant prescribed standards. 7.2 The noise regulations are as published on 20 June 2013 under the Environment Conservation Act 73 of Environmental: Air Quality 8.1 All emissions are to be managed so as to keep them within the regulated limits. 8.2 As the development is situated within an agricultural setting and is located next to the R301 Street measures shall be put in place in all habitable buildings to ensure the indoor air quality is not affected by the emissions from normal agricultural activity and normal operation of the R301 Street. 9. General 9.1 Any alterations, changes, upgrading or additions (strengthening) of/to existing infrastructure outside of the development (bulk reticulation services (network) will be at the cost of the developer. 9.2 Should the development be approved, and before any construction commences (even site clearance) a service agreement shall be entered into between the developer and council. Any further enquiries can be made to Mr Knags of this department. Good Day Mr Knaggs, Thank you for your comment on the proposed development. Please refer to our response below. 1.1 Thank you. 1.2 Noted. 1.3 Noted. This was included in the Civil Engineering report included in the 2 nd Draft BAR. 1.4 Noted. An explanation of the required works is included in the updated BAR. Please note that these upgrades does not trigger any additional NEMA listed activities. 2.1 Thank you. 2.2 Noted. 2.3 Noted. This was included in the Civil Engineering report included in the 2 nd Draft BAR.

22 2.4 Noted. This alternative was updated to reflect not preferred. The developer would prefer connecting to the Municipal network. 2.5 Noted. An explanation of the required works is included in the updated BAR. Please note that these upgrades does not trigger any additional NEMA listed activities. 3.1 Noted, the Storm Water Management Plan was included in the updated Basic Assessment Report. Please refer to the Civil Engineering Report where this study is included as an Addendum. 3.2 Noted. 3.3 Noted. 4.1 Correct. 4.2 Noted. An update TIA will be included in the final BAR. However please note that the TIA for the Paarl Hills development as well as the approved Zandrif development includes the construction of a roundabout at the R301/Drakenstein intersection which will increase the operating level of both roads to acceptable. This, in conjunction with the upgrades proposed at Sence de Lieu should be sufficient to accommodate all the new developments in the area. 4.3 Noted. 4.4 Noted, Comment from the Provincial road engineer was received and addressed. 4.5 Noted. 5.1 Noted 5.2 Noted. Two separate waste management systems will be put in place, one for the residential security complex and a second for the business complex and petrol station. On collection days, all the accumulated solid waste will be stored for collection at the access to the proposed development in a refuse room. 5.3 Noted. Please refer to comment above, 5.4 Noted. 5.5 Noted. The developer will implement any recycling initiatives as presented by the Municipality. 6.1 Noted. 6.2 Please note that this will be included in the Final OEMP. 6.3 Landscaped buffer areas where put in place along the borders of the proposed development to ease the urban rural transition. This buffer furthermore acts as a barrier between the development and the agricultural land adjacent as no roads are planned to connect to the neighbouring land. The layout was designed in such a way that the housing units on the eastern border of the site have their backyards facing the border, thereby limiting any new roads to the east of the development. 6.4 Noted. 6.5 Noted. The proposed development will endeavour to incorporate water and energy saving measures in the HOA s constitution. 7.1 The proposed development is in line with the surrounding residential areas and therefore noise levels will be similar to that of Boschenmeer. 7.2 Noted. 8.1 Noted.

23 8.2 a 30m landscaped setback was incorporated into the design of the site so as to limit the impact of the R301 on the adjacent business complex The residential area will be located approximately 70-90m east form the R301 and should therefore not be impacted. 9.1 Noted. 9.2 Noted. STBB for Avondale Trust 8 September Introduction 1. We act on behalf of the Avondale trust, No IT6186/96 (the Trust). 2. The Trust is the registered owner of the following immovable properties: (the Properties) Remaining Extent of the Farm Hartebeeskraal No. 847, Division Paarl; Portion 12 of the Farm Hartebeeskraal, No. 847, Divison Paarl; Remainder of the Farm Ronwe, No. 851, Division Paarl; Portion 1 of the Farm Ronwe, No. 851, Division Paarl; Portion 4 of the Farm Ronwe, No. 851, Division Paarl. 3. On 31 May 2016, an advertisement was placed in the Paarl Post in which the Paarl community at large and specifically possible interested and affected parties were informed about the proposed mixed use development on Portion 3 of the Farm Hartebees Kraal 845, Division Paarl (The Proposed Development). 4. The Trust s Properties are in the immediate vicinity of the Proposed Development and are therefore directly impacted upon as far as adverse environmental impacts are concerned. 5. The Proposed Development triggers various listed activities which require environmental authorization, in terms of Section 24(F) of the National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998 (the NEMA), before such activities may be lawfully undertaken. 6. The applicant for environmental authorization is Recurvex (Pty) Ltd (the Applicant). 7. The Applicant appointed Guillaume Nel Environmental Consultants (the EAP) to manage the application on its behalf. 8. In accordance with the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 2014 (the Regulations), the applicant advertised the availability of the draft Basic Assessment Report (the Draft BAR or BAR) for comments by interested and affected parties. 9. It is envisaged in the Draft BAR that a final BAR will be submitted with the competent authority once the Draft BAR has been duly subjected to public participation as prescribed in the Regulations. 10. The competent authority in respect of the application for environmental authorization is the Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning Western Cape (the DEADP).

