Proposed New CBD Bypass Road in Hermanus Amended Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report
Report Prepared for Western Cape Department of Transport and Public Works: Roads Infrastructure Branch
D
Report Number 448281/8
DEA&DP Reference Number: 16/3/1/2/E2/15/2124/14 Heritage Western Cape Reference Number: 14112403AS1203E BGCMA Reference Number: 4/10/2/G40H/Hermanus CBD Bypass Road
Report Prepared by
September 2020 SRK Consulting: 448281 Hermanus CBD Bypass Amended Final EIA Report Page i
Proposed New CBD Bypass Road in Hermanus Amended Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report
Western Cape Department of Transport and Public Works
DEA&DP Reference Number: 16/3/1/2/E2/15/2124/14 Heritage Western Cape Reference Number: 14112403AS1203E BGCMA Reference Number: 4/10/2/G40H/Hermanus CBD Bypass Road
SRK Consulting (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd. The Administrative Building Albion Spring 183 Main Rd Rondebosch 7700 Cape Town South Africa
e-mail: [email protected] website: www.srk.co.za
Tel: +27 (0) 21 659 3060 Fax: +27 (0) 21 685 7105
SRK Project Number 448281
September 2020
Compiled by: Peer Reviewed by:
Sue Reuther Chris Dalgliesh Principal Environmental Consultant Principal Environmental Consultant
Email: [email protected] Authors: Sue Reuther, various specialists
REUT/DALC 448281_Hermanus CBD Bypass_Amended FEIR_Finalised September 2020 SRK Consulting: 448281 Hermanus CBD Bypass Amended Final EIA Report Page i
Note:
The Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning (DEA&DP) issued a letter on 19 March 2018 rejecting the Hermanus CBD Bypass Final EIA Report and listing a number of aspects that DEA&DP requests are addressed in an Amended Final EIA Report, which must be released for public comment once amended and before being resubmitted to DEA&DP for decision‐making. These aspects are listed in the Comments and Responses Report in Appendix Q6. The Final EIA Report was updated to address DEA&DP’s comments and to produce the Amended Final EIA Report for public comment. All changes in the Amended Final EIA Report and Executive Summary vis-a-vis the previously released Final EIA Report are italicised and underlined for easier reference. Following the comment period on the Amended Final EIA Report, this report was updated to capture relevant information relating to the stakeholder engagement. All final changes in this Amended Final EIA Report and the Executive Summary vis-a-vis the Amended Final EIA Report released for public comment are italicised, underlined and in blue font for easier reference. Comments received during the comment period were incorporated into the Comments and Responses Report in Appendix V6.
REUT/DALC 448281_Hermanus CBD Bypass_Amended FEIR_Finalised September 2020 SRK Consulting: 448281 Hermanus CBD Bypass Amended Final EIA Report Page ii Profile and Expertise of EAPs SRK Consulting (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd (SRK) has been appointed by the EFG Engineers (Pty) Ltd (EFG) and iCE Group (Pty) Ltd (iCE) Joint Venture (the Joint Venture) to undertake the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process required in terms of the National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998 (NEMA).
SRK Consulting comprises over 1 300 professional staff worldwide, offering expertise in a wide range of environmental and engineering disciplines. SRK’s Cape Town environmental department has a distinguished track record of managing large environmental and engineering projects, extending back to 1979. SRK has rigorous quality assurance standards and is ISO 9001 accredited.
As required by NEMA, the qualifications and experience of the key independent Environmental Assessment Practitioners (EAPs) undertaking the EIA are detailed below.
Project Director and Reviewer: Christopher Dalgliesh, BBusSc (Hons); MPhil (Environmental Science) Registered Environmental Assessment Practitioner (EAP) Chris Dalgliesh is a Partner at SRK Consulting and the Head of the Environmental Department in Cape Town. He has over 25 years of experience as an environmental consultant working on a broad range of EIA, auditing, environmental planning and management, public consultation and environmental management system projects. Chris’s experience includes managing and co-ordinating major EIAs throughout Southern and West Africa and South America in the mining, energy, land-use planning and development, water and waste management and industrial sectors.
Project Manager: Sue Reuther, BSc Hons (Economics); MPhil (Environmental Management) Registered Environmental Assessment Practitioner (EAP) Sue Reuther is a Principal Environmental Consultant with more than 14 years of experience, primarily in South Africa, Southern and West Africa and South America (Suriname). She has managed complex environmental impact assessments for a wide range of projects in the infrastructure, mining, coastal and industrial sectors. Sue also has extensive experience with strategic environmental planning as well as economic, resource economic and social impact assessments. She has two years of previous experience in strategy and financial research.
Statement of SRK Independence Neither SRK nor any of the authors of this Report have any material present or contingent interest in the outcome of this Report, nor do they have any pecuniary or other interest that could be reasonably regarded as being capable of affecting their independence or that of SRK.
SRK has no beneficial interest in the outcome of the assessment which is capable of affecting its independence. Disclaimer The opinions expressed in this report have been based on the information supplied to SRK by the Joint Venture. SRK has exercised all due care in reviewing the supplied information, but conclusions from the review are reliant on the accuracy and completeness of the supplied data. SRK does not accept responsibility for any errors or omissions in the supplied information and does not accept any consequential liability arising from commercial decisions or actions resulting from them. Opinions presented in this report apply to the site conditions and features as they existed at the time of SRK’s investigations, and those reasonably foreseeable. These opinions do not necessarily apply to conditions and features that may arise after the date of this Report, about which SRK had no prior knowledge nor had the opportunity to evaluate.
REUT/DALC 448281_Hermanus CBD Bypass_Amended FEIR_Finalised September 2020 SRK Consulting: 448281 Hermanus CBD Bypass Amended Final EIA Report Page iii Table of Contents
1 Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Background and Introduction ...... 1 1.2 Purpose of the Report ...... 1 1.3 Structure of this Report ...... 1 1.4 Content of Report ...... 4 1.5 Assumptions and Limitations ...... 5 2 Governance Framework and Environmental Process ...... 6 2.1 South African Legislation ...... 6 2.1.1 National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998, as Amended ...... 6 2.1.2 EIA Regulations ...... 7 2.1.3 National Water Act 36 of 1998 ...... 9 2.1.4 National Heritage Resources Act 25 of 1999 ...... 10 2.1.5 National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act 10 of 2004 ...... 10 2.1.6 National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act 57 of 2003 ...... 11 2.1.7 Western Cape Nature Conservation Ordinance, 19 of 1974 ...... 12 2.2 Policy Framework ...... 13 2.2.1 Western Cape Provincial Spatial Development Framework (2014) ...... 13 2.2.2 Western Cape Provincial Land Transport Framework (2011/12 – 2015/16) ...... 17 2.2.3 Overberg District Municipality Integrated Development Plan (2017/18 – 2021/22) ...... 17 2.2.4 Overberg District Municipality Spatial Development Framework (2014) ...... 17 2.2.5 Overstrand Local Municipality Integrated Development Plan (2017/18 – 2021/22) ...... 18 2.2.6 Overstrand Local Municipality Integrated Development Framework (2013) ...... 19 2.2.7 Overstrand Local Municipality Spatial Development Framework (2020) ...... 23 2.2.8 Overstrand Local Municipality Integrated Transport Plan (2012-2016) ...... 26 2.2.9 Overstrand Local Municipality Strategic Environmental Management Framework (2013) ... 26 2.2.10 Hermanus District Growth Management Strategy (2010) ...... 26 2.2.11 Hermanus CBD Regeneration Framework ...... 27 2.2.12 Draft National Biodiversity Offset Policy (2017) ...... 30 2.2.13 Draft Western Cape Guideline on Biodiversity Offsets (2015) ...... 31 2.3 Environmental Assessment Process ...... 32 2.3.1 Submission of Applications ...... 34 2.3.2 S&EIR Process and Phasing...... 35 3 Project Description ...... 37 3.1 Introduction ...... 37 3.1.1 Background to the Project ...... 37 3.1.2 Overview of Previous Bypass Proposals ...... 38 3.2 Description of the Project Area ...... 41 3.2.1 Bypass Route Description ...... 41
REUT/DALC 448281_Hermanus CBD Bypass_Amended FEIR_Finalised September 2020 SRK Consulting: 448281 Hermanus CBD Bypass Amended Final EIA Report Page iv
3.2.2 Surrounding Land Use ...... 45 3.3 Project Motivation ...... 53 3.3.1 Traffic Projections ...... 55 3.3.2 Required Functionality of the R43 through Hermanus ...... 66 3.3.3 Current Functionality of the R43 through Hermanus ...... 66 3.3.4 Anticipated Future Trends Affecting the Functionality of the R43 ...... 68 3.3.5 Aims and Objectives of the Hermanus CBD Bypass ...... 70 3.4 Project Alternatives ...... 71 3.4.1 Alternative Alignments of the Hermanus CBD Bypass Not Considered Feasible ...... 76 3.4.2 Feasible Alternative Alignments of the Hermanus CBD Bypass...... 90 3.4.3 The No-Go Alternative ...... 96 3.5 Project Description ...... 99 3.5.1 Road Design Aspects ...... 100 3.5.2 Processes Preceding Project Implementation ...... 108 3.5.3 Construction Phase ...... 110 3.5.4 Project Operations ...... 111 4 Description of the Affected Environment ...... 113 4.1 Biophysical Environment ...... 113 4.1.1 Topography ...... 113 4.1.2 Geology ...... 113 4.1.3 Climate ...... 114 4.1.4 Air Quality ...... 116 4.1.5 Noise ...... 117 4.1.6 Hydrology and Surface Water ...... 118 4.1.7 Hydrogeology ...... 126 4.1.8 Vegetation and Habitats ...... 127 4.1.9 Fauna ...... 133 4.1.10 Conservation Areas ...... 134 4.2 Socio-economic Environment ...... 137 4.2.1 Regional Socio-economic Environment ...... 137 4.2.2 Local Socio-economic Environment: Overstrand Municipality and Hermanus ...... 137 4.3 Cultural and Historical Environment ...... 142 4.3.1 Historical Context ...... 142 4.3.2 Archaeological Context ...... 142 4.3.3 Paleontological Context...... 143 4.3.4 Visual and Aesthetic Environment ...... 144 4.4 Ecosystem Services ...... 147 4.4.1 Introduction ...... 147 4.4.2 Ecosystem Services Potentially Affected by the Bypass ...... 150 5 Stakeholder Engagement ...... 152 5.1 Objectives and Approach to Stakeholder Engagement ...... 152
REUT/DALC 448281_Hermanus CBD Bypass_Amended FEIR_Finalised September 2020 SRK Consulting: 448281 Hermanus CBD Bypass Amended Final EIA Report Page v
5.2 Stakeholder Engagement during the Scoping Phase ...... 152 5.2.1 Identification of Key Stakeholders ...... 153 5.2.2 Notification of the EIA Process ...... 153 5.2.3 Stakeholder Meetings during the Initiation Phase ...... 154 5.2.4 Notification of the Scoping Report for Public Comment ...... 154 5.2.5 Public Open Day and Focus Group Meetings ...... 154 5.2.6 Notification of the Final Scoping Report for Public Comment ...... 155 5.2.7 Stakeholder Comments ...... 155 5.2.8 Submission of Final Scoping Report ...... 157 5.3 Stakeholder Engagement during the Impact Assessment Phase ...... 157 5.3.1 Stakeholder Engagement on the draft EIA Report ...... 158 5.3.2 Stakeholder Engagement on the Final EIA Report ...... 160 5.3.3 Stakeholder Engagement on the Amended Final EIA Report...... 161 6 Environmental Impact Assessment ...... 170 6.1 Introduction ...... 170 6.1.1 Environmental Impacts Identified ...... 170 6.1.2 Specialist Studies Undertaken ...... 171 6.1.3 Specialist Study Reviews ...... 171 6.1.4 Alternatives Assessed in the EIA ...... 173 6.1.5 Impact Assessment Methodology ...... 173 6.1.6 Integration of Studies into the EIA Report and Review ...... 175 6.2 Potential Air Quality Impacts ...... 175 6.2.1 Introduction, Terms of Reference and Methodology ...... 175 6.2.2 Assessment of Impacts: Construction Phase...... 176 6.2.3 Assessment of Impacts: Operational Phase ...... 176 6.2.4 The No-Go Alternative ...... 177 6.2.5 Mitigation Measures: Potential Air Quality Impacts ...... 178 6.3 Potential Noise Impacts ...... 179 6.3.1 Introduction, Terms of Reference and Methodology ...... 179 6.3.2 Impacts of Noise ...... 183 6.3.3 Assessment of Impacts: Construction Phase...... 183 6.3.4 Assessment of Impacts: Operational Phase ...... 183 6.3.5 The No-Go Alternative ...... 188 6.3.6 Mitigation Measures: Potential Noise Impacts ...... 188 6.4 Potential Freshwater Impacts ...... 189 6.4.1 Introduction, Terms of Reference and Methodology ...... 189 6.4.2 Assessment of Impacts: Construction Phase...... 190 6.4.3 Assessment of Impacts: Operational Phase ...... 194 6.4.4 The No-Go Alternative ...... 196 6.4.5 Mitigation Measures: Potential Freshwater Impacts ...... 196 6.5 Potential Terrestrial Ecology Impacts ...... 199
REUT/DALC 448281_Hermanus CBD Bypass_Amended FEIR_Finalised September 2020 SRK Consulting: 448281 Hermanus CBD Bypass Amended Final EIA Report Page vi
