THE GREATER KYALAMI CONSERVANCY GEKCO Gauteng Conservancy Association Registration No: 055 Comments on proposed amendment of the Environmental Authorisation (Ref: GAUT: 002/07-08/N0934, as amended) 1. These comments are submitted by the Greater Kyalami Conservancy (“GEKCO”). 2.The applicant, Century Property Developments (Pty) Limited (“Century Properties”) is seeking to amend the Environmental Authorisation (“EA”) in respect of Portions 7, 36-38 & 121 of the Farm Diepsloot 211 JR (“the property”). An initial EA was granted by the Gauteng Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Environment (now the Gauteng Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, “GDARD”) in January 2010 under project reference GAUT: 002/07-08/N0934. Background information 3.The extent of the property is approximately 200 hectares. Initially, application was made to GDARD for a mixed use development on the property, the Riversands Lifestyle Estate. See annexure “A” for a map of the authorised layout. In essence, the property would be developed to include lower density residential, higher and medium density residential, a Club House, Sports Facilities, Educational land uses (schools and day care facilities), Conservation land, foot paths, equestrian tracks, jogging trails and children’s play areas, convenience retail within the land development area and edges thereof, showrooms, schools and places of instruction, Farm Stall, light industry, formal office development at certain entrances to the land development area, home office uses as part of the residential estate, and old age homes with associates frail care and medical support. Refer to annexure “B” attached hereto, which is a brochure that formed part of Century Properties initial application for the Riversands Lifestyle Estate. 4.Subsequent to this approved application, and almost 4 years after the initial EA was approved, Century Properties applied for an amendment to the EA. This amendment application (“the First Amendment”) was approved 18 February 2018. The First Amendment consisted of a 13 page amendment application prepared by LEAP (Dr Gwen Theron) and “Traffic Impact Memorandum” prepared by WSP SA Civil and Structural Engineers. The First Amendment sought to amend the EA to provide for the creation of a “light industrial and educational training incubation hub to service the Diepsloot area” (Amendment Application, dated 28 January 2013, page 1). It is further stated in the Amendment Application, page 3 onwards, that the “authorised development is amended in a manner that accommodates the specific need for the development of an Industrial Development Precinct (Annexure B). For instance the residential development is located south of the PWV5 and to the far east of the central service road. The [sic] away from the major road network to allow the light industrial and commercial mixed use [sic] The Special and Commercial Zoning to accommodate the light industrial and training facilities, lies along to the proposed Willem Nichol upgraded road and the PWV5 intersection. The ecologically significant area still runs through the centre of the site and provides much needed green space. Some residential and retirement units face on the open space that will be available for all residents of the development. The incubation hub zones on the western side of the development also linked to the open space. The Riversands Farm Stall is still planned for an upgrade. The current school that caters for Diepsloot residents will be upgraded.” 5.See attached annexure “C” which is the First Amendment layout as per the Amendment Application submitted, and approved by GDARD. 6.The proposed amendment application 7.Century Properties now wishes to amend the EA further to, in essence, provide for the whole of the 200 hectares to be an industrial area. This industrial area will be adjacent to agricultural land to the North and East of it and vacant land to the south. As such, the area will go from this, Annexure “D” to this, Annexure “E”. 8.GEKCO assumes that a comprehensive Amendment Application will be circulated to all interested and affected parties (“I&Aps”) in order for the I&APs to provide further comment on this proposed substantive amendment. In compiling the Amendment Application, it would be appreciated if the independent Environmental Assessment Practitioners can focus also on the impact that this amendment will have on neighbouring properties and not just the immediate property. 9.GEKCO has the following initial comments: 9.1industrial areas are notoriously noisy and unlike residential areas, where the noise is mostly limited to early mornings and evenings, the noise generated from an industrial area is continuous (this does not take into account the noise already generated from the construction activities already taking place on the property). It is recommended that a noise impact assessment is undertaken by an independent specialist and that this report is made available to all I&APs. GEKCO will be conducting its own research into the noise generated by an industrial area in comparison to a residential area and also that of an urban area. It should also be noted that the extent of the proposed industrial area will be 200 hectares, which will also impact on the noise generated and bounced around the built up area; 9.2the “terrain of the property is undulating and drops to a two stream corridors running through the middle of the land and along one portion of the western boundary. Two ridges run east west along the southern boundary and the northern portion of the land. The elevation varies from approximately 1358 and 1434 masl.” (Environmental Impact Assessment Report, prepared by African EPA, dated May 2008). As such, the industrial development will be visual, not only from the various roads (Mnandi, Erling, William Nichol) but also surrounding properties. Particularly, from the North, there is a view across the whole of the property. In fact the property can be viewed from Lourens and Lippizaner Drive, Beaulieu, Kyalami Equestrian Park and portions of Saddlebrook Estate (to mention a very few view sites not immediately adjacent to the site). Although the applicant is of the view that the “contemporary” design of the buildings will “generate a sense of progress and growth, improving the general character of the area” (Background Information Document) GEKCO requests that an independent visual impact assessment is undertaken to better understand the visual impact of the industrial area. See also in this regard, Annexure “E”. At this stage no visual representation has been provided to any of the I&APs. It should also be noted that this the visual impact should be compared to the visual representation first presented by the applicant, see Annexure “B”; 9.3although a Traffic Impact Memorandum was prepared at the end of January 2013 by WSP, in respect of the First Amendment, it is recommended that a further, more comprehensive traffic impact assessment is conducted. As stated above the layout of the internal roads of the development have changed significantly from the initial approval (January 2009, Annexure “A”) to the proposed layout, Annexure “F”. The impact assessment will also need to consider the impact of heavy vehicles that will be part and parcel of an industrial area. These heavy vehicles will not only impact on the traffic but also on noise and air pollution (emissions); 9.4the initial Fauna and Flora assessment, was prepared and finalised in December 2007. The assessment found that although the property did offer suitable habitat for various Red Data faunal species, none were present during the ‘walkabout’. A number of the residents in the area have indicated the presence of Red Data species on the property. GEKCO has appointed its own ornithologist to conduct an independent assessment and attach hereto as annexure “G”, a letter from Professor Andrew McKechnie, which recommends that a full assessment be conducted and that, specifically, GDARD conduct its own investigations. It has been almost 6 years since the last faunal assessment was conducted, which assessment was based on a desktop review, ‘walkabout’ and site visits. It is our view that any faunal assessment should be performed over a period of time (and not just one or two isolated site visits) and that the ideal time to verify the existence of some Red Data species would be during January and February (and not November and December) when such species are more active. In conducting this assessment it is important to consider the impact of the proposed amendment on adjoining / neighbouring areas as these areas are largely open grassland, which provides suitable habitat to Red Data species. As such, GEKCO recommends that a complete Fauna and Flora assessment be conducted and that such an assessment is provided to all I&APs. Furthermore, GECKO recommends that the assessment take place over a period of at least 6 months (the period for review in some international jurisdictions is up to 12 months) and that the assessment period cover the period January to March, at least. Of course such an assessment must be made available to all I&APs to consider; 9.5although much emphasis has been placed in the First Amendment and to a lesser extent in the current proposed amendment on the positive social impact this will have on the Diepsloot community, neither of the amendments seek to investigate the social impact an industrial area will have on the surrounding properties, more particularly the properties to the North and East of the property. The properties to the North and East are used for agricultural, equestrian and therapeutic purposes. Further afield are residential properties. These properties will all be impacted by the proposed amendment of the current EA and the development of a mega industrial area. It is inconceivable to have an industrial area situated next to an operating agricultural area and existing residential area. We consider it negligent that an independent social impact assessment was not conducted during the First Amendment process and request that such a social impact assessment be conducted. Such a report should be made available to all I&APs. GEKCO is currently sourcing an independent consultant to conduct its own social impact assessment; 9.6the current RSDF (Regional Spatial Development Framework) provides for the property (Riversands Farm) to be zoned as Medium Density Residential (for the most part) and a small area as a Regional Mixed Use Nodal Periphery. Regional Mixed Use Nodal Periphery can include the following land uses: high density residential; accommodation; educational; medical; social; retail; office; entertainment; motor