Appeal against Woodacres – Portion’s 4, 24 and 30 of the farm Hartzenbergfontein 332-IQ. Gaut: 001/08-09/N756
With regards to our notice delivered/faxed to you on 13 July 2009, indicating our intention to appeal against the above Environmental Authorisation herewith is our appeal.
This association represents its members who are residents and ratepayers of Wards 5 & 7 of the Midvaal Municipality comprising, inter alia, the Hartzenbergfontein, Drumblade and Walkerville communities which would be affected by the proposed Blue Rose City Developments, as set out below.The association is an interested and affected party registered with Seaton Thomson & Associates. A copy of our constitution is attached.
It is respectfully requested that:
You set aside the environmental authorisation for the above and refuse to authorise the proposed development for the reasons outlined below.
In the alternative, if the proposed development is still authorised to proceed in terms of your decision on appeal, you vary the conditions imposed on the authorisation of the proposed development, in the manner as set out as below.
All original relevant documentation relating to the EIA process is in the possession of the Department and is accordingly available to you for purposes of your consideration of this Appeal.
GROUNDS FOR APPEAL
Public Participation
In our opinion, the public participation process was flawed. The only public meeting which was held prior to the Draft Scoping Reports being made available to the public was poorly presented and no questions from the public were answered. Midvaal Municipality was unhappy with this public meeting, as evinced in a letter to Dr R Graca from Mayor M Wenger dated 6 April -
“Following the public meeting on 7 October 2008 Midvaal openly expressed concern that the public participation process was not being handled correctly by the relevant parties… We immediately suggested that more meetings should take place in order to allow residents to fully explain their concerns”
We refer to Chapter 6 of GNR385 of 21 April 2006, as amended. 58 (2) which states:
“The EAP must give registered I&AP’s access to and an opportunity to comment on the reports, in writing, before submitting them to the competent authority”
(3) (b) and (d) were not adhered to as these reports were not made available to registered I&AP’s for comment.
The Comments and Responses Report in Appendix 21 of the EIA, compiled during the Scoping phase, was not updated to include any later comments made by the Interested and Affected Parties and we therefore question whether they were considered during the Department’s decision-making process.
Market Research Report
We are concerned that your Department might have used the Demacon report to assist you to reach your decision. However, it is our opinion that this report, which gave detailed statistics of anticipated economic benefits and job creation was inherently flawed. Large tracts of the text appear to have been copied and pasted from other developments, and we believe that most of its “findings” are questionable and would not withstand investigation.
Urban Edge / SDF
The Environmental Authorisation acknowledges that the development is outside the Urban Edge.
However, we refer to Midvaal Municipality’s Integrated Development Plan 2009/2010 which can be found on their website –
http://www.midvaal.gov.za/COUNCILINFO/IDP/tabid/54/ItemId/1189/Default.aspx
We also refer to Midvaal Spatial Development Framework 2009/2010 which refers to the areas proposed for development by Blue Rose Projects as “Rural Development: Agriculture and Tourism Focus Areas”
However, Volume 1 page 62 of the Final EIA for Woodacres states -
“The MEC for the Gauteng Department of Economic Development is currently in the process of adopting the Midvaal Local Municipal recommendations on the amendment of the Urban Edge and this will be forwarded to DACE shortly”.
The Environmental Authorisation does not acknowledge the agricultural value of the property as reported in appendix 6 of the EIA which states “agricultural potential and need for rehabilitation is high”
Investigation of Alternative Sites
The EIA States that no alternative sites have been considered by the developer, stating -
Alternative Sites for Development
The site is entirely privately owned and the application for its development is to be made by a private company and the boundaries are, therefore, defined. Therefore, no alternative site locations are possible for this development.
We believe that alternative land that is more suitable for this type of development – which also falls within the Midvaal Local Municipality’s proposed development nodes - is available in the area.
Layout Plan
The Environmental Authorisation states that “an amended lay-out plan taking all conditions into consideration is required before construction can commence”.
We request that this condition be amended to read “an amended lay-out plan taking all conditions into consideration is required before final authorisation can be granted”
In particular, the 1:100 flood line, river/stream and wetland areas, as stipulated in the Environmental Authorisation, must be clearly demarcated on the amended lay-out plan.