6.5.1 Introduction, Terms of Reference and Methodology ...... 199 6.5.2 Assessment of Impacts: Construction Phase...... 200 6.5.3 Assessment of Impacts: Operational Phase ...... 208 6.5.4 The No-Go Alternative ...... 210 6.5.5 Mitigation Measures: Potential Terrestrial Ecology Impacts ...... 210 6.5.6 Biodiversity Offset ...... 211 6.6 Potential Socio-economic Impacts ...... 212 6.6.1 Introduction, Terms of Reference and Methodology ...... 212 6.6.2 Assessment of Impacts: Pre-Construction Phase ...... 213 6.6.3 Assessment of Impacts: Construction Phase...... 218 6.6.4 Assessment of Impacts: Operation Phase ...... 221 6.6.5 The No-Go Alternative ...... 236 6.6.6 Mitigation Measures: Potential Socio-economic Impacts ...... 237 6.7 Potential Ecosystem Services Impacts ...... 238 6.8 Potential Visual Impacts ...... 239 6.8.1 Introduction, Terms of Reference and Methodology ...... 239 6.8.2 Magnitude of the Visual Impact ...... 240 6.8.3 Assessment of Impacts: Construction Phase...... 243 6.8.4 Assessment of Impacts: Operational Phase ...... 244 6.8.5 The No-Go Alternative ...... 247 6.8.6 Mitigation Measures: Potential Visual Impacts ...... 247 6.9 Potential Heritage Impacts ...... 248 6.9.1 Introduction, Terms of Reference and Methodology ...... 248 6.9.2 Heritage Resources along the Proposed Bypass Alignment ...... 249 6.9.3 Assessment of Impacts: Construction Phase...... 249 6.9.4 Assessment of Impacts: Operational Phase ...... 249 6.9.5 The No-Go Alternative ...... 250 6.9.6 Mitigation Measures: Potential Heritage Impacts ...... 250 6.10 Cumulative Impacts...... 251 6.10.1 Introduction ...... 251 6.10.2 Methodology ...... 252 6.10.3 Cumulative Impact Assessment ...... 252 7 Conclusions and Recommendations ...... 255 7.1 Environmental Impact Statement ...... 255 7.1.1 Evaluation and Summary of Positive and Negative Project Impacts ...... 255 7.1.2 Evaluation and Summary of the No-Go Alternative ...... 263 7.1.3 Comparison of Alternatives ...... 264 7.1.4 Principal Findings ...... 267 7.2 Analysis of Need and Desirability of the Project ...... 269 7.2.1 Social Aspects ...... 269 7.2.2 Economic Aspects ...... 270
REUT/DALC 448281_Hermanus CBD Bypass_Amended FEIR_Finalised September 2020 SRK Consulting: 448281 Hermanus CBD Bypass Amended Final EIA Report Page vii
7.2.3 Ecological Aspects ...... 271 7.2.4 Summary of Need and Desirability ...... 272 7.3 Recommendations ...... 273 7.3.1 Mitigation Hierarchy ...... 273 7.3.2 Key Recommendations ...... 274 7.3.3 Description of Recommended Post-Mitigation Road Alignment ...... 275 7.4 Conclusion and Authorisation Opinion ...... 278 7.5 Way Forward ...... 280 8 References ...... 281
Appendices
Appendix A Traffic Study
Appendix A1 Updated Traffic Study
Appendix A2 Traffic Study Review
Appendix A3 Synthesis of Background Information to the Project Need and Traffic Study
Appendix B Stakeholder Database
Appendix C Stakeholder Engagement: Pre-Scoping
Appendix C1 Stakeholder Notification and BID
Appendix C2 Stakeholder Meetings Records
Appendix C3 BID Comments
Appendix D Stakeholder Engagement: Scoping Report
Appendix D1 SR Stakeholder Notification
Appendix D2 SR Stakeholder Meetings Records
Appendix D3 SR Comments
Appendix E Stakeholder Engagement: Final Scoping Report
Appendix E1 FSR Stakeholder Notification
Appendix E2 Stakeholders who commented on FSR
Appendix E3 FSR Authority Comments
Appendix E4 FSR Public Comments
Appendix E5 FSR Endorsements of Public Comments
REUT/DALC 448281_Hermanus CBD Bypass_Amended FEIR_Finalised September 2020 SRK Consulting: 448281 Hermanus CBD Bypass Amended Final EIA Report Page viii
Appendix E6 BID, SR and FSR Comments and Responses Table
Appendix E7 Offset Communication
Appendix F Air Quality Specialist Study
Appendix G Updated Noise Specialist Study
Appendix H Freshwater Specialist Study
Appendix H1 Freshwater Specialist Study
Appendix H2 Risk Assessment in terms of Notice 509 of 2016
Appendix H3 Freshwater Specialist Study Update
Appendix H4 Freshwater Specialist Study Review
Appendix H5 Water Use Licence
Appendix I Terrestrial Ecology Specialist Study
Appendix I1 Terrestrial Ecology Specialist Study
Appendix I2 Botanical Specialist Study Review
Appendix J Socio-economic Specialist Study
Appendix J1 Updated Socio-economic Specialist Study
Appendix J2 Socio-economic Specialist Study Review
Appendix K Visual Specialist Study
Appendix K1 Visual Specialist Study
Appendix K2 Visibility of the Hermanus CBD Bypass from Surrounding Areas
Appendix L Heritage Specialist Study
Appendix L1 Heritage Specialist Study
Appendix L2 Heritage Western Cape Final Comment
Appendix M Environmental Management Programme and Maintenance Management Plan
Appendix N Stormwater Infrastructure
Appendix O Overstrand Transport Plan
Appendix P Stakeholder Engagement: EIA Report
Appendix P1 EIR Stakeholder Notification
REUT/DALC 448281_Hermanus CBD Bypass_Amended FEIR_Finalised September 2020 SRK Consulting: 448281 Hermanus CBD Bypass Amended Final EIA Report Page ix
Appendix P2 EIR Focus Group Meeting Notes
Appendix P3 EIR Authority Comments
Appendix P4 EIR Comments by Associations, Interest Groups and Other Representative Bodies
Appendix P5 EIR Public Comments
Appendix P6 EIR Petition
Appendix P7 EIR Comments and Responses Table
Appendix Q Stakeholder Engagement: Final EIA Report
Appendix Q1 FEIR Stakeholder Notification
Appendix Q2 FEIR Comments by Authorities and Representative Bodies
Appendix Q3 FEIR Comments by Other Stakeholders
Appendix Q4 FEIR Petitions
Appendix Q5 FEIR Rejection Letter
Appendix Q6 FEIR Comments and Responses Table
Appendix R Key Layout Maps in A3 Format
Appendix S Miscellaneous Documentation
Appendix S1 Applicant Declaration and Declarations of Independence
Appendix S2 Specialist Statements of Validity
Appendix S3 Overstrand Municipality Letter 9 September 2019
Appendix T Biodiversity Offset Plan
Appendix U Independent Review of EIA Process
Appendix V Stakeholder Engagement: Amended Final EIA Report
Appendix V1 AFEIR Stakeholder Notification
Appendix V2 AFEIR Comments by Authorities and Representative Bodies
Appendix V3 AFEIR Comments by Representative Bodies
Appendix V4 AFEIR Comments by Other Stakeholders
Appendix V5 AFEIR Comments by Other Stakeholders Submitted via a Survey
REUT/DALC 448281_Hermanus CBD Bypass_Amended FEIR_Finalised September 2020 SRK Consulting: 448281 Hermanus CBD Bypass Amended Final EIA Report Page x
Appendix V6 AFEIR Comments and Responses Table
Appendix W EAP CVs
List of Tables Table 1-1: Content of EIA Report as per EIA Regulations, 2010 ...... 4 Table 2-1: NEMA listed activities applicable to the proposed project ...... 8 Table 2-2: Minimum biodiversity offset ratios in Draft National Biodiversity Offset Policy ...... 31 Table 2-3: Basic offset ratios in Draft Western Cape Guideline on Biodiversity Offsets ...... 32 Table 2-4: Environmental authorisations, permits and licences required for the Project ...... 35 Table 3-1: Erf numbers of properties affected by the Hermanus CBD Bypass ...... 45 Table 3-2: Erf numbers of properties adjacent to the Hermanus CBD Bypass ...... 51 Table 3-3: Description of R43 road sections through Hermanus ...... 52 Table 3-4: Analysis of alternatives considered to date...... 72 Table 3-5: Predicted 2013 and 2035 traffic volumes for No-Go scenario 2 and Northern bypass ...... 98 Table 3-6: Hermanus CBD Bypass traffic projections (two-way traffic) ...... 111 Table 4-1: Specialist studies undertaken for the EIA ...... 113 Table 4-2: Relevant SANS10103:2008 noise guideline levels (dBA) ...... 118 Table 4-3: Baseline noise measurement results ...... 120 Table 4-4: Main vegetation types in the FNR ...... 127 Table 4-5: Fauna possibly occurring in the region ...... 134 Table 4-6: Age Distribution in the Overstrand Municipality and Hermanus in 2011 ...... 138 Table 4-7: Employment in the Overstrand and Hermanus in 2011 ...... 140 Table 4-8: Monthly household income in the Overstrand and Hermanus ...... 140 Table 4-9: Type of housing in the Overstrand and Hermanus in 2011 ...... 141 Table 4-10: Ecosystem services ...... 148 Table 5-1: Stakeholder engagement activities during the Initiation and Scoping Phases ...... 152 Table 5-2: Key aspects raised in comments on the Hermanus CBD Bypass FSR ...... 156 Table 5-3: Stakeholder engagement activities during the Impact Assessment Phase ...... 157 Table 5-4: Prevalence of issues raised in 355 comments on EIA and Final EIA Reports ...... 162 Table 5-5: Key issues raised on the Hermanus CBD Bypass, and responses thereto ...... 163 Table 6-1: Specialist studies independently reviewed ...... 171 Table 6-2: Criteria Used to Determine the Consequence of the Impact ...... 173 Table 6-3: Method Used to Determine the Consequence Score ...... 173 Table 6-4: Probability Classification ...... 174 Table 6-5: Impact Significance Ratings ...... 174 Table 6-6: Impact Status and Confidence Classification...... 174 Table 6-7: Significance of reduced air quality during construction – both alternatives ...... 176 Table 6-8: Maximum predicted concentrations of air pollutants along the Hermanus CBD Bypass route (µg/m3) – northern and southern alternatives ...... 177
REUT/DALC 448281_Hermanus CBD Bypass_Amended FEIR_Finalised September 2020 SRK Consulting: 448281 Hermanus CBD Bypass Amended Final EIA Report Page xi
Table 6-9: Significance of increase in air pollution along the bypass route during operation – both alternatives ...... 177 Table 6-10: Maximum predicted ambient air quality along the Hermanus CBD Bypass route (µg/m3) – No- Go and northern alternatives ...... 178 Table 6-11: Significance of increase in air pollution along the bypass route during operation – No-Go alternative ...... 178 Table 6-12: Predicted current and future (2035) noise levels assuming No-Go alternative ...... 182 Table 6-13: Noise impact intensity criteria ...... 182 Table 6-14: Predicted future noise levels for the northern and southern alternative ...... 184 Table 6-15: Comparison of noise levels at schools along the alignment ...... 185 Table 6-16: Significance of increased noise during operation – both alternatives ...... 187 Table 6-17: Significance of loss or degradation of freshwater habitat and ecological structure during construction – both alternatives ...... 192 Table 6-18: Significance of changes to ecological and socio-cultural service provision during construction – both alternatives ...... 193 Table 6-19: Significance of loss or alteration of hydrological connectivity of ephemeral drainage lines – both alternatives ...... 194 Table 6-20: Significance of further degradation of the wetland during operation – both alternatives ...... 195 Table 6-21: Significance of loss or alteration of hydrological connectivity during operation – both alternatives 196 Table 6-22: Significance impacts associated with the No-Go alternative ...... 196 Table 6-23: Significance of loss of terrestrial habitat – both alternatives ...... 202 Table 6-24: Significance of fragmentation of terrestrial habitat – northern alternative ...... 205 Table 6-25: Significance of fragmentation of terrestrial habitat – southern alternative ...... 205 Table 6-26: Significance of loss of Red List plant species or endemics – both alternatives...... 206 Table 6-27: Significance of loss of fauna – both alternatives ...... 206 Table 6-28: Significance of impact on the functioning of the FNR – both alternatives ...... 208 Table 6-29: Significance of degradation of road-side vegetation – both alternatives ...... 209 Table 6-30: Significance of loss and disturbance of fauna – both alternatives ...... 210 Table 6-31: Expropriation requirements for the Hermanus CBD Bypass ...... 213 Table 6-32: Significance of reduction in property size / loss of properties due to expropriation – both alternatives ...... 218 Table 6-33: Significance of reduced mobility and road safety ...... 218 Table 6-34: Significance of nuisance due to construction activities near residential areas ...... 220 Table 6-35: Significance of increased employment, income and skills development ...... 221 Table 6-36: Hermanus CBD Bypass traffic projections (two-way traffic) ...... 222 Table 6-37: Significance of increase in nuisance for residents and users of adjacent areas – both alternatives 225 Table 6-38: Significance of reduction in access to the FNR – both alternatives ...... 226 Table 6-39: Significance of reduction in livelihoods associated with the Hermanus Country Market – northern alternative ...... 228 Table 6-40: Significance of reduction in property values – both alternatives ...... 230 Table 6-41: Travel time between R43 / Mimosa Rd (west) and R43 / Fairways Ave (east) ...... 231 Table 6-42: Significance of reduction in travel time and congestion – both alternatives ...... 232
REUT/DALC 448281_Hermanus CBD Bypass_Amended FEIR_Finalised September 2020 SRK Consulting: 448281 Hermanus CBD Bypass Amended Final EIA Report Page xii
Table 6-43: Retail in the Hermanus area ...... 232 Table 6-44: Significance of change in visitor numbers to the Hermanus CBD – both alternatives ...... 233 Table 6-45: Tourism contribution to retail spend in Hermanus ...... 233 Table 6-46: Significance of change in tourism to Hermanus – both alternatives ...... 234 Table 6-47: R43 accident statistics between 1999 and 2013 ...... 235 Table 6-48: Significance of improvement in road safety – both alternatives...... 236 Table 6-49: Significance of reduction in travel time and congestion– No-Go Alternative ...... 237 Table 6-50: Significance of change in visitor numbers to the Hermanus CBD – No-Go Alternative ...... 237 Table 6-51: Visibility of Hermanus CBD Bypass sections ...... 241 Table 6-52: Significance of altered sense of place and visual intrusion during construction – both alternatives 244 Table 6-53: Significance of altered sense of place and visual intrusion from the proposed road infrastructure during operation – northern alternative ...... 245 Table 6-54: Significance of altered sense of place and visual intrusion from the proposed road infrastructure during operation – southern alternative ...... 245 Table 6-55: Significance of altered sense of place from increased traffic – both alternatives ...... 246 Table 6-56: Significance of altered sense of place and visual quality caused by light pollution at night – both alternatives ...... 247 Table 6-57: Significance of loss or disturbance of archaeological resources during construction – both alternatives ...... 249 Table 6-58: Significance of alteration of the cultural landscape during operation – both alternatives ...... 250 Table 7-1: Summary of potential impacts of the Hermanus CBD Bypass ...... 257 Table 7-2: Comparison of alternatives ...... 266