24 11. The Trust has referred us to the availability of the Draft BAR on the website of the EAP and has instructed us to record its concerns regarding the Applicant s Environmental Application. 12. Below we will deal with: The Applicant s statutory duties. The scope of assessment and content of the BAR APPLICANT S STATUTORY DUTIES 13. Section 24 sets out mandatory minimum requirements for environmental applications. The Trust will make specific reference to instances of non-compliance with Section 24 below. 14. Regulation 19(1)(a) states as follows: 19(1) Where basic assessments must be applied to an application, the applicant must within 90 days of receipts of the application by the competent authority, submit to the competent authority (a) a basic assessment report, inclusive of specialist reports, an EMPr, and where applicable a closure plan, which have been subjected to a public participation process of at least 30 days and which reflects the incorporation of comments received, including any comments of the competent authority. 15. In terms of Regulation 19(3) a BAR must contain the minimum information set out in Appendix 1 to the Regulations. The prescribed contents of the BAR are statutory obligations of the Applicant which are mandatory considering the repeated use of the word must in the aforementioned provisions. 16. The Trust submits that the application is in material respects flawed due to non-compliance with the aforementioned statutory provisions. 17. Compliance with the Regulations is predominantly the statutory duty of the Applicant and to a lesser extent, that of the EAP. The Trust submits that the BAR contains various statements and other representations which suggest that the BAR complies with the applicable provisions of the Regulations as well as with other statutory documents, for example the Drakenstein Municipal Spatial Development Framework of 2015 (the SDF). The Trust would like to caution the Applicant and the EAP that the BAR is factually and legally inaccurate as far as compliance with the Regulations and the SDF of the Municipality is concerned, which holds the risk that Interested and affected parties and authorities may be misled by such errors in the BAR. This will only lead to a flawed Public Participation Process, but also leave the Applicant s whole application as a document that does not comply with the prescribed statutory framework. This will leave the competent environmental authority with no option but to reject the BAR and should the Applicant persist with such flawed course of action, to refuse such application. 18. This environmental application was advertised for the first time in the Paarl Post on 20 November 2014 in terms of the 2010 Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations. On page 35 of the BAR, the Applicant suggests as follows: However, this application has since lapes and the registered Interested and Affected Parties will again be notified of the new application and second round of impact assessments. The trust submits that the current application is a new application submitted almost two years after the previous application in term of the 2010 Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations. The current application is submitted in terms of a new set of Regulations which came into force during In view of the

25 laps of almost two years and the fact that the current application is in terms of a new and different set of regulations, the Trust submits that this application must be processed afresh in all respects. It is not open to the Applicant to simply give notice to Interested and Affected parties registered during Interested and Affected Parties are now entitled to this environmental application being property advertised afresh and to participate in terms of the prescribed process as set out in the regulations. 19. It is not the duty of Interested and Affected Parties and specifically the Trust, to highlight and assist the Applicant with complying with the Regulations. Any purported decision based on a BAR which is not compliant with the prescribed statutory framework will be vulnerable in internal appeal proceedings as well as review proceedings in the High Court. 20. The objections and inputs of the trust should at this stage therefore be seen to identify its main concerns in the interest of the environment and to ensure that the competent environmental authority does not approve a development which is environmentally unsustainable SCOPE OF ASSESSMENT AND CONTENT OF BAR Appendix 1 to Regulations 21. In terms of Paragraph 3(1)(e) of Appendix 1, a BAR must include: 3(1) A Basic Assessment Report must contain the information that is necessary for the competent authority to consider and come to a decision on the application, and must include (e) a description of the polity and legislative context within which the development is proposed including (i) an identification of all legislation, policies, plans, guidelines, spatial tools, municipal development planning frameworks, and instruments that are applicable to this activity and have been considered in the preparation of the report; and (ii) how the proposed activity complies with and responds to the legislation and policy context, plans, guidelines, tools frameworks, and instruments 22. One of the most important municipal development planning frameworks to which Paragraph 3(1) is referring to is the SDF. 23. The BAR in material aspects does not comply with the provisions of Paragraph 3(1). The BAR repeatedly states and represents that the Proposed Development is consistent with the spatial guidelines contained in the SDF and furthermore that the Municipality foresees development in the area east of the R301. For reasons stated below, these submissions made in the BAR are simply incorrect and constitutes a pivotal flaw in the BAR. 24. The Trust submits that in the absence of an amendment to the SDF, it will in the circumstances be impossible for the Proposed Development to comply with and respond to the SDF as the Development Proposal is in material respects inconsistent with the SDF. 25. The Proposed development materially deviates from the SDF, which fact alone is dipositive of the question whether the Proposed Development is desirable and also, especially in view of the lack of bulk infrastructure, whether there is a need for such development. 26. Furthermore, the application is based on the premise that the Development Property is located within an urban area for purposes of the Regulation by reason of the fact that it is located within the Urban Edge drawn by the Municipality in the SDF. The concepts of an urban area and an urban edge are fundamentally different in the context of any environmental application. Consistency with the SDF

