Only the Draft Basic Assessment Report [BAR] was made available to the public. As noted under the ‘Public Participation’ tab, this report is confined only to Block E, or 15 of the proposed 117 unit development. Post the initial public participation period [February 2011], the Final BAR was made available, together with a traffic addendum and the ‘Comment and Response Report [CRR]’. Please note that the CRR erroneously excludes a number of the issues raised by us and other Interested and Affected Parties [I&APs]. The CRR is submitted to the Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning [DEA&DP] as the official record of all concerns raised by I&AP’s.
All other documents on this page where sourced by Tamboerskloof residents, specialists and other contributors.
Draft Basic Assessment Report
This document has been prepared by Aurecon for the developer: The Lion’s Hill Property Development Company. Please note that it relates only to 15 units of the 117 units planned, or Block E - one of 8 residential blocks proposed for the site.
Draft Basic Assessment Report Cover - January 2011
Draft Basic Assessment Report - January 2011
Final Basic Assessment Report
This document has been prepared by Aurecon for the developer: The Lion’s Hill Property Development Company. Please note that it relates only to 15 of the 117 units planned, or Block E - one of 8 residential blocks proposed for the site.
Final Basic Assessment Report - May 2011
Locality Maps
Site Plans
Biodiversity Overlay
These are the biodiversity overlays as used by the environmental consultant to Aurecon on behalf of the developer.Please refer to the submission by the City of Cape Town (available under the TBK Community Submission tab) with regard to the vegetation maps used. An excerpt from the City’s submission is quoted below:
‘There seems to be some discrepancy between the vegetation maps used in the botanical assessment and the maps used by the City of Cape Town’s Biodiversity Management Department. The maps used by Council are of a finer scale than that of the consultant’s thus making the boundary of the two vegetation types found on site present differently. This has further implications with regards to the EIA process as, depending on which boundary is used, the entire site may need to be assessed in terms of the amended NEMA Regulations (please see Biodiversity Management’s comment below)’.
Please note that the City Council’s own Environmental Resource Management department disputes the validity of the overlays.
See excerpt from City Council submission (full document found under the Public Participation / Submission tab):
“There seems to be some discrepancy between the vegetation maps used in the botanical assessment and the maps used by the City of Cape Town’s Biodiversity Management Department. The maps used by Council are of a finer scale than that of the consultant’s thus making the boundary of the two vegetation types found on site present differently. This has further implications with regards to the EIA process as, depending on which boundary is used, the entire site may need to be assessed in terms of the amended NEMA Regulations…It is suggested that due to the discrepancy in maps as well as the sensitivity of the vegetation at stake, that the entire site is assessed in the NEMA process.”
Letter requesting change in title
This letter from Aurecon to the DEA&DP requests a change in title to reflect only 15 of the planned 117 units of Lion’s Hill.
Letter to DEA&DP re amendment to title
Letter from DEA&DP to Werksman’s Attorney
This letter makes certain assumptions about the extent of the required EIA and considers the independence of Block E. This letter is referred to in detail in the submission by TBKWatch and the submission by the City of Cape Town. Both submissions conclude that the relevant legislation has been misinterpreted. We maintain our rights in this regard.
Letter from DEA&DP to Werksman’s attorneys re application of NEMA [2010]
Visual Impact Assessment
An excerpt from the VIA compiled for and on behalf of the developer. The VIA document is dated July 2007 / July 2008.
‘Lion’s Hill will have a significant high local visual impact on the western city bowl as a result of the destruction of half the existing woodland on site. The site was heavily covered in woodland, mostly exotic, some indigenous, which was a great asset to this high profile site on the feet of Lion’s Head. While the development will not appear particularly out of place it will be noticeable as an extension of Tamboerskloof. The building designs are generally sympathetic to visual issues and the roofscape has been improved with roof gardens as per our recommendations. The landscape plan did not respond well to the need to conserve the existing woodland so we have recommended that the woodland that was destroyed is now replanted and that building locations be adjusted around the surviving trees. This report finds that the proposed development has already had a high, local visual impact as a result of the unnecessary woodland destruction. Mitigation is now severely reduced due to the loss of mature trees on site but recommendations are made to mitigate this visual and aesthetic impact’.
Lion’s Hill Visual Impact Assessment
Traffic Impact Statement
Compiled by Aurecon on behalf of the developer. This document has been discussed in detail in the submission by the Tamboerskloof Community.
Lion’s Hill Traffic Impact Statement
Heritage Statement
Heritage Statement - Aikman Associates August 2008
Executive Summary:
“Erf 1526 falls outside the Tamboerskloof urban conservation area. The assessment that has been carried out indicates that the heritage resource identified as being of aesthetic and historical significance: the remnant woodland on the site can be conserved and its quality enhanced through the development of the proposed residential complex and its landscaping. Moreover the development will have significant socio-economic benefits. No further studies are required.”
In his opening paragraph, the author claims that the “development of the site also falls outside the provisions of the National Environmental Management Act (No. 107 of 1998) and its Regulations.” Post the introduction of NEMA [2010] this statement is clearly no longer valid or correct.