List of Figures Figure 1-1: Locality map ...... 3 Figure 2-1: Western Cape Provincial SDF - Consolidated Framework Proposals ...... 15 Figure 2-2: Western Cape Provincial SDF - Growth potential for settlements and municipalities ...... 16 Figure 2-3: Draft IDF spatial vision for Greater Hermanus (east) ...... 21 Figure 2-4: Draft IDF key policies directing future management and development in Greater Hermanus (east) ...... 22 Figure 2-5: Overstrand Municipality SDF Plans ...... 25 Figure 2-6: Areas of pedestrian-vehicular conflict in the Hermanus CBD – existing situation ...... 28 Figure 2-7: Lemm’s Corner focus area ...... 29 Figure 2-8: Proposed Main Road layout between Park Avenue and Harbour Road ...... 29 Figure 2-9: S&EIR Process followed for this application ...... 36 Figure 3-1: Alignment of the R43 ...... 38 Figure 3-2: Pre-1970s bypass proposal ...... 39 Figure 3-3: CBD Relief Road ...... 40 Figure 3-4: Views of the proposed bypass project area – western section ...... 42 Figure 3-5: Views of the proposed bypass project area – eastern section ...... 43
REUT/DALC 448281_Hermanus CBD Bypass_Amended FEIR_Finalised September 2020 SRK Consulting: 448281 Hermanus CBD Bypass Amended Final EIA Report Page xiii
Figure 3-6: Updated views of the selected bypass project areas ...... 44 Figure 3-7: Surrounding land uses ...... 46 Figure 3-8: View of Hoy's Koppie from Mountain Drive ...... 47 Figure 3-9: View of Northcliff residential suburb from above Mountain Drive ...... 47 Figure 3-10: Apartment blocks along Fairways Avenue ...... 48 Figure 3-11: Hermanus Country Market ...... 49 Figure 3-12: Access to Innesbrook Village from Fernkloof Drive ...... 49 Figure 3-13: Boundary of Hermanus Golf Course along Fairways Avenue ...... 50 Figure 3-14: Paragliding landing sites ...... 51 Figure 3-15: R43 road sections through Hermanus, looking east ...... 53 Figure 3-16: Average annual daily traffic from 2004 – 2018 at the R43 counting station between N2 and R44 turn-off ...... 54 Figure 3-17: Seasonal variations in traffic volumes on the R43 (from permanent station) ...... 57 Figure 3-18: Traffic volumes during morning peak hours on the R43 around Hermanus (from 2011/13 traffic counts)...... 58 Figure 3-19: Average traffic based on 2011 Number plate analysis (vehicles per hour) ...... 58 Figure 3-20: Comparison of AM and PM hour traffic counts: October 2013 vs January 2020...... 59 Figure 3-21: Estimated present and future number of dwelling units in the greater Hermanus area ...... 60 Figure 3-22: Trip origins and destinations in 2013 ...... 62 Figure 3-23: Trip origins and destinations in 2035 ...... 62 Figure 3-24: Capacity analysis on the existing road network: 2013 traffic volumes ...... 63 Figure 3-25: Capacity analysis on the existing road network: predicted 2035 traffic volumes...... 64 Figure 3-26: Capacity analysis of future road network without Hermanus CBD bypass: predicted 2035 traffic volumes ...... 65 Figure 3-27: Capacity analysis of future road network with Hermanus CBD bypass: predicted 2035 traffic volumes ...... 65 Figure 3-28: Building plans approved by the Overstrand Municipality per month 2006-2014 ...... 67 Figure 3-29: R43 traffic volumes: 2003 – 2014 ...... 68 Figure 3-30: Alignment of full bypass alternative ...... 78 Figure 3-31: Expropriation implications (properties with circled numbers) of upgrading the existing CBD Relief Road ...... 80 Figure 3-32: Heritage Resources in the Hermanus CBD ...... 81 Figure 3-33: Capacity analysis on the upgraded CBD Relief Road: 2013 traffic volumes ...... 81 Figure 3-34: Capacity analysis on the upgraded CBD Relief Road: 2035 traffic volumes ...... 82 Figure 3-35: Expropriation implications of upgrading Main Road through the CBD ...... 83 Figure 3-36: Alignment of western bypass portion parallel to but away from Mountain Drive ...... 84 Figure 3-37: Cross sections of sunken bypass along Jose Burman Drive ...... 85 Figure 3-38: Alignment of the bypass along Lord Roberts Drive ...... 86 Figure 3-39: Capacity analysis on bypass using Lord Roberts Drive: 2035 traffic volumes ...... 87 Figure 3-40: Alignment of the bypass along Fernkloof Drive ...... 88 Figure 3-41: Alignment on Fairways Avenue up to Main Road ...... 89 Figure 3-42: Cross sections bypass for the northern and southern alternatives ...... 92 Figure 3-43: Northern alignment alternative of the Hermanus CBD Bypass (with proposed traffic circles) .. 93
REUT/DALC 448281_Hermanus CBD Bypass_Amended FEIR_Finalised September 2020 SRK Consulting: 448281 Hermanus CBD Bypass Amended Final EIA Report Page xiv
Figure 3-44: Southern alignment alternative of the Hermanus CBD Bypass (with proposed traffic circles) .. 94 Figure 3-45: Capacity analysis on the northern bypass alternative: 2035 traffic volumes ...... 95 Figure 3-46: Capacity analysis on the southern bypass alternative: 2035 traffic volumes ...... 95 Figure 3-47: Capacity analysis of the No-Go alternative: predicted 2035 traffic volumes on future road network without Hermanus CBD bypass ...... 96 Figure 3-48: Capacity analysis of the No-Go alternative: predicted 2035 traffic volumes on current road network, with road capacity reductions due to e.g. street parking, pedestrian crossings, signals etc (No-Go variation 1) ...... 97 Figure 3-49: Capacity analysis of the No-Go alternative with CBD Revitalisation Project: predicted 2035 traffic volumes on current road network, with additional future road capacity reductions due to e.g. street parking, pedestrian crossings, signals as result of the CBD Revitalisation Project (No-Go variation 2) ...... 98 Figure 3-50: Cross sections of Hermanus CBD Bypass common to both alternatives ...... 101 Figure 3-51: Representations of the Hermanus CBD Bypass - comparable road layout ...... 102 Figure 3-52: Traffic circles on the northern alternative ...... 103 Figure 3-53: Traffic circles on the southern alternative ...... 104 Figure 3-54: Cross section of proposed bridge crossing Erf 10558 wetland...... 105 Figure 3-55: Location of chainage points along the proposed Hermanus CBD Bypass ...... 106 Figure 3-56: Powerline poles potentially affected by the bypass ...... 108 Figure 4-1: Long-term average rainfall in Hermanus ...... 115 Figure 4-2: Long-term average temperature in Hermanus ...... 115 Figure 4-3: Long-term average wind speed in Hermanus ...... 116
Figure 4-4: Measured 24-hour NO2 concentrations ...... 116
Figure 4-5: Measured 24-hour SO2 concentrations ...... 117 Figure 4-6: Measured 24-hour CO concentrations ...... 117 Figure 4-7: Baseline noise measurement locations (BNML) ...... 119 Figure 4-8: Freshwater features along the Hermanus CBD Bypass route ...... 121 Figure 4-9: Ephemeral drainage features on bypass route ...... 122 Figure 4-10: Wetland on Hermanus Golf Course ...... 123 Figure 4-11: Fairways Close lodges relative to wetland delineation for Hermanus CBD Bypass EIA ...... 124 Figure 4-12: Wetland portion affected by bypass ...... 125 Figure 4-13: Fairways Close construction ...... 126 Figure 4-14: Original extent of vegetation types in Hermanus and Kleinrivier Mountains ...... 128 Figure 4-15: Endemic plant species in the FNR ...... 128 Figure 4-16: Vegetation along the bypass alignment ...... 129 Figure 4-17: Vegetation considered semi-intact by Capensis (2020) rather than degraded as per Coastec (2016) ...... 130 Figure 4-18: Vegetation sensitivity along the bypass route ...... 131 Figure 4-19: Vegetation rarity along the bypass route ...... 132 Figure 4-20: Critical Biodiversity Areas along the bypass route ...... 133 Figure 4-21: Rare animal species in the FNR ...... 134 Figure 4-22: Alignment of the Hermanus CBD Bypass relative to a the western-most portion of the FNR . 135 Figure 4-23: Fernkloof Nature Reserve and proposed expansion areas ...... 136
REUT/DALC 448281_Hermanus CBD Bypass_Amended FEIR_Finalised September 2020 SRK Consulting: 448281 Hermanus CBD Bypass Amended Final EIA Report Page xv
Figure 4-24: Education Level of the Overstrand (left) and Hermanus (right) population in 2011 ...... 139 Figure 4-25: Monthly household income in the Overstrand and Hermanus in 2011 ...... 141 Figure 4-26: Paleontological (fossil) sensitivity map ...... 144 Figure 4-27: Overstrand landscape types ...... 146 Figure 4-28: Overstrand landscape significance ...... 147 Figure 4-29: Ecosystem services by type of service ...... 149 Figure 4-30: Ecosystem services by type of economic value ...... 149 Figure 6-1: Noise modelling locations at Sensitive Receptors (SR) ...... 181 Figure 6-2: Fernkloof Nature Reserve ...... 186 Figure 6-3: Wetland portion affected by the bypass ...... 191 Figure 6-4: Realignment of bypass over wetland to accommodate residential units ...... 192 Figure 6-5: Proposed realignment of western bypass section to minimise impact on Hangklip Sand Fynbos 202 Figure 6-6: Proposed realignment of central bypass section to minimise impact on Overstrand Sandstone Fynbos...... 203 Figure 6-7: Original and amended alignments of western and central bypass sections ...... 204 Figure 6-8: Location of Hermanus CBD Bypass in relation to western FNR...... 207 Figure 6-9: Likely fauna crossing points ...... 209 Figure 6-10: Proposed offset rehabilitation area ...... 212 Figure 6-11: Alignment of Northern Alternative at Hermanus Sports Complex ...... 215 Figure 6-12: (Re-)Alignment of traffic circle at eastern end of Hermanus CBD Bypass ...... 216 Figure 6-13: Location of the Hermanus CBD Bypass relative to the FNR ...... 223 Figure 6-14: Designated FNR paths near Mountain Drive ...... 225 Figure 6-15: Proposed future Hermanus Country Market site ...... 227 Figure 6-16: Viewshed northern alternative ...... 241 Figure 6-17: Viewshed southern alternative ...... 241 Figure 6-18: Visibility of the Hermanus CBD Bypass from various viewpoints ...... 242 Figure 7-1: Recommended alignment of the Hermanus CBD Bypass ...... 277
REUT/DALC 448281_Hermanus CBD Bypass_Amended FEIR_Finalised September 2020 SRK Consulting: 448281 Hermanus CBD Bypass Amended Final EIA Report Page xvi Acronyms and Abbreviations
AAQS Ambient Air Quality Standards ART Anti-Retroviral Treatment BA Basic Assessment BCS Bosko Christian School BGCMA Breede-Gourritz Catchment Management Agency BGIS Biodiversity Geographic Information Systems BID Background Information Document BNML Baseline Noise Measurement Location CBA Critical Biodiversity Area CBD Central Business District CO Carbon Monoxide CRTN Calculation of Road Traffic Noise DEA&DP (Western Cape) Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning DTPW Department of Transport and Public Works DWS Department of Water and Sanitation EA Environmental Authorisation EAP Environmental Assessment Practitioner EFF Economic Freedom Fighters EIA Environmental Impact Assessment EIS Ecological Importance and Sensitivity EMF Environmental Management Framework EMPr Environmental Management Programme ESA Ecological Support Area FAB Fernkloof Advisory Board FGM Focus Group Meeting FNR Fernkloof Nature Reserve FSR Final Scoping Report FVPOA Fairbanks Village Property Owners' Association GDPR Regional Gross Domestic Product GN Government Notice HBS Hermanus Botanical Society HCM Hermanus Country Market HDGMS Hermanus District Growth Management Strategy HHS Hermanus High School HIA Heritage Impact Assessment HIV Human immunodeficiency virus HLPOA Hermanus Lagoon Property Owners’ Association HPS Hermanus Private School HRA Hermanus Ratepayers Association
REUT/DALC 448281_Hermanus CBD Bypass_Amended FEIR_Finalised September 2020 SRK Consulting: 448281 Hermanus CBD Bypass Amended Final EIA Report Page xvii
HWC Heritage Western Cape IAP Interested and Affected Party IDF Integrated Development Framework IDP Integrated Development Plan IEM Integrated Environmental Management IFC International Finance Corporation IMQS Hermanus Infrastructure Management Query Software ITP Integrated Transport Plan IUCN International Union for the Conservation of Nature IVPOA Innesbrook Village Property Owners' Association LAeq Equivalent A-weighted sound level LM Local Municipality MMP Maintenance Management Plan NEMA National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998 as amended NEM:BA National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act 10 of 2004 NEM:PAA National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act 57 of 2003 NHRA National Heritage Resources Act 25 of 1999
NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide NR Nature Reserve NWA National Water Act 36 of 1998 ODM Overberg District Municipality OM:ES Overstrand Municipality: Environmental Section OSF Overstrand Sandstone Fynbos OTP Overstrand Transport Plan PES Present Ecological State PM Particulate Matter PSDF Provincial Spatial Development Framework RCAM Road Classification and Access Management S&EIR Scoping and Environmental Impact Reporting SAHRA South African Heritage Resources Agency SAHRIS South African Heritage Resources Information System SANBI South African National Biodiversity Institute SANS South African National Standards SDF Spatial Development Framework
SO2 Sulphur Dioxide SPC Spatial Planning Categories SR Sensitive Receptor SRK SRK Consulting (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd StatsSA Statistics South Africa ToR Terms of Reference VAC Visual Absorption Capacity
REUT/DALC 448281_Hermanus CBD Bypass_Amended FEIR_Finalised September 2020 SRK Consulting: 448281 Hermanus CBD Bypass Amended Final EIA Report Page xviii
WCC Whale Coast Conservation WCDEDT Western Cape Department of Economic Development and Tourism WCDTPW Western Cape Department for Transport and Public Works WCNCO Western Cape Nature Conservation Ordinance, 19 of 1974 WMA Water Management Area WUA Water Use Authorisation WWII World War II
REUT/DALC 448281_Hermanus CBD Bypass_Amended FEIR_Finalised September 2020 SRK Consulting: 448281 Hermanus CBD Bypass Amended Final EIA Report Page xix Glossary
Aquifer An underground body of water.
