Here you can find the follow-up submission by the Lionswatch Action Group collective [TBKWatch, CIBRA and DSK] Lionswatch Submission to Final Basic Assessment Report. We strongly encourage you to read the full document.
The three judgements referred to in our initial submission [see Lionswatch submission to Draft BAR] are found under the ‘Supporting Case Documentation’ tab.
You will find a full copy of the submission at the Tamboerskloof library in Kloof Street.
On this site, we have uploaded the appendices separately below. The full document [including appendices] consists of 39 pages.
Appendix A: Lion’s Hill Coverage Plan
Appendix B,C,D: Traffic Photos, CIBRA response [2008], Traffic Impact Report
Appendix E: Aurecon Traffic Statement Review - Kantey & Templer Consulting Engineers
Appendix F: City of Cape Town Biodiversity Maps
Appendix G: City of Cape Town Environmental Resource Management submission
The 39 page document supplements our submission in response to the draft basic assessment report submitted to Aurecon in February, 2011.
Here we highlight just some of the additional comments and material submitted made the TBK/CIBRA/DSK submission in response to the Final BAR
Introduction
‘Aurecon has failed to appropriately and satisfactorily respond to and address the concerns raised in the submission made by TBKWatch on the 25th of February, in response to the draft Basic Assessment Report of January 2011’
‘Aurecon’s failure in this regard not only reflects poorly on Aurecon itself, but also seems indicative of a general disregard and dismissal of valid and serious concerns raised by the directly affected public’
‘Furthermore, a number of serious concerns and procedural errors raised in the section entitled ‘General Comments’ were omitted in their entirety from the comment and response form [‘CRR_Lion’s Hill development_DM12 April11 updateddx’ ] and the FBAR. Aurecon, thereby, appears to have chosen not only to ignore these issues but also deliberately to exclude these from the ‘Comment and Response form’ presented to the DEA&DP in its application for authorisation.
‘…These are fundamental to any assessment of the validity of the Basic Assessment Report as presented to the public for the public participation process and the DEA&DP and necessary, but not sufficient, for the DEA&DP to evaluate the application for authorisation of the proposed development.’
Under the section entitled: The extent of the area subject to an EIA and the separation of environmental authorisation and the listed activities
‘The area which is intended to be developed is, however, all situated on one erf, namely Erf 1526, Tamboerskloof. The activity which has triggered the EIA (Activity 12 of Listing Notice 3 of R546) would therefore take place on the entire Erf 1526 and not only on block E. The usual position, as we understand it, would accordingly be for the EIA to be conducted in respect of the whole of Erf 1526; and for any development on Erf 1526 to have to be subject to an EIA process over the entire Erf.’
‘The understanding of TBK/CIBRA/DSK has been confirmed by legal advice. Where a development of an erf involves a listed activity, and thus triggers an EIA, the entire development, on the whole erf (and not only a portion thereof), must be assessed.’
Under the new section 1.2.1: The application of the separation of the environmental authorisation process and the listed activities within the NEMA regulations
‘…The application seeks to separate Block E from the remainder of the development and only subject this portion of the land to an application for environmental authorisation.’
‘…On the clear wording of this activity, the approach of separating the application for environmental authorisation into two separate activities is therefore in conflict with requirements for this activity’
‘…Of note in this respect is that almost all of erf 1526 has been declared as a critical biodiversity Area (CBA). The latest City of Cape Town Biodiversity Network (GIS data updated 2010) shows that the bulk of the ERF 1526 (excluding the southern arm along the sports field on which Block A is located) is categorised as a CBA category 1b (CBA1b). This has a direct implication with regards to the extent of the EIA process. Blocks B through E trigger the EIA regulations [Activity 12 of Listing Notice 3 (R546)) and not just Block E. Classification CBA1b is the second most important category in the BioNet, and is described as “Critically Endangered Vegetation of High and Medium quality; Needed for national conservation targets; Any loss is a permanent and irrevocable loss”. Hard infrastructure “should not be situated in CBAs”.’
For sight of the correct biodiversity maps, please refer to appendix F, that clearly shows the bulk of ERF 1526 being covered by vegetation classified as CBA1b. Aurecon was notified of the correct biodiversity maps by the City of Cape Town’s Environmental Resource Management department [see appendix G] in response to the Draft BAR by Aurecon and again by TBK/CIBRA/DSK in response to the Final BAR prior to submission to the Department of Environmental Affairs & Development Planning [DEA&DP] of Aurecon’s final application.
‘As the above demonstrates, the affected CBA transgresses the majority of the property and therefore the removal of vegetation on the whole of this CBA should be considered, and not just on a portion thereof’.
TBK/CIBRA/DSK conclude section 1.2.2 with the following comments:
‘TBK/CIBRA/DSK submit that (i) the premise underlying the BAR is fundamentally flawed, (ii) Block E’s development is integral to the entire development, and (iii) the scope of the current FBAR as submitted to the public for comment is consequently far narrower than it should have been’
TBK/CIBRA/DSK conclude section 1.3 [The failure to consider alternatives], with the following comments:
‘The fact that it did not do so means that the assessment is inadequate and non-compliant’
TBK/CIBRA/DSK conclude section 1.4 [The extent of Aurecon’s evaluation and impact assessment], with the following comments:
‘Aurecon and its consultants have failed to consider the cumulative impact of the development…The BAR is therefore fundamentally flawed for this reason as well.’
Under section 2.1 [Flora and Fauna], the submission again highlights the use of incorrect vegetation maps:
‘…as noted in section 1.2 above, the use of the incorrect vegetation maps by Aurecon [despite this obvious error being brought to the attention of Aurecon by the City of Cape Town’s Environmental Resource Management department in response to the DBAR of January 2011 and before the finalisation of the FBAR of May 2011] renders the FBAR and the EIA in its current form invalid. As can be clearly seen on City of Cape Town’s Biodiversity Network map [appendix F], the bulk of the site is covered by vegetation classified CBA 1b. This has implications for the EIA process as development of Blocks B,C,D,E,F,G and H trigger 12 of the listing Notice 3 of the newly amended Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations [Government Notice R. 543, R544, R546 and R547 in Government Gazette No. 33306 of 18 June 2010].’
Section 2.2 [Traffic] provides a formal review undertaken by Kantey and Templer Consulting Engineers of the traffic statement (and additional comment included in the FBAR) as provided by Aurecon. Please see full report under appendix E.