26 SPLUMA 27. The status of SDF s are determined in terms of Section 22(1) of the Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act 16 of 2013 (SPLUMA), which states as follows. 22(1) a Municipal Planning Tribunal or any other authority required or mandated to make a land development decision in terms of this Act or any other law relating to land development, may not make a decision which is inconsistent with a municipal spatial development framework. 28. As remarked above, the Trust submits that the Development Proposal is in material respects inconsistent with the SDF and will require an amendment to the SDF before DEA&DP will legally be in a position to consider the application. In this regard the trust specifically submits the following An environmental application of the kind in this matter constitutes a land development decision as envisaged in terms of Section 22(1) of SPLUMA The DEA&DP, as competent authority in this matter, qualifies as an other authority required to make a land development decision. The DEA&DP may not make a decision which is inconsistent with the SDF. 29. The Trust will deal with the instance of amendment of a consistence with the SDF in more detail below. LUPA 30. The term consistent is not defined in SPLUMA, bit is defined in Section 1 of LUPA as follows: consistent, in relation to a spatial development framework, a land use application or a land development application, has the meaning set out in section 19(2) 31. Section 19(1), (2) and (3) states as follows: 19(1) If a spatial development framework or structure plan specifically provides for the utilization or development of land as proposed in a land use application or and development application, the proposed utilization or development is regarded as complying with that spatial development framework or structure plan. (2) If a spatial development framework or structure plan dos not specifically provide for the utilization or development of land as proposed in a land use application or a land use development application, but the proposed utilization or development is not in conflict with the purpose of the relevant designation in the spatial development framework or structure plan, the utilization or development is regarded as being consistent with that spatial development framework or structure plan. (3) If the proposed utilization or development of land in a land use application or a land development application does not comply with and is not consistent with the relevant designation for the utilization of land in an applicable spatial development framework of structure plan. 32. The Trust will motivate below that the Proposed Development deviates and is totally inconsistent with the SDF if due regard is had to the meaning of the terms, in terms of Section 22 of SPLUMA and Section 19 of LUPA. 33. With reference to the definition of the term consistent as defined in Section 19(2) of LUPA, the Trust would like to highlight the following, namely: In terms of Section 19(1), (2) and (3) of LUPA, the utilization or development of land can fall in any one of three categories following: It can comply with the SDF (Section 19(1))

27 It can be regarded as begin consistent with the SDF (Section 19(2)) It can deviate from the SDF (Section 19(3)) If the proposed utilization or development of land is specifically provided for in the SDF, such utilization or development is regarded as complying with the SDF (Section 19(1)). If the proposed utilization or development of land is not specifically provided for in the SDF, but is not in conflict with the purpose of the designation of the land in terms for the SDF, such utilization or development is regarded as being consistent with the SDF (Section 19(2)). If the proposed utilization or development of land does not comply with nor is consistent with the relevant designation of the land in terms of the SDF, such utilization or development deviates from the SDF. 34. Whether the proposed utilization or development of land complies with, is consistent with or deviates from the SDF, therefore turns on the interpretation of the provisions of the SDF. In terms of Section 22 of the SPLUMA, neither the DEA&DP nor any other authority required or mandated to make a land development decision, may make a decision which is inconsistent with the SDF. 35. It is furthermore to be noted that the consistency of a development proposal is not defined or determined at all with reference to Urban Edge, but rather with reference to the proposed utilization or development of land and the designation thereof in the SDF. 36. In Paragraph 1.4 of the SDF, the following tow points of departure are of specific relevance to the Proposed Development, namely: At the same time, the assumption that all land within the urban edge is developable is questioned as a starting point to land use decision, and accordingly this SDF has made recommendations for land within the urban edge to retain its rural character. Also limiting development of land within the urban edge is the availability of infrastructure in the short to medium term. These limitations have been takin into account in the implementation framework of the SDF. Limitation in the capacity of the bulk infrastructure networks of the municipality will impact on the timeframes for development for land parcels, identified as suitable for development. The SDF includes prioritization of development options for the short, medium and long term, but ultimately the implementation of this plan is dependent on the municipal budget allocation. 37. The Focus Area Chapter of the SDF introduces the elements of the Focus Area proposals, provides a concept plan for thirteen focus areas, identifies land use interventions for strategic sites and highlights implementation priorities for each area. 38. The Development Property is located in Focus Area 5 (FA5). 39. In Paragraph 5.6 of the SDF dealing with FA5 the introductory section clearly states that major infrastructure services upgrades (water and sewage reticulation systems and bulk services including pump stations and reservoir capacity) are required for the entire area. 40. Reference is made to the Spatial Concept Plan on page 79 of the SDF which designates the development property as falling within a protected rural landscape on the eastern side of the R301, in which area no development is allowed. The development Property is designated as forming part of the Retained Rural Areas, which is inconsistent with the Development Proposal. 41. The overall land use management implications of :Retained Rural Areas are described in Paragraph of the SDF inter alia in the following terms:

28 2.4.1 Retained Rural Areas Retained rural areas coincide with the EMF s Keep assets intact and Be careful Zones, thus no large scale development can be considered in these areas, only low key development aimed at supporting the primary purpose of the area. 42. As far as the Retained Rural Area in which the Development Property is located is concerned, a further specific land use restriction in imposed in term of Theme 3.2 (Heritage and Cultural Landscape) of the SDF which states as follows: 3.2 Retain the rural nature of the area through no develop on eastern side of R301 to protect mountain viewsheds and rural landscape. 43. The development property is clearly designated in the SDF for agricultural purposes DEA&DP will therefore not be authorized to approve any development proposal which is inconsistent with an agricultural designation. 44. In this regard the trust submits that the SDF will first have to be duly amended in terms of Section 28 of the Systems act read with Section 11 of the Western Cape Land Use Planning Act 3 of 2014 and the applicable provisions of the Land Use Planning By-Law of the Municipality. 45. The lack of infrastructure capacity in this area is described in some detail in this section of the SDF and the competent authority is requested to have regard to this very important fact. 46. As far as the impact on heritage resources is concerned, the BAR seems to suggest that Heritage Western Cape will have the final say as far as the protection of the heritage and cultural landscape east of the R301 is concerned. Such submission is legally unsustainable. The constitutional competency of municipal planning, in terms of Scheduel4 Part B to the Constitution, exclusively vests wit the Municipality. SDF s are prepared and adopted by the municipalities in the exercise of their powers and functions in respect of the constitutional competency of municipal planning. In terms of Section 35(1)(a) of the Systems Act, the Integrated Development Plan of a municipality of which a SDF forms a core component of, is the most important planning document. Notwithstanding the fact that Heritage Western Cape might, after consideration of a Heritage Impact Assessment, be of the view that the proposed development will have no significant adverse impacts on the heritage and cultural landscape of the area, such view will for purpose of the determination of the Applicant s environmental application be immaterial in view of the fact that the duly adopted SDF in specific terms disallows development on the eastern side of the R301, being the area in which the Proposed Development is to be undertaken. As stated above, it will not be competent for the DEADP to make a land development decision which is inconsistent with the SDF. In terms of Section 35(1)(b) the IDP of the Municipality binds the Municipality in the exercise of its executive authority. Urban Areas for Purposes of Regulations 47. The applicant submits that by reason of the fact that the Development Property is located within the urban edge of the municipality, that it constitutes land falling within an urban area for purposes of the Regulations. The Applicant then goes on to motivate why carious listed activities are not triggered because the location of the property within an urban area. These submissions are fundamentally incorrect for reasons stated in the paragraphs that follow. 48. The term urban areas is defined in the applicable Listing Notices as follows: urban areas means areas situated within the urban edge (as defined by the competent authority), or in instances where no urban edge or boundary had been defined or adopted, it refers to areas situated within the edge of built up areas. 49. The definition of the term urban areas in the applicable Listing Notices is the same as the definition of the same term in the 2010 Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations (the 2010 Regulations).

29 50. The Competent Authority for purposes of the listed activities in this matter is the Western Cape Provincial Minister of Local Government, Environmental Affairs and Development Planning who is the political head of the DEA&DP. 51. It is to be noted that there is a difference between urban areas, as defined in the Listing Notices and urban edges in terms of the Local Government: Municipal Systems Act 32 of 2000 (the Systems Act) and the Local Government Municipal Planning and Performance Management Regulations Urban area in terms of the Listing Notices may be defined an adopted only by the competent environmental authority, while urban edges in terms of the Systems Act, may only be defined by Municipalities. 52. In terms of NEMA EIA CIRCULAR 1 OF 2012: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT REGULATIONS, 2010, PROMULGATED IN TERMS OF THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ACT, 1998 (ACT 107 OF 1998) (the 2012 Circular), The Head of the DEA&DP confirms that the in terms urban edges, as defined in the Western Cape Provincial Spatial Development Framework 2009 (WCSDF), has been adopted for purposes of determining urban areas in terms of the Listing Notices. 53. Paragraph 18 of the 2012 Circular states as follows: 18 defining urban areas 18.1 The 2010 EIA Regulations (Listing Notices 1.2.3) define urban areas as areas situated within the urban edge, as defined or adopted by the competent authority, or in the instance where no urban edge or boundary had been defined or adopted, it refers to area situated within the edge of built up areas There is therefore a difference between urban areas in terms of the 2010 EUA Regulations and urban edges in terms of the Local Government: Municipal Systems Act (Act No. 32 of 2000) ( MSA ) and the Local Government: Municipal Planning and performance Management Regulations (2001). Urban Areas in terms of the EIA regulations may be defined and adopted only by the environmental authorities while urban edges in terms of the MSS may only be defined by Municipalities The interim urban edge as defined in the Western Cape Provincial Spatial Development Framework, 2009 (WCPSDF) has been adopted as an urban edge in terms of Listing Notices In terms of the WCPSDF the Intern Urban Edge means the current extent of the urban development including serviced erven and erven for which rezoning approvals have been granted Therefore, erven that were either already lawfully developed as urban development or where already rezoned or lawfully serviced prior to the date of this circular, are regarded as being within urban areas in terms of the 2010 EIA Listing Notices. The exception is if this Department has identified/adopted different urban areas for the environmental management frameworks, or a credible Spatial Development Framework. 54. The exception referred to in Paragraph 18.4 of the 2012 Circular, refers to instance where the Competent Authority has identified/adopted different urban areas for the purpose of the 2010 Regulations through the use of, for example Environmental Management Frameworks (EMO) or a credible SDF. The aforementioned provision is not the effect that urban areas are identified/adopted when an EMF is published or a credible SDF is adopted but a municipality. It is simply to the effect that the Department may use (ie take into account) an EMF and/or SDF when the Competent Authority identifies/adopts a specific area as an urban area in terms of the Regulations or any Listing Notice.