Baseline Information gathered at the beginning of a study which describes the environment prior to development of a project and against which predicted changes (impacts) are measured.
Biodiversity The diversity, or variety, of plants, animals and other living things in a particular area or region. It encompasses habitat diversity, species diversity and genetic diversity
Consultation A process for the exchange of views, concerns and proposals about a proposed project through meaningful discussions and the open sharing of information.
dBA Unit of sound level. The weighted sound pressure level by the use of the A metering characteristic and weighting.
Disclosure The release of or provision of access to information, usually (but not exclusively) in the form of written reports.
Ecology The study of the interrelationships of organisms with and within their environment
Ecosystem The interconnected assemblage of all species’ populations that occupy a given area and the physical environment with which they interact.
Endemic / Found only within a specific area. Endemism
Environment The external circumstances, conditions and objects that affect the existence and development of an individual, organism or group. These circumstances include biophysical, social, economic, historical and cultural aspects.
Environmental A process of evaluating the environmental and socio-economic consequences of a Impact Assessment proposed course of action or project.
Environmental The report produced to relay the information gathered and assessments undertaken Impact Assessment during the EIA. Report
Environmental A description of the means for achieving environmental objectives and targets during Management all stages of a specific proposed activity. Programme
Fauna The collective animals of a given region.
Flora The collective plants growing in a geographic area.
Heritage Refers to something, e.g. a building, an area, a ritual, etc. that forms part of a Resources community’s cultural legacy or tradition and is passed down from preceding generations.
Integrated The practice of incorporating environmental management into all stages of a project’s Environmental life cycle, namely planning, design, implementation, management and review. Management
LAeq A-weighted sound pressure level in decibels of continuous steady sound that within a specified interval has the same sound pressure as a sound that varies with time.
REUT/DALC 448281_Hermanus CBD Bypass_Amended FEIR_Finalised September 2020 SRK Consulting: 448281 Hermanus CBD Bypass Amended Final EIA Report Page xx
Mitigation Design or management measures that are intended to minimise or enhance an impact, measures depending on the desired effect. These measures are ideally incorporated into a design at an early stage.
Red Data List Species of plants and animals that, because of their rarity and/or level of endemism, are included on a Red Data List (usually compiled by the IUCN) which provides an indication of their threat of extinction and recommendations for their protection.
Scoping A procedure to consult with stakeholders to determine issues and concerns and for determining the extent of and approach to an EIA. This process results in the development of a scope of work for the EIA and specialist studies.
Specialist study A study into a particular aspect of the environment, undertaken by an expert in that discipline.
Stakeholders All parties affected by and/or able to influence a project, often those in a position of authority and/or representing others. Also referred to as Interested and/or Affected Parties.
Stakeholder The process of notifying and consulting stakeholders about a proposed project, and engagement providing opportunities for input into the EIA process and project design. Also referred to as Public Participation.
Sustainable Sustainable development is generally defined as development that meets the needs development of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. NEMA defines sustainable development as the integration of social, economic and environmental factors into planning, implementation and decision-making so as to ensure that development serves present and future generations.
REUT/DALC 448281_Hermanus CBD Bypass_Amended FEIR_Finalised September 2020 SRK Consulting: 448281 Hermanus CBD Bypass Final EIA Report Page 1
1 Introduction 1.1 Background and Introduction The Provincial Government Western Cape: Department of Transport and Public Works (WCDTPW) proposes to construct a bypass road approximately 3 km long, to the north of the Hermanus Central Business District (CBD), abutting Mountain Drive, past the Hermanus Sports Complex and along Fairways Avenue, in Hermanus in the Western Cape (see Figure 1-1).
The National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998, as amended (NEMA), and the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulations, 2010 (promulgated in terms of NEMA) warrant that listed activities require Environmental Authorisation (EA) from the National Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) or provincial equivalent, in this case the Western Cape Department of Environmental Affairs & Development Planning (DEA&DP). A Scoping and Environmental Impact Reporting (S&EIR, also referred to as an EIA) process is required to support an application for EA.
SRK Consulting (South Africa) Pty Ltd (SRK) has been appointed by the EFG Engineers (Pty) Ltd (EFG) and iCE Group (Pty) Ltd (iCE) Joint Venture (the Joint Venture) to undertake the S&EIR process required in terms of the NEMA and the EIA Regulations, 2010.
1.2 Purpose of the Report In terms of relevant legislation, the CBD bypass road may not commence prior to obtaining a suite of authorisations (see Section 2). This report has been compiled in support of these applications. The EIA Report documents the steps undertaken during the Impact Assessment Phase to assess the significance of potential impacts and determine measures to mitigate the negative impacts and enhance the benefits (or positive impacts) of the proposed project. The report presents the findings of the Impact Assessment Phase and the public participation that forms part of the process.
The EIA Report is accompanied by an Environmental Management Programme (EMPr), which documents the management and monitoring measures that need to be implemented during the design, construction and operational phases of the project to ensure that impacts are appropriately mitigated and benefits enhanced.
More specifically, the objectives of this EIA Report are to:
• Inform the stakeholders about the proposed project and the S&EIR (also referred to as EIA) process followed;
• Obtain contributions from stakeholders (including the applicant, consultants, relevant authorities and the public) and ensure that all issues, concerns and queries raised are fully documented and addressed;
• Assess in detail the potential environmental and socio-economic impacts of the project;
• Identify environmental and social mitigation measures to address the impacts assessed; and
• Produce an EIA Report that will assist DEA&DP to decide whether (and under what conditions) to authorise the proposed development.
1.3 Structure of this Report This report discusses relevant environmental legislation and its application to this project, outlines the S&EIR process, presents a detailed project description and environmental baseline, details the stakeholder engagement process followed and assesses the potential impacts of the project before
REUT/DALC 448281_Hermanus CBD Bypass_Amended FEIR_Finalised September 2020 SRK Consulting: 448281 Hermanus CBD Bypass Final EIA Report Page 2
concluding the report with a set of pertinent findings and key recommendations. The report consists of the following sections:
Section 1: Introduction
Provides an introduction and background to the proposed project and outlines the purpose of this document and the assumptions and limitation applicable to the study.
Section 2: Governance Framework and Environmental Process
Provides a brief summary and interpretation of the relevant legislation as well as pertinent strategic planning documents, and outlines the approach to the environmental process.
Section 3: Project Description
Describes the location and current status of the site and provides a brief summary of the surrounding land uses as well as background to, motivation, and description of, the proposed project.
Section 4: Description of the Affected Environment
Describes the biophysical and socio-economic characteristics of the affected environment against which potential project impacts are assessed.
Section 5: Stakeholder Engagement
Details the stakeholder engagement approach and summarises stakeholder comments that informed the impact assessment.
Section 6: Environmental Impact Assessment
Describes the specialist studies undertaken and assesses the potential impacts of the project utilising SRK’s proven impact assessment methodology.
Section 7: Conclusions and Recommendations
Provides an Environmental Impact Statement, summarises the key findings and recommendations in the EIA Report, describes the desirability and need for the project and outlines further opportunities for stakeholder engagement.
REUT/DALC 448281_Hermanus CBD Bypass_Amended FEIR_Finalised September 2020 SRK Consulting: 448281 Hermanus CBD Bypass Final EIA Report Page 3
Figure 1-1: Locality map
REUT/DALC 448281_Hermanus CBD Bypass_Amended FEIR_Finalised September 2020 SRK Consulting: 448281 Hermanus CBD Bypass Amended Final EIA Report Page 4
1.4 Content of Report The EIA Regulations, 2010 (Government Notice (GN) 543, Chapter 3, Part 3, Section 31) prescribe the required content in an EIA Report. These requirements and the sections of this Amended Final EIA Report in which they have been addressed, are summarised in Table 1-1.
