Here you can find the submission by the Tamboerskloof Neighbourhood Watch on behalf of the Tamboerskloof Community [ Lion’s Hill - TBKWatch Comments and Response Document ] in response to the Draft Basic Assessment Report. Separately we have uploaded the documentation relating to three court cases referred to in our submission to support our view. We are registered as an Interested and Affected Party [I&AP] for the purposes of the “Proposed Lion’s Hill Residential Development in Tamboerskloof, Cape Town” (DEA&DP Ref. No. E12/2/4/1-A2/75-3039/10). Our submission was made on 25 February to Aurecon, the company tasked with the Environmental Impact Assessment [EIA]. Under the Documents tab, you will find the Draft and Final Basic Assessment Report [BAR] and the document calling for public participation. Please also read the submission in response to the Final Basic Assessment Report to be found under the next tab.
The 29 page document addresses a number of concerns by the Community. Please make the effort to read our submission. We urge you to provide supporting material and offer your skill and experience in managing our participation as an I&AP. We also strongly encourage you to read the submission by the City of Cape Town - Environmental Resource Management Department, raising same or similar concerns to those in the submission by TBKWatch [Comment on Draft BAR - City Of Cape Town Environmental Resource Management Department].
The document considers two broad categories and various sub-categories {all subcategories are in bold}.
Here we quote key points from our submission to Aurecon. All quotes are clearly indicated by single quotation marks (‘ ‘).
Inadequacy of Notification
‘…a number of residents who will be immediately affected by the proposed development…did not receive notification’
‘The strong impression which has been created is that Aurecon has deliberately kept the notification to as small an area as possible’
‘That is unacceptable, and contrary to what is evidently required by the relevant statues and regulations’
‘Many of those residents have seemingly not been notified of the proposed development, while a good number were only alerted …and apprised of their entitlement to make representations, as a result of the efforts of TBKWatch.’
The extent of the area subject to an EIA
‘Aurecon proceeded from the premise that it did not have to consider the impact of the rest of the proposed Lion’s Hill development - i.e. Blocks A, B, C, D, F, G and H - and could merely focus on Block E’
‘TBKWatch disagrees with that assumption…the impact of the rest of the development had to be assessed, and could not simply be ignored’
‘One must…assess the effect of adding 15 units on top of the construction of 102 units contemplated for rest of development’
‘Aurecon and its consultants have failed to consider the cumulative impact of the development. They have wrongly, and unhelpfully confined themselves to evaluating the impact of Block E’
‘The BAR is therefore fundamentally flawed for this reason as well‘
The zoning of the whole area as “residential”
‘…general concern of TBKWatch relates to the fact…the property in question has been zoned as “residential”’
‘TBKWatch would welcome some explanation from Aurecon on this subject; and reserves its right on this issue at this stage‘
In this section we consider some particular aspects of the BAR, and certain conclusions reached in that document in relation thereto.
We focus on the following aspects: (i) flora and fauna; (ii) traffic; (iii) municipal services; and (iv) visual, environmental and other impacts.
Under the section entitled:
Fauna and Flora
‘…members of TBKWatch do not have the expertise to comment on the botanist’s findings, and in part due to the limited or late notification have not had an opportunity to attempt to engage meaningfully or in depth with any persons of the requisite expertise, whether in relation to the Renosterveld or other plant species of conservation value’.
‘TBKWatch therefore cannot comment on whether the extent of the Renosterveld might be bigger than has been indicated – and it is not clear who has stated that it is only confined to the area of Block E – and reserves its rights in this regard’.
‘It is furthermore apparent that no assessment has been taken of “fauna”. The BAR works on the assumption that “extant fauna will vacate the site prior to the development of Block E”, and thus effectively disregards that aspect during the operational phase. The question of damage to, or loss of, fauna during the planning, design and construction phase does not appear to have been addressed.’
The section concludes that the extent of the EIA is incomplete.