30 55. Although the Proposed Development is located within the Urban Edge, as determined in terms of the Systems Act, the definition of interim urban edge in terms of the WCPSDF is the operative determination for the purposes of the applicable Listing Notices. 56. The adoption of the interim urban edges as urban areas in terms of the 2012 Circular, is equally applicable to the 2014 Listing Notices as the definition or urban areas in terms of both sets of regulations is the same. Regulation 52(1) of the 2014 Regulations states as follows: Any actions undertaken in terms of the previous NEMA regulations and which can be undertaken in terms of a provision of these regulations must be regarded as have been adopted in terms of the Regulations. 57. Of specific importance is the fact that the term interim urban edge is defined in the WCSDF with reference to the current extent of urban development in 2009 including serviced erven and erven for which rezoning approvals have been granted. The trust submits that it is an incontestable fact that the Development Property is not located within the interim urban edge as defined in the WCPSDF. 58. By reason of the fact that the Development Property falls outside an urban area for purposes of the Regulations, the effect is had that various other listed activities are triggered for which environmental authorization is required and for which no application has been submitted. Need and Desirability 59. The trust repeats what is stated in Paragraph 19 above, namely that it is not the responsibility of the Trust or any other Interested and Affected Party to highlight the respects in which the BAR is not compliant with the Regulations or any applicable guideline. The trust specifically refers to the guidelines on Need and Desirability of the DEA&DP (2013) and submits that the draft BAR in material respects misrepresents the factual and legal positions as far as the need and desirability of the Proposed Development is concerned and very little attempt is made by the Applicant to comply with the applicable guidelines. The trust reserves the rights to deal with this instance of non-compliance in the further processing of the environmental application The Applicant is invited to carefully consider the so-called Need and Desirability Guidelines and to ensure that the final BAR complies with such guidelines. 60. The provision of Municipal Services, which includes bulk infrastructure services, is a duty of the Municipality. Section 73(2)(b) of the Systems Act states as follows: (2) Municipal services must (b) be provided in a manner that is conductive to (i) the prudent, economic, efficient and effective use of available resources; and (ii) the improvement of standards of quality over time; (c) be financially sustainable. 61. The Municipality may only spend money on capital projects, such as bulk infrastructure service, f the money for the project has been appropriated in the capital budget for the Municipality. Before approving a capital project the Municipality must comply with the strict procedural requirements in terms of Section 19 of the Local Government: Municipal Finance Management Act 56 of The applicant does not at all deal with the Infrastructure Master Plan of the municipality and its relevance to its application. In terms of Paragraph of the SDF, a Municipal Services Financial Model was run for the Municipality as part of the preparation of the SDF in order to quantify the impact that different spatial decisions would make on the need for capital expenditure in the Municipality, to the extent to which there would be sufficient finance

31 available to cover the expenditure and the impact that the capital expenditure was likely to have on the operating budget. It is not the Trust s responsibility to refer to or analyse these documents with reference to the merits or demerits of the Applicant s application. This is the statutory duty of the Applicant. 63. The trust submits that current road infrastructure is bot of a required standard and specifications to carry the traffic load to be created by the Proposed Development. The traffic impact study is merely a study dealing with trig generation, traffic volumes, access spacing and other traffic control measures. The traffic study does not at all deal with the carrying capacity of the road infrastructure. 64. The infrastructure upgrades referred to in the BAR will require several further environmental and other statutory authorizations. Various listed activities will be triggered by the installation of such bulk infrastructure services. The possibility of such application and the outcome thereof are obviously unknown factors in respect of which the competent authority should follow a risk averse and cautious approach. What is however know is that such upgrades will be required before the Proposed Development can proceed. Agricultural Value 65. It is repeatedly stated in the BAR that the Development Property has no agricultural value. The Trust strongly disputes this fact. As remarked above, the Trust s properties re in the immediate vicinity of the Proposed Development. The Trust successfully farms with vineyards and a plum orchard. The Trust submits that the Development Property is of good agricultural value. 66. The applicant seems to suggest that the agricultural value of the farm is exclusively determined with reference to the soil potential thereof. Soil quality is but one of the variety of factors which determines the agricultural potential of land. The Trust strongly disputes the fact that the agricultural value of the property is low and specifically the soil quality thereof. Alternatives 67. The consideration of alternatives is mandatory in terms of Section 24(4)(b)(i) which states as follows: 24(4) Procedures for the investigation, assessment and communication of the potential consequences or impacts of activities on the environment (b) must include, with respect to every application for an environmental authorisation and where applicable (i) investigation of the potential consequences or impacts of the alternatives to the activity on the environment and assessment of the significance of those potential consequences or impacts, including the option of not implementing the activity. 68. The applicant has not considered any alternatives. In terms of Paragraph 3(1)(h)(x) of Appendix 1, it is mandatory on any applicant to give a full motivation in the BAR if no alternative were considered, but the BAR does not at all comply with this provision. The Trust strongly disagrees with the following statement in the BAR, namely, No feasible activity alternatives exist for the proposed site 69. The aforementioned extract does not constitute a motivation for not considering alternatives. 70. The very consideration of a development in terms of the Regulations is about the considerations of alternatives relating to the development the consideration of alternatives being the key consideration of any Environmental Impact Assessment. It is mandatory on the Applicant to investigate alternatives and provide a reasoned motivation why no alternatives exist. Such motivation needs to consist of information on the consideration given to alternatives. In the context of this matter, it is incumbent on the Applicant to disclose the methodology and the criteria used to identify and investigate alternatives.