Table 1-1: Content of EIA Report as per EIA Regulations, 2010
GN 543, Item Section S31 Ref.: Ref.: (2) (a) (i) Details of the Environmental Assessment Practitioner (EAP) who prepared the report p. ii (2) (a) (ii) The expertise of the EAP to carry out an environmental impact assessment p. ii (2) (b) A detailed description of the proposed activity 3.5 (2) (c) A description of the property on which the activity is to be undertaken and the location of the 3.2.1 activity on the property (2) (d) A description of the environment that may be affected by the activity and how the physical, 3.2, 4 biological, social, economic and cultural environment may affected (2) (e) Details of the public participation process conducted, including: 5 (2) (e) (i) Steps undertaken in accordance with the plan of study 5.2, 5.3 (2) (e) (ii) A list of registered Interested and Affected Parties (IAPs) App B (2) (e) (iii) Summary of received comments and response by EAP 5.2.7, App E (2) (e) (iv) Copies of received comments App E1-E3 (2) (f) A description of the need and desirability of the proposed activity 3.3, 7.2 (2) (g) A description of identified alternatives (including advantages and disadvantages of each 3.4 alternative) (2) (h) Methodology used in determining impact significance 6.1.4 (2) (i) A description and comparative assessment of all identified alternatives 6.2 – 6.9 (2) (j) A summary of the specialist findings and recommendations 6.2 – 6.9 (2) (k) A description of environmental issues, assessment of the significance of each issue and 6.2 – 6.9 indication of the extent to which this could be mitigated (2) (l) An assessment of each identified potentially significant impact, including: 6.2 – 6.9 (2) (l) (i) Cumulative impacts 6.10 (2) (l) (ii) Nature of the impact 6.2 – 6.9 (2) (l) (iii) Extent and duration of the impact 6.2 – 6.9 (2) (l) (iv) Probability of the impact occurring 6.2 – 6.9 (2) (l) (v) Degree to which the impact can be reversed 6.2 – 6.9 (2) (l) (vi) Degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable loss of resources 6.2 – 6.9 (2) (l) (vii) Degree to which the impact can be mitigated 6.2 – 6.9 (2) (m) Description of assumptions, uncertainties and gaps in knowledge 1.5 (2) (n) Reasoned opinion as to whether the activity should or should not be authorised, and any 7.3 – 7.4 conditions that should be made in respect of that authorisation (2) (o) Environmental impact statement which contains: 7.1 (2) (o) (i) A summary of the key findings of the EIA 7.1 (2) (o) (ii) A comparative assessment of the positive and negative implications of the proposed activity 7.1 and alternatives (2) (p) A draft environmental management programme App M (2) (q) Copies of any specialist reports App F – L (2) (r) Any specific information that may be required by the competent authority
REUT/DALC 448281_Hermanus CBD Bypass_Amended FEIR_Finalised September 2020 SRK Consulting: 448281 Hermanus CBD Bypass Amended Final EIA Report Page 5
GN 543, Item Section S31 Ref.: Ref.: FSR acceptance letter dated 18 April 2016: 9.1 All comments and issues by IAPs must be objectively considered and adequately addressed 5.2.7, App E 9.2 Implement CapeNature’s recommendation to include faunal impacts in ecological studies App H, I 9.3 Specialist studies must comply with EIA Regulations 2010 and 2014 6.1.2 9.4 Release the Overstrand Transport Plan / substantiating proof relating to need and desirability 3.3, 7.2, App O 9.5 Consideration and investigation of a biodiversity offset with consultation by CapeNature App E51 9.6 Clarify deproclamation procedure 2.1.6, 2.1.7 9.7 Cumulative impacts must be assessed 6.10 (2) (s) Any other matters required in terms of sections 24(4)(a) and (b) of NEMA
1.5 Assumptions and Limitations
As is standard practice, this EIA Report is based on a number of assumptions and is subject to certain limitations. These are as follows:
• It is assumed that information provided by the Joint Venture, other consultants and specialists and the Overstrand Municipality2 is accurate;
• The project was proposed by the WCDTPW based on traffic analysis, traffic modelling and transport planning for the area. It is assumed that the WCDTPW has satisfied itself of the motivation and economic feasibility of the project prior to commissioning an EIA process for the project.
• SRK’s assessment of the significance of impacts of the proposed development on the affected environment has been based on the assumption that the activities will be confined to those described in Section 3. If there are any substantial changes to the project description, impacts may need to be reassessed;
• Where detailed design information is not available, the precautionary principle, i.e. a conservative approach that overstates negative impacts and understates benefits, has been adopted;
• It is assumed that the stakeholder engagement process undertaken during the S&EIR process has identified all relevant concerns of stakeholders; and
• The WCDTPW will in good faith implement the agreed mitigation measures identified in this report. To this end it is assumed that the WCDTPW will commit sufficient resources and employ suitably qualified personnel.
Limitations and assumptions applicable to specific specialist studies are listed in the respective specialist reports. Notwithstanding the above, SRK is confident that these assumptions and limitations do not compromise the overall findings of this report.
1 As well as SRK’s letter dated 2 Sep 2016 and your response dated 6 Oct 2016 2 Throughout this report, submissions and input referenced to the Overstrand Municipality were obtained from officials of the municipality, notably the Director: Infrastructure and Planning and the Municipal Manager.
REUT/DALC 448281_Hermanus CBD Bypass_Amended FEIR_Finalised September 2020 SRK Consulting: 448281 Hermanus CBD Bypass Amended Final EIA Report Page 6 2 Governance Framework and Environmental Process
2.1 South African Legislation There are a number of regulatory requirements at local, provincial and national level with which the proposed project must conform. Some of the key environmental legal requirements include the following:
• National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998, as amended (NEMA);
• EIA Regulations 2010, promulgated in terms of NEMA;
• National Water Act 36 of 1998 (NWA);
• National Heritage Resources Act 25 of 1999 (NHRA);
• National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act 10 of 2004 (NEM:BA);
• National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act 57 of 2003 (NEM:PAA); and
• Western Cape Nature Conservation Ordinance, 19 of 1974 (WCNCO).
A brief summary of SRK’s understanding of the relevant Acts and Regulations that are applicable to this study is provided below. Note that other legislative requirements may also pertain to the proposed project. As such, the summary provided below is not intended to be definitive or exhaustive, and serves only to highlight key environmental legislation and obligations.
2.1.1 National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998, as Amended NEMA establishes a set of principles which all authorities have to consider when exercising their powers. These include the following:
• Development must be sustainable;
• Pollution must be avoided or minimised and remedied;
• Waste must be avoided or minimised, reused or recycled;
• Negative impacts must be minimised; and
• Responsibility for the environmental consequences of a policy, project, product or service applies throughout its life cycle.
Section 28(1) states that “every person who causes, has caused or may cause significant pollution or degradation of the environment must take reasonable measures to prevent such pollution or degradation from occurring, continuing or recurring”. If such degradation/pollution cannot be prevented, then appropriate measures must be taken to minimise or rectify such pollution. These measures may include:
• Assessing the impact on the environment;
• Informing and educating employees about the environmental risks of their work and ways of minimising these risks;
• Ceasing, modifying or controlling actions which cause pollution/degradation;
• Containing pollutants or preventing movement of pollutants;
• Eliminating the source of pollution; and
• Remedying the effects of the pollution.
REUT/DALC 448281_Hermanus CBD Bypass_Amended FEIR_Finalised September 2020 SRK Consulting: 448281 Hermanus CBD Bypass Amended Final EIA Report Page 7
Legal requirements for this project:
WCDTPW (the proponent) has a responsibility to ensure that the proposed activities and the S&EIR process conform to the principles of NEMA. The proponent is obliged to take actions to prevent pollution or degradation of the environment in terms of Section 28 of NEMA, and to ensure that the environmental impacts associated with the project are considered, and mitigated where possible.
2.1.2 EIA Regulations Sections 24 and 44 of NEMA make provision for the promulgation of regulations that identify activities which may not commence without an EA issued by the competent authority (DEA&DP). In this context, the EIA Regulations, 2010 (GN R543, which came into effect on 2 August 2010), promulgated in terms of NEMA, govern the process, methodologies and requirements for the undertaking of EIAs in support of EA applications. The EIA Regulations are accompanied by Listing Notices 1-3 that list activities that require EA (“NEMA listed activities”).
The EIA Regulations, 2010 and associated Listing Notices were replaced by the EIA Regulations, 2014 (Government Notice (GN) R982) and associated Listing Notices 1-3, which came into effect on 4 December 2014 and were further amended on 7 April 2017. The application for EA for the Hermanus CBD Bypass was submitted prior to the promulgation of the EIA Regulations, 2014. As such, the process will be governed by the EIA Regulations, 2010.
The EIA Regulations, 2010 lay out two alternative authorisation processes. Depending on the type of activity that is proposed, either a Basic Assessment (BA) process or an S&EIR process is required to obtain EA. Listing Notice 13 lists activities that require a BA process, while Listing Notice 24 lists activities that require S&EIR. Listing Notice 35 lists activities in certain sensitive geographic areas that require a BA process. The regulations for both processes – BA and S&EIR - stipulate that:
• Public participation must be undertaken at various stages of the assessment process;
• The assessment must conducted by an independent EAP;
• The relevant authorities must respond to applications and submissions within stipulated time frames;
• Decisions taken by the authorities can be appealed by the proponent or any other Interested and Affected Party (IAP); and
• A draft Environmental Management Programme (EMPr) must be compiled and released for public comment.
GN R543 sets out the procedures to be followed and content of reports compiled during the BA and S&EIR processes.
The proposed project includes activities that are listed in terms of Listing Notices 1-3 of 2010 (see Table 2-1). Although this application is dealt with under the EIA Regulations, 2010, any activity not identified under the previous NEMA notices but now identified under the EIA Regulations, 2014 may be authorised as if it was applied for, on condition that all impacts of the newly identified activity have also been considered and adequately assessed. For ease of reference, Table 2-1 also shows the
3 GN R544 of 2010, as amended by GN R660 of 2010, GN R1159 of 2010 and GN R922 of 2013, and replaced by GN R983 of 2014. 4 GN R545 of 2010, as amended by GN R660 of 2010, GN R1159 of 2010 and GN R923 of 2013, and replaced by GN R984 of 2014. 5 GN R546 of 2010, as amended by GN R1159 of 2010, and replaced by GN R985 of 2014.
REUT/DALC 448281_Hermanus CBD Bypass_Amended FEIR_Finalised September 2020 SRK Consulting: 448281 Hermanus CBD Bypass Amended Final EIA Report Page 8
relevant listed activities applicable in terms of the EIA Regulations, 2014. No additional listed activities that are not also listed in terms of the EIA Regulations, 2010, were identified.
Table 2-1: NEMA listed activities applicable to the proposed project
Activity applied for in terms of EIA Regulations, 2010 Equivalent activity in terms of EIA Regulations, 2014, as amended Listing Notice 1 11: The construction of (xi) infrastructure or structures 12: The development of (ii) infrastructure or structures with a covering 50 m2 or more … within a watercourse or within 32 physical footprint of 100 m2 or more; where such m of a watercourse… development occurs (a) within a watercourse; or (c) if no development setback exists, within 32 m of a watercourse measured from the edge of the watercourse; excluding (ee) where such development occurs within existing roads or road reserves. 18: The infilling or depositing of any material of more than 19: The infilling or depositing of any material of more than 5 m3 into, or the dredging, excavation, removal or moving of 10 m3 into, or the dredging, excavation, removal or moving soil, sand, shells, shell grit, pebbles or rock of more than of soil, sand, shell grit, pebbles or rock of more than 10 m3 5 m3 from (i) a watercourse... from a watercourse… 22: The construction of a road, outside urban areas, (i) with 24: The development of a road (ii) with a reserve wider than a reserve wider than 13,5 m. 13.5 m, or where no reserve exists where the road is wider than 8 m, but excluding a road (a) which is identified and included in activity 27 in Listing Notice 2 of 2014. 40: The expansion of (iv) infrastructure by more than 50 m2 None within a watercourse or within 32 m of a watercourse, (Activity 49 in terms of the EIA Regulations, 2014, was measured from the edge of a watercourse... excluded in the 2017 amendment of the EIA Regulations for cc) activities listed in activity 14 in Listing Notice 2 of 2014 or activity 14 in Listing Notice 3 of 2014, in which case that activity applies. Activity 14 in Listing Notice 3 of 2014 is triggered, and Activity 49 in terms of LN1 is thus not triggered). Listing Notice 2 18: The route determination of roads and design of None associated physical infrastructure for (ii) a road administered (Activity 27 (ii) in terms of the EIA Regulations, 2014, by a provincial authority. requiring EA for the development of a road administered by a provincial authority, was excluded in the 2017 amendment. Activity 27 (i) requiring EA for the development of a road wider than 30 m is not triggered as the proposed Hermanus CBD Bypass has a proposed road reserve of ~25 m, possibly extending to 30 m where cut and fill is required. Activity 27 (iii) requiring EA for the development of a road catering for more than one lane of traffic in both directions is not triggered as the proposed Hermanus CBD Bypass has one lane per direction.) Listing Notice 3 12: The clearance of an area of 300 m2 or more of 12: The clearance of an area of 300 m2 or more of vegetation where 75% or more of the vegetative cover vegetation (i) Western Cape (i) within any critically constitutes indigenous vegetation in (a) a critically endangered ecosystem, (iv) on land zoned open space, endangered ecosystem. conservation or equivalent or (v) on land designated for protection or conservation purposes in an Environmental Management Framework adopted in the prescribed manner, or a Spatial Development Framework adopted by the MEC or Minister. 13: The clearance of an area of 1 hectare or more of None vegetation where 75% or more of the vegetative cover constitutes indigenous vegetation, (b) In Western Cape: (ii) outside urban areas in (aa) a protected area identified in
REUT/DALC 448281_Hermanus CBD Bypass_Amended FEIR_Finalised September 2020 SRK Consulting: 448281 Hermanus CBD Bypass Amended Final EIA Report Page 9
Activity applied for in terms of EIA Regulations, 2010 Equivalent activity in terms of EIA Regulations, 2014, as amended terms of NEM:PAA, excluding conservancies; (ff) areas within 10 km from national parks or world heritage sites or 5 km from any other protected area identified in terms of NEM:PAA or from the core areas of a biosphere reserve; (iii) in urban areas in (aa) areas zoned for use as public open space; (dd) areas on the watercourse side of the development setback line or within 100 m from the edge of a watercourse, where no such setback line has been determined. 16: The construction of (iv) infrastructure covering 10 m2 or 14: The development of (ii) infrastructure or structures of more within a watercourse or within 32 m of a watercourse, 10 m2 or more (a) within a watercourse; (c) within 32m of a measured from the edge of a watercourse … (d) in the water course in (i) the Western Cape (i) outside urban areas Western Cape (ii) outside urban areas in (dd) sensitive in (aa) a protected area identified in terms of NEM:PAA. areas as identified in an EMF adopted by the competent authority. 19: The widening of a road by more than 4 m or the 18: The widening or a road by more than 4 m; or the lengthening of a road by more than 1 km in (d)(ii) all areas lengthening of a road by more than 1 km (i) in the Western outside urban areas. Cape (i) outside urban areas in (aa) a protected area identified in terms of NEM:PAA and (gg) areas within 10 km from any protected area identified in terms of NEM:PAA.