In addition, it appears, from the EIA, that, whilst specialist studies have been undertaken, they are not sufficiently detailed to allow any conclusive decisions on the sensitive areas to be reached. We submit that these studies must be undertaken -
By independent specialists
At the correct time of the year
For the correct length of time
Only then can the sensitive areas be properly defined and amended layout plans be submitted for public scrutiny and comment. Mitigating conditions can then be prescribed, and the final authorisation granted.
Stand Sizes
Woodacres Environmental Authorisation (GAUT 002/08-09/N756) (Page 5-6 states:
Under Key Factors, the fact that the “site is surrounded by agricultural and small holdings’ and the various alternatives 1-3 are regarded as significant (Page 11).
“b) The Department has chosen Alternative 2 [Res 1] for the proposed development owing to the sensitive nature of the site and the surrounding land uses…”
The Valleys Environmental Authorisation (GAUT 002/08-09/N0755)(Page 6):
“1.12 Only low density development may be undertaken on the proposed site which is in keeping with the low density pattern of the area”.
The minimum stand size currently allowed for properties adjoining Woodacres, is 5 acres. We request that this be applied to this development as it would be “in keeping with the low density pattern of the area”.
This is especially relevant since the development is described as an “Equestrian Estate with stables and a central country village” It is understood that one horse requires a minimum of 1,5 acres of grazing.
Sensitive Areas
The following conditions are appropriate to this development and should, we feel, be included in the Environmental Authorisation for Mountain View –
(a) The Environmental Authorisation for The Valleys states “development is only allowed on areas previously impacted by agricultural activities”. It is also appropriate to this development and must be included in the Environmental Authorisation for Mountain View.
(c) All sensitive areas should be demarcated with poles during the entire construction phase, not only the riparian zone and old cemeteries. No wetland has been acknowledged and therefore no conditions for its preservation and rehabilitation have been set. In addition the Environmental Authorisation must stipulate “Alien vegetation must be removed from the wetland area” as is stated in the Environmental Authorisation for Woodacres.
(f) Plants that would be destroyed during site clearing must be incorporated into the landscape plan, particularly the Pineapple lilies.
The trend is moving towards green building design and technology and, whilst the Environmental Authorisation acknowledges this, the wording must be more specific to ensure the development incorporates environmentally friendly technology.
For GDACE’s policy on caves, please refer to –
GDACE REQUIREMENTS FOR BIODIVERSITY ASSESSMENTS
Format for biodiversity assessments, Updated July 2006
SENSITIVITY MAPPING RULES FOR BIODIVERSITY ASSESSMENTS
The objective of a sensitivity mapping exercise is to determine the location and extent of all sensitive areas that must be protected from transforming land uses. A development proposal is only considered compatible with the biodiversity sensitivities of the site if all sensitive areas are avoided and are incorporated into an open space system.
The sensitivity map must be constructed within a GIS so that it can inform the proposed development layout and enable comparative analyses between sensitive areas and the proposed activity.
Caves
All caves and a 500m buffer zone must be designated as sensitive.
No mention is made of caves on Perdeberg Mountain. All caves on Perdeberg must be identified in the layout plans and protection measures must be stated in the Environmental Authorisation.
Size of Development
Volume 1 of the Final EIA states –
“The proposal will also provide for ±38 hectares of private open space within the development”.
As no details are given for the 38 hectares referred to as “private land”, or where on the development it is situated, restrictions or conditions are stated in the Environmental Authorisation.
The EIA Report and layout plans must be amended to include this information so that GDACE can stipulate the applicable restrictions and conditions to any planned development of the “private land”.
Environmental Committee
We request that a Residents Environmental Committee be included in the conditions imposed by GDACE, to liaise with the “Independent Environmental Officer” to be appointed for the development, to ensure the mitigation measures imposed are strictly enforced and adhered to.
Seaton Thomson, in their letter of 11 November to Midvaal Municipality talk of a Developers Working Committee. It is requested that this committee be mandated in the Environmental Authorisation.
Yours truly,
A H Ashdown
Chairman