Traffic
This section takes up 5 pages in the body of the submission plus a two-and-a-half page traffic report. Furthermore, 4 pages of photographs accompany the submission. It is relevant to all residents of Tamboerskloof, not only those in its direct vicinity. The submission provides substantial detail why this is the case. At this point we would like to highlight that Aurecon did not see the need for a traffic impact assessment or study, but rather, have opted what we consider to be a superficial, inadequate and misleading ‘traffic impact statement’.
‘There can be no doubt that even the construction, and subsequent occupation, of Block E by itself would have a significant effect on traffic in the surrounding areas of Tamboerskloof; while the overall development would have enormous ramifications’.
‘The fact that Aurecon could have assessed the “potential traffic impact” as “low” during the planning, design and construction phase, and not have taken “traffic impact” into account at all during the operational phase is therefore not merely wrong and misleading; it is beyond belief’.
‘The “Traffic Impact Statement” which was procured by Aurecon, and referred to in the BAR, is also fundamentally at odds with what Tamboerskloof residents know to be the case from living, driving and walking in the area’.
‘In the view of TBKWatch, the Traffic Impact Statement is superficial and erroneous, and should not be relied upon in order to form an assessment of the actual traffic impact of the development, or Block E. At the very least, a proper traffic impact study should therefore be conducted, preferably by someone other than Aurecon’.
A detailed description of various concerns directly related to Aurecon’s traffic impact statement is included in the submission. Please refer to the full document for further detail. It concludes with:
‘…The Traffic Impact Statement tries to downplay these sorts of problems by stating that: “In mitigation of concerns regarding access from and onto Kloof Nek Road, it is noted that the development site has good access through the local road network, with as many as 13 separate intersections offering access from or onto the broader network, thus allowing distribution of the traffic over a wide area. One of these, Burnside Road, joins Kloof Nek Road at a signalised intersection. On this basis, it has not been considered warranted to undertake a detailed analysis of any of the intersections.” The Traffic Impact Statement also continues, later in the same paragraph, stating that “there is rarely a queue development of more than two or three cars at any of the intersections, either onto or from Kloof Nek Road. The operation of Kloof Nek Road is generally such as to permit vehicles to enter and leave side roads with only limited delay.”’
‘It is particularly inexplicable that it could be suggested that there are “as many as 13 separate intersections offering access from or onto the broader road network”, and that Burnside Road could potentially ameliorate the problem of traffic congestion around the De Hoop, Upper Albert, Bay View, Varsity and St Michael’s axis’.
Municipal Services
‘The BAR assesses the significance on “municipal infrastructure and services” during the operational phase as “Low”. This is in part because of the fact that Block E consists of only 15 units, and also because the Traffic Impact Statement “does not identify significant impacts or issues of concern”’
‘The Traffic Impact Statement has already been critiqued above. As we have submitted, no reliance can be placed on that Statement. We have also pointed out the fallacy underlying an analysis which merely looks at the addition of 15 units to the current suburb. As we have pointed out, one must first (on the assumption underlying the BAR) consider the impact of building the rest of the development, and then assess the further consequences (or the cumulative impact) of constructing Block E’.
‘…even apart from those problems, Aurecon’s assessment of this aspect is clearly faulty, and betrays no appreciation of the current reality’
Significant sewage problems were raised by residents in De Hoop, Varsity, Bayview, Cambridge, Upper Albert and St Michael’s road.
‘The City Council appeared to overlook these problems when it “confirmed”, in its letter to Orrie, Welby-Solomon & Associates of 23 September 2010, “that the existing sewerage reticulation has sufficient spare capacity to cope with the calculated discharge from the proposed development on Erf. 1526, Tamboerskloof”’ A copy of this letter is included under the ‘Proposed Development’ tab.
A final section considers:
Visual, environmental and other aspects
Here it is worth noting that the City Bowl Residents and Ratepayers Association (CIBRA) was presented plans in 2008. 125 units were considered. As far as we understand, the current proposal is for 117 one, two and three bedroom units across 8 blocks.
‘TBKWatch has been informed by CIBRA that it has not been presented with an Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) or Visual Impact Assessment {VIA) report for the development, and has therefore not yet given any approval for the development’.