Legal requirements for this project:
The proponent is obliged to apply for EA for these listed activities and to undertake an S&EIR process in support of the application, in accordance with the procedure stipulated in GN R543 of 2010.
2.1.3 National Water Act 36 of 1998 Water use in South Africa is controlled by the NWA. The executive authority is the Department of Water and Sanitation (DWS). The NWA recognises that water is a scarce and unevenly distributed national resource in South Africa. Its provisions are aimed at achieving sustainable and equitable use of water to the benefit of all users and to ensure protection of the aquatic ecosystems associated with South Africa’s water resources. The provisions of the Act are aimed at discouraging pollution and wastage of water resources.
In terms of the Act, a land user, occupier or owner of land where an activity that causes or has the potential to cause pollution of a water resource has a duty to take measures to prevent pollution from occurring. If these measures are not taken, the responsible authority may do whatever is necessary to prevent the pollution or remedy its effects, and to recover all reasonable costs from the responsible party.
Section 21 of the NWA specifies a number of water uses, including:
(c) impeding or diverting the flow of water in a watercourse; and
(i) altering the bed, banks, course or characteristics of a watercourse.
These water uses require authorisation in terms of Section 22 (1) of the Act, unless they are listed in Schedule 1 of the NWA, are an existing lawful use, fall under a General Authorisation issued under section 39 or if the responsible authority waives the need for a licence.
Legal requirements for this project:
A Risk Assessment in terms of Notice 509 of 2016 was undertaken and is provided in Appendix H2. An application for Water Use Authorisation was submitted to the BGCMA on 4 December 2017 in hardcopy and subsequently through the online e-WULAAS on 19 February 2018. BGCMA undertook
REUT/DALC 448281_Hermanus CBD Bypass_Amended FEIR_Finalised September 2020 SRK Consulting: 448281 Hermanus CBD Bypass Amended Final EIA Report Page 10
a site visit on 23 August 2018. A Water Use License was issued on 29 January 2020 (see Appendix H5). While a preference is noted for the southern alignment, the northern alignment has been authorised as per the coordinates provided in the Water Use Licence.
2.1.4 National Heritage Resources Act 25 of 1999 The protection and management of South Africa’s heritage resources are controlled by the NHRA. The enforcing authority for this act in the Western Cape Province is Heritage Western Cape (HWC). In terms of the Act, historically important features such as graves, trees, archaeological artefacts/sites and fossil beds are protected. Similarly, culturally significant symbols, spaces and landscapes are also afforded protection.
Section 38 of the NHRA requires that any person who intends to undertake certain categories of development must notify the relevant authority (HWC) at the very earliest stage of initiating such a development and must furnish details of the location, nature and extent of the proposed development.
Section 38 also makes provision for the assessment of heritage impacts as part of an EIA process and indicates that, if such an assessment is deemed adequate, a separate HIA is not required. There is however the requirement in terms of Section 38 (8) for the consenting authority (in this case the DEA&DP) to ensure that the evaluation of impacts on the heritage resources fulfils the requirements of the relevant heritage resources authority (HWC), and that the comments and recommendations of the heritage resources authority are taken into account prior to the granting of the consent.
Section 38(1) of the NHRA specifies activities that trigger the need for the proponent to notify HWC of the proposed development, in order for HWC to determine the need for further heritage assessment. The proposed Hermanus CBD Bypass triggers the following activity:
(a) Construction of a road, wall, power line, canal or other similar form of linear development or barrier over 300 m in length.
Legal requirements for this project:
The proponent is required to notify HWC of the proposed activities and then undertake any assessments deemed necessary by HWC. A Notification of Intent to Develop (NID) was submitted to HWC on 2 December 2014. In response to the NID, HWC has requested that a HIA is undertaken for the project, considering the project impact on the cultural landscape as well as cultural, archaeological and visual resources. The assessment was undertaken as part of the S&EIR process (see Appendix L1). In the Final Comment dated 12 March 2018, HWC supports the proposal6.
2.1.5 National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act 10 of 2004 The purpose of the NEM:BA is to provide for the management and conservation of South Africa’s biodiversity and the protection of species and ecosystems that warrant national protection. The NEM:BA makes provision for the publication of bioregional plans and the listing of ecosystems and species that are threatened or in need of protection. Threatened or Protected Species Regulations (2007), Guidelines for the determination of bioregions and the preparation and publication of
6 The HWC Final Comment states that HWC “… support the proposal as indicated in the consultant’s recommendations report […] dated January 2018”, although the Heritage Specialist Study conducted by ACO Associates and included in the EIA documentation is dated August 2016. HWC’s Final Comment refers to the date when the Heritage Specialist Study and associated documentation (including the Visual Impact Assessment [VIA] and stakeholder comments) was formally submitted to HWC for Final Comment, after the Final EIA Report had been submitted to DEA&DP. In addition, HWC (Andrew September) had been a stakeholder throughout the EIA process and had been notified of the various report releases.
REUT/DALC 448281_Hermanus CBD Bypass_Amended FEIR_Finalised September 2020 SRK Consulting: 448281 Hermanus CBD Bypass Amended Final EIA Report Page 11
bioregional plans (2009) and a National List of Ecosystems that are Threatened and in Need of Protection (2011) have been promulgated in terms of NEM:BA.
A published bioregional plan is a spatial plan indicating terrestrial and aquatic features in the landscape that are critical for conserving biodiversity and maintaining ecosystem functioning. These areas are referred to as Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBAs) in terms of NEM:BA. Bioregional plans provide guidelines for avoiding the loss or degradation of natural habitat in CBAs with the aim of informing, EIAs and land-use planning (including Environmental Management Frameworks [EMFs], Spatial Development Frameworks [SDFs], and Integrated Development Plans [IDPs]).
Permits to carry out a restricted activity involving listed threatened or protected species or alien species may only be issued after an assessment of risks and potential impacts on biodiversity has been undertaken.
Legal requirements for this project:
Although a bioregional plan has not been formally published for the area, a terrestrial CBA and an aquatic Ecological Support Area (ESA) preliminarily identified by the South African Botanical Institute (SANBI) are located in the proposed project area. The impacts of the project on the biodiversity of the area and, in particular, the CBAs and ESAs, will need to be assessed.
2.1.6 National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act 57 of 2003 The protection and management of South Africa’s protected areas are controlled by the NEM:PAA. The Act provides for:
• Declaration of nature reserves and determination of the type of reserve declared;
• Cooperative governance in the declaration and management of nature reserves;
• A system of protected areas to manage and conserve biodiversity; and
• The utilization and participation of local communities in the management of protected areas.
The following authorities are empowered under the Act to declare an area as a protected area (e.g. national park, nature reserve etc.):
• The Minister of Environmental Affairs;
• A Member of the Executive Committee (MEC) for Environmental Affairs in the respective Province; and
• A Municipality.
In designating a protected area, the relevant competent authority is obliged to follow an appropriate consultation process. The Act requires that local protected areas must be managed by the relevant municipality, or that management is assigned to an appropriately capacitated municipal entity. A municipality managing a local protected area must prepare a management plan for the protected area for approval by the provincial MEC.
The Minister or MEC may declare or extend a protected area in terms of Section 23 of NEM:PAA through a notice published in the Government Gazette. In terms of Section 24 (1), parts of a nature reserve may only be excluded by resolution of the:
• National Assembly, where the reserve was declared by the Minister; or
• Provincial legislature, where the reserve was declared by the MEC.
In terms of Section 31, the MEC must consult with affected organs of state and the public before excluding an area from a nature reserve.
REUT/DALC 448281_Hermanus CBD Bypass_Amended FEIR_Finalised September 2020 SRK Consulting: 448281 Hermanus CBD Bypass Amended Final EIA Report Page 12
The FNR was proclaimed in terms of the Western Cape Nature Conservation Ordinance, 19 of 1974 (WCNCO, see 2.1.7) and is deemed a nature reserve under the NEM:PAA in terms of Section 12 of the NEM:PAA.
Legal requirements for this project:
Should the Hermanus CBD Bypass impact on areas within the FNR, an appropriate process must be followed to ensure compliance with NEM:PAA regarding the location of a road in a portion of the FNR.
If deproclamation of the portion of the FNR affected by the Hermanus CBD Bypass is required, in terms of Section 24 of the NEM:PAA, such affected areas must be excluded from the FNR by the MEC for Environmental Affairs of the Western Cape Province. Before issuing a notice of exclusion, the MEC must consult with organs of state and the public as prescribed by Sections 31 and 33 of the NEM:PAA, which requires the publication of an advertisement in at least two national newspapers and affording the public a comment period of at least 60 days. As the FNR is considered a nature reserve in terms of the NEM:PAA and the WCNCO, deproclamation must comply with both sets of legislation. The required steps are laid out in Section 2.1.7.
A process to exclude any areas from the FNR is beyond the scope of and would be undertaken subsequent to the EIA process.
2.1.7 Western Cape Nature Conservation Ordinance, 19 of 1974 The WCNCO relates, inter alia, to the establishment of provincial, local and private nature reserves in the Western Cape. The FNR was proclaimed in terms of Section 7 of the WCNCO.
Section 7 (7) (a) makes allowance for the local authority that established the nature reserve to alter the boundaries or name of the reserve with the authorisation of the responsible Minister. Any alteration shall be notified in the Provincial Gazette.
Legal requirements for this project:
As the FNR is considered a nature reserve in terms of the NEM:PAA and the WCNCO, deproclamation, if required, must comply with both sets of legislation. The required steps are laid out below (pers. comm. G. Mortimer, CapeNature, 17 November 2016):
1. Request CapeNature in writing to assist with an application for the (1) alteration of the FNR boundary in terms of the WCNCO and (2) exclusion of a part of the FNR in terms of the NEM:PAA;
2. Present the request for alteration and exclusion to the Protected Area Expansion and Stewardship Review Committee, together with reasons for the alteration and exclusion, to be captured in the minutes and to quantify the loss to the Protected Area network;
3. First submission by CapeNature to the MEC for approval to proceed with a public participation process in terms of the NEM:PAA;
4. Undertake public participation process in terms of NEM:PAA (including consultation with relevant organs of state and publication of an advertisement in at least two national newspapers and affording the public a comment period of at least 60 days);
5. If required, appoint a Professional Land Surveyor to compile a plan of the amended FNR and submit to the Surveyor General for approval;
6. Second submission by CapeNature to the MEC to request resolution of the provincial legislature. The process to obtain the resolution will be undertaken via the MEC’s office and tabled at a sitting of the Provincial Legislature; and
REUT/DALC 448281_Hermanus CBD Bypass_Amended FEIR_Finalised September 2020 SRK Consulting: 448281 Hermanus CBD Bypass Amended Final EIA Report Page 13
7. Third submission to the MEC, once resolution has been obtained, to request alteration of the FNR boundary in terms of Section 7 (7) (a) of WCNCO and exclusion of a part of the FNR in terms of Section 24 (1) of NEM:PAA.
2.2 Policy Framework This section discusses a number of key formal planning policies relevant to the project. The policies and plans briefly discussed below include regional and local development and spatial plans, including the:
• Western Cape Provincial Spatial Development Framework (SDF);
• Western Cape Provincial Land Transport Framework (WCPLTF);
• Integrated Development Plans (IDPs) for District and Local Municipalities, which formulate the specific needs in, and desirable developments for, municipalities;
• SDFs for the District and Local Municipalities, which translate the aims of the IDP into a spatial dimension and, together with the IDP, aim to give effect to the national imperative to increase economic growth and promote social inclusion whilst ensuring that such growth is environmentally sustainable (DEA&DP, 2009);
• Overstrand Local Municipality Integrated Transport Plan (ITP);
• Overstrand Local Municipality Strategic Environmental Management Framework (EMF);
• Hermanus District Growth Management Strategy;
• Hermanus CBD Regeneration Framework; and
• National and Western Cape Draft Biodiversity Offset Guidelines.
The implications of these policies for the project and performance of the project with the policies is discussed in Section 10 on need and desirability.
2.2.1 Western Cape Provincial Spatial Development Framework (2014) The Western Cape Provincial SDF serves as a coherent framework for the development of the Province’s urban and rural areas and provides overarching provincial guiding principles and spatial policies. The guiding spatial principles of the Western Cape SDF (2014) aim to ensure the following:
• Spatial justice (through improved access to and use of land by disadvantaged communities);
• Sustainability and resilience (through spatially compact development);
• Spatial efficiency (relating to the form of settlements and the use of resources);
• Accessibility (through improving access to services, facilities, employment, training, recreation and safe and efficient transport modes); and
• Quality and liveability (through the provision of quality urban environments that are legible, diverse, varied and unique).
The Western Cape Provincial Development Framework states that the safeguarding of the biodiversity network and the functionality of ecosystem services are prerequisites of the agenda to improve the sustainable use of the Western Cape’s spatial assets. The risks posed by climate change have been taken into account with the planning of the Green Economy Strategic Framework, which has been considered and incorporated into the development of the PSDF. This includes increasing the sustainability of the waste sector to increase recycling and reuse as well as the adoption of waste to
REUT/DALC 448281_Hermanus CBD Bypass_Amended FEIR_Finalised September 2020 SRK Consulting: 448281 Hermanus CBD Bypass Amended Final EIA Report Page 14
energy technology in the future. The PSDF takes air pollution into consideration, most importantly in the urbanised, low income areas, where air quality is poor.