trade; municipal; government; active and passive open space. A medium density residential node may include the following land uses: medium and high density residential; accommodation; educational; religious*; micro enterprise*; active and passive open space. (* these uses are subject to the relevant policy document). Although Century Properties is in the process of trying to amend the current RSDF the current zoning rights afforded to the property do not allow for light or commercial industry. Any amendment, even the First Amendment, is premature until such time that the zoning rights on the Farm have been amended. In the event that the RSDF is not amended Century Properties would not even be able to go ahead with the First Amendment sought as the current zoning does not allow for any industrial activities. This amendment application too then is premature and it is GEKCO’s view that GDARD cannot summarily ignore the current RSDF alignment; Procedural concerns 10.Our concern regarding procedural aspects to date, is around the advertisement of the proposed amendment and other notices that were placed in and around the property in order to notify the wider public and any interested and affected parties, which would include but not limited to Diepsloot residential, Saddlebrook Estate, Sun Valley, Beaulieu, Blue Hills and Kyalami Ridge AH. The notice was placed in “Die Beeld”, an Afrikaans newspaper. Further notices were placed on the property but in areas which are not readily accessible and/or visible to the public. It appears as if this was done to limit the public participation process and, in fact, flies in the face of the National Environmental Management Act, 107 of 1998 (“NEMA”) and the principles set out therein. We recommend that a further advertisement be placed in a widely distributed English newspaper that has a wider audience within this area and that a further time be allowed for further I&APs to register and comment on the initial Background Information Document. Other irregularities and/or concerns 11.GEKCO has noticed a number of discrepancies between the initial layout (Annexure A) and the proposed layout (Annexure “H”, the new proposed layout). The initial layout (Annexure A) provides for two river crossings and provides that the central road would end next to the current Riversands School. It appears now from Annexure “H” that the one river crossing has been taken away, however, the central road now crosses a stream next to (below) Riversands School. It is not clear whether this has been approved and in terms of what this has been approved. 12.Furthermore, the road, for which approval was initially sought was done in terms of the old GN Regulation 386 (15), ie the construction of a road that is wider than 4 metres or that has a reserve wider than 6 metres, excluding roads that fall within the ambit of another listed activity or which are access roads of less than 30 metres long as opposed to a road that will cater for more than one lane of traffic in both directions (Regulation 387 (6). Although the Regulations have since been amended it is clear that the road authorised is not the road currently being constructed. Attached hereto is a photo (Annexure “I”) of the road being constructed on the property. The road is clearly a road that will cater for more than one lane of traffic in both directions. 13.GEKCO was informed during February 2013 (by one of the applicant’s consultants) that a further amendment would be sought to convert the whole property into an industrial area. It is concerning that, as such, the applicant, through its independent environmental consultants sought to be dishonest in its First Amendment in providing that part of the property would remain residential (see the quote above from the LEAP report) when in fact it had no intention to do so. The only assumption to be made is that the applicant, perhaps on advice from its consultants, knew that such an amendment would not be approved due to the environmental and other impacts, and that, as such it sought to request the amendments separately thereby creating the appearance that the impact was not substantial. Thus in considering the current proposed amendment, the consultant would be able to (as it did with its First Amendment) make sweeping comments that there will be no impact as the adjoining area is already approved for industrial development. We request that GDARD consider this seriously and that a full impact assessment report be compiled in respect of the current proposed amendment seen together with the First Amendment. 14.Long term planning policies such as the Gauteng 2055 and Joburg’s GDS 2040 policies state that environmental conservation must be a priority as well as the protection of open space for climate change mitigation and to meet food security goals. Wetlands, endangered grasslands, and fragile biodiversity habitats will be destroyed by this development. This application does not give any thought or consideration to these pressing needs. A development of this nature grossly overlooks opportunities for achieving sustainable development goals. Sincerely yours, Kristin Kallesen Chairperson Greater Kyalami Conservancy [email protected]
Posted on: Tue, 01 Oct 2013 10:04:47 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015