32 71. The Trust submits that, in line with the guidelines contained in the SDF, various other reasonable or feasible alternatives should have been identified and considered. Specific reference is made to the guidelines on alternatives of the DEA&DP. The applicant has also not complied with these guidelines. From a mere reading of the draft BAR and various statements about other development applications is the same area, it is obvious that other alternatives would find application. We await your response and notification when the final BAR will be available for comment. Good day Mr Swart, I hope you are well. Thank you for your interest and comment on the proposed development. Please refer to the section below as a response to your comments. 1. Noted. 2. Noted. 3. That is correct. 4. Noted. 5. Correct. 6. Correct 7. Correct 8. Correct 9. Correct. 10. Correct 11. Noted. 12. Noted. 13. Noted. 14. Correct 15. Correct 16. Noted. 17. The project team acknowledges your opinion, however the BAR was completed with the information available at the time to gain initial insight into the manner the proposed development would be received by the public. Since then, numerous additional specialist studies were conducted to address various concerns raised by the public and the commenting authorities. Due to the additional studies not being included in the first pre-application BAR, the project team decided that a second pre-application BAR would be sent out for review, as is the case currently. Since more information is available, the BAR could be completed in more depth.

33 18. GNEC shares your opinion and during the first public participation period for the second application, all the requirements for a normal first round public participation period was carried out. Please refer to Addendum E for proof of this PPP. 19. Noted. The project team did not request any Interested and Affected Parties and specifically also then not the Trust to assist with compliance with any statutory frameworks and will endeavor to not make such a request in the future. 20. Noted. 21. Noted. That is suitably quoted. 22. The SDF should be regarded as an important document, yes. 23. The statements in the BAR are not incorrect as numerous similar applications to the East of the R301 have received a positive comment from the Municipality and from the DEA&DP. These include the large Zandriff Residential Development, the new filling station and associated commercial activities on the corner of the R301 and Drakenstein Road, as well as the new Checkers development that was approved directly opposite the filling station on the corner of the R301 and Drakenstein Road. It is very important to remember that an EIA process is a holistic one, and is not limited to the black and white of the law. The fact that similar and much larger developments have been approved within the urban edge on the eastern side of the R301 created a president for future expansions along this road. There is very little room within the town of Paarl for development, however the need for housing and economic opportunities are immense and growing by the day. Security developments are definitely one of Paarl s main revenue generating activities and denying the town it s expansion will hinder its economic development. The trend has been set for development along this road and larger developments much further away from town, even outside the urban edge and on arable land, have been approved very recently. It is short sighted to only reference certain extracts from certain sections of policies and legislation. Key Performance Area (KPA) 23 in the Drakenstein Municipality Integrated Development Plan ( ) lists Job Creation as a major issue due to large industries closing down or relocating, resulting in negative growth for three consecutive years. KFA 25 on page 63 discusses agriculture and the agri-processing economy as the main employer of blue collar workers, however the associated challenge is the fact that these people are living below the household subsistence level. This reiterates that agriculture cannot be the only income generating activity in the municipality, it s just not viable. KFA 29 (Stability and Sustainability) supports this exact fact, highlighting the over reliance on the sustainability of the agricultural sector as a major issue. 24. An application for the amendment of the SDF has been submitted to the Municipality and is currently under review of the new SDF to be adopted in As mentioned above, an application for the amendment of the SDF was submitted to the Drakenstein Municipality. Secondly, please refer to the Socio Economic Impact Assessment for more detail on the need and desirability of the proposed development. Finally, The Drakenstein Municipality is currently undertaking three different EIA processes for bulk infrastructure to be constructed to service future developments in this area. This indicates that the Municipality envisions and plans for the extension of Paarl s urban area to the South of the N Noted, the BAR was updated to correct this typing error. 27. That is correct. 28. As mentioned above, a SDF amendment application was submitted to the Municipality and is currently under review. Furthermore, DEA&DP has already commented on the BAR. Their comments were also taken into consideration and addressed in the updated 2 nd Draft BAR.

34 29. Noted. 30. GNEC is aware of this. 31. This is quoted correctly. 32. Noted 33. GNEC supports your reasoning. 34. Noted. It is for this reason that an amendment application was submitted to the Municipality, as mentioned above. 35. Correct. 36. Correct. The Municipality however plans to expand their bulk infrastructure in this area and this is evident by acknowledging the three EIA process currently underway to authorize the expansions. 37. Correct. 38. Correct. 39. That is correct. 40. Noted, however, a president was made by allowing the amendment of the SDF to include developments on the eastern side of the R301 and subsequently authorizing these developments. The proposed Sence de Lieu development is currently undergoing exactly the same process of requesting the amendment of the SDF and gaining approval from the relevant commenting and competent authorities, which include the civil, environmental and heritage related departments at the Municipality, Heritage Western Cape (without who s positive ROD, DEA&DP will not authorize the development) and DEA&DP. 41. The proposed Sence de Lieu development will be located directly opposite the first entrance to Boschenmeer, which is a much higher density and much larger residential area than the proposed development. This portion of the Farm Hartebeeskraal has not been successfully farmed for year, and evidence of this is still present on site with irrigation infrastructure scattered across the land. The second portion of land owned by the same farmer, Portion 3 of Farm Hartebeeskraal 847 is of a much higher quality and is currently being farmed successfully. 42. GNEC is aware of this and a Heritage and Visual Consultant was appointed to investigate the impact of the proposed development on the natural landscape and heritage and cultural value thereof. In addition to this and as a per a condition from the Heritage and Visual Consultants, a Landscape architect was also appointed to assist with the beautification of the development to fit in with the cultural landscape. It is for this reason that attention is drawn to the 30m landscaped R301 frontage which will consist of agricultural crops known to the area which is either vineyards or olives. The architectural style of the development draws its inspiration from the old Paarl section of town, and consists of semidetached houses with large private open spaces between blocks of housing units, which facilitates community cohesion. 43. DEA&DP requested that comment be obtained from the Western Cape Department of Agriculture regarding the rezoning of the property. This was done during the first Public Participation Process and they requested that the property be assessed for its viability to farm successfully. A Soil Assessment was conducted to assess the quality of the soil on this portion of the larger farm and it was determined that the clay content is too high to viably farm this particular portion of the larger farm. This is supported by the numerous attempts but the farmer to cultivate crops in a viable manner, which unfortunately failed every time. It is a big claim to make that a farmer would purposely not cultivate half his property for no reason and not make take