The Provincial SDF outlines a spatial logic that underlines its spatial strategy:
• Capitalise by building on existing strengths;
• Consolidate existing and emerging regional economic nodes;
• Connect markets and consumers, fragmented settlements and Critical Biodiversity Areas; and
• Cluster economic infrastructure facilities along public transport routes.
A number of provincial spatial policies are included in the SDF, including policy E1: Use regional infrastructure investment to leverage economic growth. One of the goals of this strategy is to limit new urban transport investment to spatial developments that reduce average travel times, as opposed to extending them.
The Provincial SDF also includes a composite map which articulates the future spatial vision. The map highlights the Overstrand as a leisure / tourism area. A tourism route leading through the town of Hermanus is identified, and the town itself is described as a regional centre. The Overstrand coastal belt is considered a significant leisure, lifestyle, holiday and retirement economic centre (see Figure 2-1). The Provincial SDF also classifies the growth potential in both Hermanus and the Overberg District Municipality as very high (see Figure 2-2).
The PSDF lists 13 spatial policies7:
• R1: Protect biodiversity and ecosystem services;
• R2: Safeguard inland and coastal water resources, and manage the sustainable use of water;
• R3: Safeguard the Western Cape’s agricultural and mineral resources, and manage their sustainable use;
• R4: Recycle and recover waste, deliver clean sources of energy to urban consumers, shift from private to public transport and adapt to and mitigate against climate change;
• R5: Safeguard cultural and scenic assets;
• E1: Use regional infrastructure investment to leverage economic growth;
• E2: Diversify and strengthen the rural economy;
• E3: Revitalise and strengthen urban space-economies as the engine of growth;
• S1: Protect, manage and enhance sense of place, cultural and scenic landscapes;
• S2: Improve inter and intra-regional accessibility;
• S3: Promote compact, mixed use and integrated settlements;
• S4: Balance and coordinate the delivery of facilities and social services; and
• S5: Promote sustainable, integrated and inclusive housing in formal and informal markets.
R3, E2, S4 and S5 are not deemed highly relevant to the Hermanus CBD Bypass. The performance of the project with regards to the other spatial policies stipulated is discussed with regards to the need and desirability of the project in Section 10.
7 R – Resources, E – Space Economy, S - Settlement
REUT/DALC 448281_Hermanus CBD Bypass_Amended FEIR_Finalised September 2020 SRK Consulting: 448281 Hermanus CBD Bypass Amended Final EIA Report Page 15
Figure 2-1: Western Cape Provincial SDF - Consolidated Framework Proposals Source: Western Cape Provincial SDF (2014)
REUT/DALC 448281_Hermanus CBD Bypass_Amended FEIR_Finalised September 2020 SRK Consulting: 448281 Hermanus CBD Bypass Amended Final EIA Report Page 16
Figure 2-2: Western Cape Provincial SDF - Growth potential for settlements and municipalities Source: Western Cape Provincial SDF (2014)
REUT/DALC 448281_Hermanus CBD Bypass_Amended FEIR_Finalised September 2020 SRK Consulting: 448281 Hermanus CBD Bypass Amended Final EIA Report Page 17
2.2.2 Western Cape Provincial Land Transport Framework (2011/12 – 2015/16) The WCPLTF is a high-level strategic document informing transport and land-use related provincial decision making across all transport modes. The framework envisages that in 2050, the transport system in the Western Cape will be defined by the following elements:
• Fully integrated rapid public transport networks in higher-order urban regions;
• Fully integrated public transport networks in rural regions;
• A safe public transport system;
• A well maintained road network;
• A sustainable, efficient high speed rail long distance public and freight transport network;
• An efficient international airport that links the rest of the world to the choice gateway of the African continent;
• International-standard ports and logistics systems;
• A transport system that is resilient to peak oil; and
• A transport system that is fully integrated with land use.
2.2.3 Overberg District Municipality Integrated Development Plan (2017/18 – 2021/22) The Overberg District Municipality’s (ODM) IDP is a strategic plan to guide the development of the District for a specific period. It guides the planning, budgeting, implementation, management and future decision making processes of the District Municipality.
Strategic priorities of the ODM are to:
• Ensure the health and safety of all in the ODM through the provision of efficient basic services and infrastructure;
• Promote local economic development by supporting initiatives in the district for the development of a sustainable district economy;
• Ensure good governance practices by providing a democratic and proactive accountable government and ensuring community participation through existing intergovernmental structures;
• Ensure municipal transformation and institutional development by creating a staff structure that adheres to the principles of employment equity and promote skills development; and
• Attain and maintain financial viability and sustainability by executing accounting services in accordance with national policy and guidelines.
2.2.4 Overberg District Municipality Spatial Development Framework (2014) The vision of the draft ODM’s Spatial Development Framework (SDF) (2014) is to optimise the rich and balanced mix of the Overberg’s agriculture, tourism, heritage and conservation resources. A number of Smart Growth Principles are described in the SDF. The aim is to make use of these principles to achieve integrated and efficient human settlements. Smart Growth Principles include:
• Provide a variety of transportation choices, including private, public and non-motorised transport opportunities that are safe; and
• Encourage growth in existing communities through infrastructure upgrades, urban renewal and densification.
REUT/DALC 448281_Hermanus CBD Bypass_Amended FEIR_Finalised September 2020 SRK Consulting: 448281 Hermanus CBD Bypass Amended Final EIA Report Page 18
The draft SDF also makes provision for the identification of Spatial Planning Categories (SPCs) to guide land use management. SPCs include Core areas (formally protected areas and river and wetland corridors) and Buffer areas (Critical Biodiversity Areas outside Core areas and extensive agricultural areas). The SDF and SPCs specific to the Hermanus area have not yet been included, although it is likely that conservation areas will coincide with those identified in the Environmental Management Framework (EMF) (see Section 2.2.8).
The SDF elaborates on the purpose of the urban edge and states that urban settlements should be located within the urban edge, while other uses (such as agriculture or conservation) should be located outside the urban edge. According to the SDF, the urban edge should also enclose sufficient land area to accommodate the growth of the settlement within the urban edge over a 10-20 year period.
The western portion the Hermanus CBD bypass will serve as an urban edge to the north of Hermanus, aiming to limit urban sprawl and encourage densification. However, portions of the route may fall within Core areas associated with formally protected areas and river and wetland corridors. The SDF would promote the conservation of these areas and the environmental impact of development in these areas must be assessed.
2.2.5 Overstrand Local Municipality Integrated Development Plan (2017/18 – 2021/22) The Overstrand Municipality’s IDP serves as an over-arching strategic plan for the Municipal area. The mission of the IDP is to create sustainable communities by delivering optimal services to support economic, social and environmental goals. The strategic objectives of the IDP include the:
• Provision of democratic and accountable governance;
• Provision and maintenance of municipal services;
• Encouragement of structured community participation in the matters of the municipality;
• Creation and maintenance of a safe and healthy environment; and
• Promotion of tourism, economic and social development.
The IDP outlines a number of focus areas, including social upliftment and economic development and a safe and healthy environment. Strategies include the creation of an environment conducive for local economic development and effective environmental management.
The IDP lists a number of challenges faced by the Municipality, including:
• Housing backlog and densely populated informal settlements;
• Unemployment;
• Infrastructure maintenance;
• Infrastructure backlog; and
• Sourcing of funds.
The Overstrand IDP provides a strategy for the effective development of Municipal infrastructure, including roads, and includes an assessment of the road infrastructure requirements for the next 25 years.
Chapter 2 of the Overstrand IDP provides, inter alia, a summary of the individual priorities of all 13 wards in Overstrand. One of the needs stated for Ward 3 by Councillor Brice is “An upgraded and improved CBD Relief Road (between the Old Synagogue and The Deli to provide a Bypass function so that the existing Main Road can be de-proclaimed and the Relief Road proclaimed as the Provincial
REUT/DALC 448281_Hermanus CBD Bypass_Amended FEIR_Finalised September 2020 SRK Consulting: 448281 Hermanus CBD Bypass Amended Final EIA Report Page 19
Road.)”, as the “Overstrand Transport Plan forecasts some future need that needs to be catered for - but not by a bypass through Fernkloof”.
Chapter 4 provides the strategy for the next 5 years. The Hermanus Bypass is listed as one of the “major road projects planned by the Province over the short to medium term” under KPA 1 Basic Service Delivery - OS 1 (a) Effective development of Municipal Infrastructure Section 1.5 Roads. The project is listed as being in the planning stage and described as “Hermanus by-pass, involving the relocation of the TR28 through Hermanus and the closing of the proclaimed road network within the town of Hermanus”, with an indicated budget allocation of R203 million between 2018 and 2022. The project status is described in more detail as “The Hermanus CBD bypass is proposed to start in the vicinity of the intersection of Main Road and Mimosa Street in the west, run along Mountain Drive, Jose Burman Drive and Fairways Avenue and re-join Main Road east of the existing intersection of Fairways Avenue with Main Road. The project is currently in the environmental phase.”.
Chapter 7, which relates to alignment of the IDP with government policies and directives, lists the Hermanus CBD Bypass as one of 16 infrastructure and/or capital investment projects planned by Provincial Departments for the period from 2017/18 to 2019/20, of which eight infrastructure projects fall under the DTPW.
Chapter 2 indicates that the proposed Hermanus CBD Bypass project is not supported at Ward level. However, the desired proclamation of the CBD Relief Road as the Provincial Road has been rejected as an alternative by the DTPW. In contrast, the Hermanus CBD Bypass project is listed in Chapters 4 and 7 of the IDP as a strategic project in planning. This apparent conflict between the ward-level need identified in Chapter 2 and the planned investment reported in Chapters 4 and 7 is not discussed or resolved in the IDP.
2.2.6 Overstrand Local Municipality Integrated Development Framework (2013) The Integrated Development Framework (IDF) outlines the strategic direction for growth and development in the Overstrand region towards 2050 by amalgamating the current five-year plans with a long-term integrated spatial vision. The Draft IDF outlines a broad set of principles, spatial directions, policies, frameworks, plans and actions and will be used as an overall strategic guide for land use planning, service infrastructure planning and environmental management for the area. The Draft IDF outlines six spatial directives:
• A liveable Overstrand structured by a profound network of connected and accessible rural and urban communities that has retained and enhanced its reputation for being a world class tourism and lifestyle destination through a balance between growth and development and preserving the natural environment;
• An environmentally sustainable and resilient Overstrand where urban areas are well integrated with internal and surrounding natural environments and where new developments are designed to incorporate low-impact principles;
• An Overstrand that enables a prosperous and diverse economy with local employment opportunities provided by diverse commercial, industrial, agricultural and tourism activities that are strategically located across the municipal area. Key clusters of economic activities in the main urban centres include commercial, recreation and tourist accommodation clusters in Hermanus and Gansbaai, amongst others;
• A memorable and distinctive Overstrand where the local identity and character is secured and enhanced;
REUT/DALC 448281_Hermanus CBD Bypass_Amended FEIR_Finalised September 2020 SRK Consulting: 448281 Hermanus CBD Bypass Amended Final EIA Report Page 20
• Vibrant and exciting urban areas characterised by high quality public spaces, investment in regenerating existing building infrastructure and implementation of sound planning and urban design principles in CBDs; and
• An accessible and connected Overstrand where residential and business communities are integrated by a highly efficient transportation network that allows all residents access to products and services required.
The Draft IDF spatial vision and key management and development policies for eastern Greater Hermanus are provided in Figure 2-3 and Figure 2-4.
REUT/DALC 448281_Hermanus CBD Bypass_Amended FEIR_Finalised September 2020 SRK Consulting: 448281 Hermanus CBD Bypass Amended Final EIA Report Page 21
Figure 2-3: Draft IDF spatial vision for Greater Hermanus (east)
REUT/DALC 448281_Hermanus CBD Bypass_Amended FEIR_Finalised September 2020 SRK Consulting: 448281 Hermanus CBD Bypass Amended Final EIA Report Page 22
Figure 2-4: Draft IDF key policies directing future management and development in Greater Hermanus (east)
REUT/DALC 448281_Hermanus CBD Bypass_Amended FEIR_Finalised September 2020 SRK Consulting: 448281 Hermanus CBD Bypass Amended Final EIA Report Page 23
2.2.7 Overstrand Local Municipality Spatial Development Framework (2020) An updated SDF was released in June 2020. The SDF defines the goals and objectives for the Overstrand area and translates them into spatially based policies, strategies and proposals at the municipal and local level. The SDF notes that the Greater Hermanus area is a popular retirement, holiday and tourism destination. Key challenges cited in the SDF include in-migration, provision of low- cost formal housing, basic service delivery, limited development space, infestation of invasive alien plants which dramatically decrease water quantity from mountain catchment areas and protecting the Overstrand’s natural and heritage resources. The spatial principles applied to spatial planning in the Greater Hermanus area are:
• Identity and overarching spatial development pattern within a clear hierarchy of nodes and settlements: Development should be guided by an overarching hierarchical spatial development pattern of needs and settlements. The hierarchy of the development patterns being clearly defined based on the empirical determined growth potentials, the principles of comparative advantage and the prerequisite of sustainable development.