35 any financial gains from a large portion of land, but would successfully farm the remainder. A decision of that nature would not make sense. The only one that would make sense if is that portion of land continuously made a financial loss, which made it unviable to farm. The proposed development is designed in such a way that the old Paarl character be extended south of the N1 and is therefore a new heritage and cultural resource for the town. 44. That is correct. An amendment application was submitted to the Municipality for review. 45. As mentioned above, the Municipality is currently in the process of three different EIA s for the authorization of bulk infrastructure in this area. The Municipality confirmed sufficient potable water and sewage treatment capacity at the source to service the proposed development, but noted that the developer will only be able to start construction one the bulk lines are in place. The developer, and the surrounding developers are aware of this and it is proposed that the construction of these lines might be done by the developers themselves. 46. Please note that Heritage Western Cape and the Department of Environmental Affairs have adopted an SOP where an EA is subject to a positive ROD from Heritage Western Cape. For this reason HWC still has the final say with regards to the protection of heritage and cultural resources. This does not mean that the Municipality s heritage department and other heritage bodies like Paarl 300 is not taken into consideration. Both these bodies are notified of the process and comment from them were requested. Furthermore, Heritage Western Cape only review s an HIA that has been subject to a Public Participation Process and that received comment from the relevant heritage bodies. They will therefore only provide a positive ROD if the affected heritage bodies are happy with the proposed development. This is therefore an ongoing process and the final BAR will not be submitted to DEA&DP without this positive ROD form HWC, as is required by the DEA&DP. 47. Noted. 48. This was quoted correctly. 49. That is correct. 50. Correct. 51. GNEC is aware of this. 52. Correct. 53. This is quoted correctly 54. Correct. 55. Correct 56. Correct. 57. Noted. GENC supports your reasoning that the development is not located in the interim urban edge or the urban area, but is located within the Municipally approved urban edge. 58. Please note that this is a pre-application process and no formal application has been made to the DEA&DP. The formal application will be made after the completion of this public participation period. All relevant Listed Activities will then be included in the formal application. Please also note that the various activities you are referring to, are in fact only two, and are not triggered due to the approved sewage line which was part of the Zandrift approval and the water line which runs down Drakenstein road. The parameters of the activities are therefore not triggered.

36 59. GNEC would then again like to reiterate that the trust was not approached to assist the project team with ensuring compliance with the regulations and guidelines and will endeavor to not do this in the future. Furthermore, GNEC does not agree with the non-compliance statement made as all the necessary and relevant commenting authorities were invited to participate in this commenting process. The requested Socio-Economic Impact Assessment, Soil Assessment, Heritage and Visual Assessments, were conducted as requested to determine the need and the desirability of the proposed development. Please refer to the updated BAR as well as the addendums for these assessments and conclusions drawn. 60. That is correct. 61. That is correct. 62. This is untrue. The Civil Engineering report assessed the capacity and location of bulk services in the vicinity in accordance with the Master Plan. GNEC furthermore determined that a bulk sewage line was approved as part of the Zandrift Residential Development and a Bulk Water Line is planned to be constructed in the Drakenstein Road. The Sence de Lieu development is in close vicinity to both these lines and will connect once construction of these lines have completed. The municipality commented on this application by noting that the bulk infrastructure needed is not available at this time and any upgrades are the responsibility of the client (applicant). The client therefore accepts this responsibility. 63. Please note that the R301 is a provincial road designed to cater for the needs of large and heavy trucks as well as smaller vehicles. The R301 is therefore constructed differently to a smaller road, like Drakenstein Road which is designed for a lesser carrying capacity. The Provincial Department of Transport and Public Works were asked to comment on the proposed development and they subsequently did. As with the bulk infrastructure, any upgrades required to the R301 which results from the proposed development is the responsibility of the client and the clients acknowledges and accepts this. 64. This is untrue. The infrastructure upgrades were assessed in this application and the relevant listed activities were included. 65. GNEC does not dispute the fact that the land located further up along Drakenstein Road and therefore closer to the mountain which is similar to the location of the Trust s land is good quality, however the lower lying land located along the R301 has not been cultivated for years due to unsuccessful crop production, which is supported by the soil assessment. 66. Noted. The farmer has stated that this portion of land has not been viable for him to farm because the input required to successfully farm this land has been more than the revenue generated from its cultivation. Farming this land is therefore not sustainable for him. 67. That is correctly quoted. 68. Noted, the BAR was updated to include the assessment of alternatives. 69. Noted. 70. Noted. 71. Please refer to the updated Activity Alternatives investigation for alternatives assessed before capital the proposed land use was decided on. 2 nd DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT Alana Duffell-Canham for CapeNature 3 July

37 Dear Euonell Thank you for providing CapeNature with an opportunity to comment on the 2 nd Draft Basic Assessment Report for this application. We do not wish to make any additional comments. Kind regards, Alana Good afternoon Alana, I hope you are well. Thank you for your response. I will include it in the Final BAR. Kind regards, Euonell Visagie Boschenmeer Home Owners Association (Contact 7 July Person: Aletha Ling) Herewith the continued concerns identified by Boschenmeer for which we need assurances that the developer will deal reasonably with the issues that such a development will cause to ourselves: 1. We have a major concern regarding the dust, noise and security issues that will result from, particularly the civil works and building construction phases of the project. 2. Nature of the development: We originally raised concerns regarding the Visual impacts. It is evident from the recently distributed documentation that additional reports were compiled in order to address some of the concerns raised during the first round of comments. It is confirmed in this report that the interface between the proposed development and the R301 will respect the existing Boschenmeer development, we welcome the introduction of a 30m setback from the R301 which will be landscaped with trees etc. and the extensive landscaping recommendations and mitigating measures which have been made in the 2 nd draft BAR which will soften the visual appearance of the development and heights. Provided the extensive landscaping and mitigating measures as indicated in this 2 nd draft BAR is implemented, it addresses the concern of potential visual impact of the development. 3. The traffic density on Wemmershoek Road is increasing at an alarming rate due to developments at Val de Vie, Pearl Valley, Fraaigelegen, Zanddrift and now Sence de Lieu (which are the ones of which we are aware, there may be others) A traffic impact survey must be done to assess both the impact of Sence de Lieu as well as the combined impact of these various developments with proposals for the consideration of the affected parties

38 Traffic impact of both the construction and operational phases need to be considered and impacts mitigated Any future developments related to the Sence de Lieu development such as a traffic circle opposite the Boschenmeer entrance must be done sensitively and not impede on any movement to and from the estate and must have no financial impacts on the Boschenmeer Estate. 4. During the development phase reasonable access to the site as well as documentation by AIPs may not be refused. The ECO must be available for regular meetings with the IAPs. Good day, I hope you are well. Thank you for your comment on the proposed development. Please refer to the section below for the project team s response: 1. The dust, noise and security impacts have been assessed in the 3 rd (Final) draft BAR and mitigation measures included in the Environmental Management Plan. The implementation of these measures will be audited fortnightly by an independent Environmental Control Officer and audit reports will be sent to the DEA&DP and client. If there is any violation of these measures during the construction period the ECO has the authority to issue to contractor with a warning and thereafter a fine. 2. We are pleased that the Visual Specialist and Landscaping Architect could successfully address concerns raised on this issue. 3. Please note that the Traffic Impact Statement conducted by ICE was approved by the Western Cape Department of Transport and Public Works and measures recommended in this assessment will be included as conditions of authorisation. 4. Noted. The ECO will be available to the I&AP s for questions and comments. Access to the site will have to be approved by the contractor and client so as to ensure the safety of everyone entering the construction area. ELCO Property Developments 10 July Dear Euonell OBJECTION TO PROPOSED SENCE DE LIEU DEVELOPMENT: FARM 845 PORTION 3, PAARL We act on behalf of MACREL Property Holdings (Pty) Ltd and MACREL Petroleum Suppliers (Pty) Ltd) J/2017/04/11/0002 the registered landowners of Portion 6 of Farm 849, Ronwe, located 520m toward the north of the proposed Sence de Lieu development. As you might be aware we have successfully rezoned our property on the 26 th of November 2015 in terms of the LUPO, 1985 from Agriculture Zone 1 to the following zonings: Business Zone V (±3872m 2 ) in order to establish a service / filling station; and Business Zone I (± 5658 m 2 ) in order to establish shops / offices, a restaurant and a wine boutique; Transport Zone II (± 3092 m 2 ) for the purposes of the existing public road. As you can appreciate from the above zonings obtained, the filling station included as part of our approval is the main economic driver in order to ensure the feasibility of our development. Furthermore, we have recently advertised and submitted our Site and Retail license applications to the Department of Energy and will commence with the construction of our filling station by September 2017.

39 The proposed Sence de Lieu filling station is situated ± 520m from our site. In this regard, please also note that a new BP Service Station is currently being constructed on the same access road in Jan van Riebeeck located less than 4km toward the north. An existing Shell garage is located 3.6km toward the north. A new service station was approved at Old Paarl Road approximately 3.7km from the site. The Paarl South area is thus already saturated with petrol station supply. Please refer to figure 1 below indicating the proximity of the proposed service station to our approved service station. We also now obtained the required approvals in order to trade and service this new development node. However the development of a second service station in such close proximity is deemed irresponsible and extremely excessive, especially seeing as no service station were previously located along this section of the R301. We are thus, strongly opposed to the proposed land use of a filling station as part of the Sence de Lieu development. Furthermore in light of this we would like to specifically object to the following: 1. The Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) completed is not sufficient in addressing the impact of the proposed service station. Neither the TIS nor the Socio Economic Assessment has addressed the Socio Economic impact of the Service Station on existing Service Stations in the area. 2. The Provincial Roads Network Management requested that a Full Traffic Impact Assessment be conducted, not a traffic impact statement as was conducted as part of the EIA.