• Containment: The growth of urban nodes and rural / agricultural settlements should be strictly contained within well-defined boundaries, within new potential rural development areas contained by the same mechanism.
• Compaction and Densification: Growth should be managed so as to ensure that development pressures are, wherever possible, directed and absorbed within the defined urban areas. Appropriate densification specific to each urban area must be encouraged to limited unwanted sprawl into the rural hinterland as outlined in detail in the Overstrand Growth Management Strategy.
• Ecological Integrity: The diversity, health and productivity of natural eco-systems, throughout the rural, urban and agricultural areas should be maintained through an interlinked web of natural spaces and the protection of important and sensitive habitats. The Overstrand Strategic Environmental Management Framework, 2014 forms a basis from which this principle can further be translated to implementation.
• Agricultural Enhancement: Protect prime and unique agricultural areas from non-soil based land use activities.
• Land Use Diversification: The diversification of rural and industrial based development opportunities, based on locational and comparative resource advantages must be promoted in selected areas to stimulate economic growth and employment of the rural population.
The primary elements which informed the proposed spatial management planning concept are:
• Protection of areas of high irreplaceability in terms of meeting targets for biodiversity conservation, areas important for the maintenance of ecological and evolutionary processes, areas critical to the provision of ecological services, and special habitats.
• Integration of the river systems and coastal line as ecological corridors into the regional open space system.
• Integration of the mountain ranges and catchment areas into the regional open space system.
• Protecting soil-based agricultural potential areas.
• Promoting urban development and growth within an established growth potential hierarchy and with due regard to the main functions, growth potentials, comparative economic advantages and
REUT/DALC 448281_Hermanus CBD Bypass_Amended FEIR_Finalised September 2020 SRK Consulting: 448281 Hermanus CBD Bypass Amended Final EIA Report Page 24
spatial capacity of the various urban areas. Hermanus is identified as the primary and key urban node / centre with the secondary, tertiary, quaternary nodes also indicated on the plan.
• Retaining rural settlements and their surrounding areas as focus areas for rural development initiatives based on their unique comparative advantages.
• Protecting scenic routes identified during the process of delineating the Draft Heritage Protection Overlay Zone Regulations.
• Cross municipal biodiversity linkages especially to be managed in cooperation with abutting Municipalities.
• The potential for increased inter-municipal and regional economic growth via strengthening the economic and spatial linkages between the Overstrand settlements, Theewaterskloof (Botrivier/Caledon) and the City of Cape Town Metropolitan Municipality.
Various policies directing future management and development in the Greater Hermanus Area specificially are provided in the SDF, including inter alia:
• LO 4 (iv) Ensure that mixed-use densification of land uses is achieved when managing urban growth.
• LO 8 (ii), MO 3 (ii) & ECO 1 (i) Ensure that environmentally sensitive areas, significant cultural landscapes and heritage sites are protected and enhanced.
• EO 2 (ii) Ensure that development is confined within urban edges and growth is managed based on sustainable densification principles.
• EO 3 (i) & MO 2 (ii) Encourage and support the development of networks of open space that sustain and enhance eco-system functioning, connect fragments of vegetation, protect waterways and regenerate the natural environment.
• VO 1 (i) Encourage mixed use and high density residential development within and adjacent to urban, suburban and rural centres.
• VO 1 (ii) Promote urban, suburban and rural centres as the primary commercial areas within settlements and suppress and limit commercial development outside of these centres.
• VO 1 (ix) & AO 4 (v) Neighbourhood nodes and the CBD should become the nucleus of business/commercial and other public infrastructure/services, ultimately becoming focused clusters of facilities and services/multi-purpose centres.
• AO 5 (i) Maintain or improve the comfort and safety of pedestrians and cyclists on main pedestrian and cycling routes, routes connecting schools and centres, by means of adequate road space allocation, the management of traffic speeds and volumes.
• ECO 1 (ii) Ensure that tourism destinations are accessible, safe and attractive by means of maintaining and developing new facilities.
The proposed Hermanus CBD Bypass is shown on various plans provided in the SDF, e.g. as an “Arterial Route” in the Spatial Management Concept (Plan 41), the 2050 Spatial Proposal Hermanus East (Plan 57) (see Figure 2-5) and the Hermanus Central Spatial Proposal 2020 (Plan 59). The Hermanus CBD Bypass appears not to be explicitly mentioned or discussed in the SDF.
REUT/DALC 448281_Hermanus CBD Bypass_Amended FEIR_Finalised September 2020 SRK Consulting: 448281 Hermanus CBD Bypass Amended Final EIA Report Page 25
SDF Plan 41: Overstrand Municipality Spatial Management Concept
SDF Plan 57: 2050 Spatial Proposal Hermanus East
HERMANUS CBD BYPASS Project No. OVERSTRAND MUNICIPALITY SDF PLANS 448281
Figure 2-5: Overstrand Municipality SDF Plans Source: Overstrand Municipality (2020)
REUT/DALC 448281_Hermanus CBD Bypass_Amended FEIR_Finalised September 2020 SRK Consulting: 448281 Hermanus CBD Bypass Amended Final EIA Report Page 26
2.2.8 Overstrand Local Municipality Integrated Transport Plan (2012-2016) The Integrated Transport Plan (ITP) is prepared in terms of the National Land Transport Transition Act 22 of 2000 and the National Land Transport Act 5 of 2009. The ITP identifies a number of initiatives to address road problems in Hermanus:
• Upgrade of the R43 between Sandbaai and Hermanus to increase capacity;
• Surfacing of the gravel portion and rehabilitation of the remainder of the R320 between Hermanus and Caledon;
• Construction of the Hermanus Parallel Road to enable residents in Vermont, Onrus, Sandbaai, Zwelihle and Mount Pleasant to access the Hermanus CDB and Industrial Areas without using the R43; and
• Construction of the Hermanus bypass road.
2.2.9 Overstrand Local Municipality Strategic Environmental Management Framework (2013) The main purpose of the Overstrand Municipality’s Strategic EMF (2013) is to provide a support mechanism in EIA processes for the evaluation and review of development applications, as well as to inform decision-making regarding land-use planning applications.
Mapping information is not included in the EMF version. However, the EMF references the SANBI Biodiversity Geographic Information Systems (BGIS) database for biodiversity information. In terms of the SANBI BGIS database, the western portion of the Hermanus CBD Bypass (along Mountain Drive) and the central portion of the northern alignment (above the Hermanus Sports Complex) fall within a CBA. The eastern portion of the bypass crosses a wetland feature that is identified as an ESA.
In terms of the Strategic EMF, CBAs are identified as Core 1 SPCs, which are to be conserved, maintained and rehabilitated where degraded. Land uses that should not be supported in Core 1 areas include the transformation of any natural or near natural land, bulk infrastructure and services and the transformation of land on slopes steeper than 1:4.
ESAs are identified as Core 2 SPCs in terms of the EMF. The management objective of these areas is to maintain key ecological processes. Supported development typologies include conservation, extensive agriculture and agri-tourism / resort developments. Land uses that should not be supported in these areas include the transformation or loss of >1ha of any natural or near natural habitats, or habitats containing Critically Endangered or Endangered vegetation types and the development of buildings or infrastructure within the 1:100 year floodplain or wetlands.
However, the EMF notes that broad-scale mapping information is not highly accurate and that ground- truthing and specialist investigations are required to ensure the accuracy of biodiversity information and allow for informed decision-making in terms of assessing appropriate land uses and their associated biodiversity impacts.
2.2.10 Hermanus District Growth Management Strategy (2010) The 2010 Hermanus District Growth Management Strategy (HDGMS) was compiled to promote urban densification as an integral part of a growth management strategy to positively redress and counteract the effects of urban sprawl and to provide clear guidelines for land use management. The HDGMS provides an overall average maximum gross density for the Overstrand area based on local assessments of the propensity of the various areas to densify, taking into account historic, demographic, socio-economic and environmental factors as well as the carrying capacity of municipal infrastructure and services.
REUT/DALC 448281_Hermanus CBD Bypass_Amended FEIR_Finalised September 2020 SRK Consulting: 448281 Hermanus CBD Bypass Amended Final EIA Report Page 27
The HDGMS highlights significant variations in densification proposals and planning strategies for different areas in the Overstrand. While the R44 corridor between Rooi Els and Kleinmond is generally being treated as a low growth area, Hawston/ Fisherhaven and Greater Gansbaai are two identified as future growth centres where significant residential and other developments are being proposed (Joint Venture, 2015).
Residential densification in the Hermanus CBD is limited to 3 storeys, row houses and mixed use development that relate to the commercial aspect of the area and consider its historic character. This format could increase the density to 30.5 dwellings units per ha, with would require an additional pre- primary school, library and 2.4 ha of open space (Overstrand Municipality, 2015).
2.2.11 Hermanus CBD Regeneration Framework A review of the 2002 renewal and conservation plan for the Hermanus CBD was commissioned by the Overstrand Municipality to sustain investment within the Hermanus CBD and boost the economic role of the Hermanus CBD as a business area and tourism centre, with a specific view to future competition arising from new out of town malls.
The Hermanus CBD Regeneration Framework Final Report was compiled in 2016 and intends “to provide a plan for the ongoing upgrading of the public environment to ensure that the Hermanus CBD remains a vibrant, safe and attractive place for locals and visitors to spend time” (Overstrand Municipality, 2016).
The objectives of the project can be summarised as follows:
• Strengthen the sense of place – specifically in protecting the historic village character and relationship to the natural environment of the coast;
• Promote ease of access – creating a pedestrian network that will be efficient, complete, safe, legible and comfortable, and vehicular circulation should be efficiently managed with adequate provision of appropriately located parking;
• Encourage economically resilient development – through establishing critical mass through densification, infill, mixed-use and clustering of activity; and
• Create a vibrant public realm – public areas should be pedestrian/people-oriented, providing comfort, legibility, unified and defined sense of spaces.
The report notes that pedestrian accessibility to and within the CBD is a key ingredient of the attractiveness of the CBD to locals and tourists, and hence the success of retail business and quality of life for residents. It further states that the heavy traffic flow, dominance of cars on and width of Main Road (R43) are significant barriers to easy pedestrian connectivity between the core CBD and the coastal edge and deter residents and visitors from fully experiencing the Hermanus CBD on foot. Other aspects that are identified in the report as detrimental to and undermining the character of the CBD are pedestrian-vehicular conflict (see Figure 2-6) and challenges with regards to safety, noise, emissions and congestion.
REUT/DALC 448281_Hermanus CBD Bypass_Amended FEIR_Finalised September 2020 SRK Consulting: 448281 Hermanus CBD Bypass Amended Final EIA Report Page 28
HERMANUS CBD BYPASS Project No. EXISTING AREAS OF PEDESTRIAN-VEHICULAR CONFLICT IN 448281 THE HERMANUS CBD Figure 2-6: Areas of pedestrian-vehicular conflict in the Hermanus CBD – existing situation Source: Overstrand Municipality (2016)
The report also makes reference to the investigation by the Provincial Roads Engineer into a bypass road to assume the regional mobility function currently performed by Main Road, and notes that “as soon as the bypass road is approved, the section of Main Road between Church Street and Lord Roberts Street will be de-proclaimed as a provincial main road and transferred to Overstrand Municipality, who can then adapt the road environment to fulfil the function of an activity corridor”.
The framework prioritises a number of streets for pedestrian upgrading. In Main Road it proposes that sidewalks are widened and upgraded (through e.g. reducing on-street parking and improved traffic control), landscaping, street furniture and signage are provided and pedestrian crossings are improved at key intersections, especially those aligned with the pedestrian alleyways (see Figure 2-7 for the Lemm’s Corner focus area).
REUT/DALC 448281_Hermanus CBD Bypass_Amended FEIR_Finalised September 2020 SRK Consulting: 448281 Hermanus CBD Bypass Amended Final EIA Report Page 29
HERMANUS CBD BYPASS Project No. LEMM’S CORNER FOCUS AREA 448281
Figure 2-7: Lemm’s Corner focus area Source: Overstrand Municipality (2016)
HERMANUS CBD BYPASS Project No. PROPOSED MAIN ROAD LAYOUT 448281
Figure 2-8: Proposed Main Road layout between Park Avenue and Harbour Road Source: Overstrand Municipality (2016)
It is further proposed to construct a median island between the Church Street roundabout and Harbour Road traffic signals and that traffic flow is more strongly controlled by restricting turning options at certain points (see Figure 2-8). Raised pedestrian crossings may be provided across Main Road to emphasize pedestrian routes such as the alley next to Pep Stores, linking Main Road to Long Street.
REUT/DALC 448281_Hermanus CBD Bypass_Amended FEIR_Finalised September 2020 SRK Consulting: 448281 Hermanus CBD Bypass Amended Final EIA Report Page 30
2.2.12 Draft National Biodiversity Offset Policy (2017) The Draft National Biodiversity Offset Policy was published for public comment on 31 March 2017, in furtherance of the National Biodiversity Framework (NBF) (GN813 of 2009) requirement to provide a policy framework for biodiversity offsets. The policy has not yet been finalised or gazetted.
The Draft National Biodiversity Offset Policy defines biodiversity offsets as “conservation measures designed to remedy the residual negative impacts of development on biodiversity and ecological infrastructure, once the first three groups of measures in the mitigation sequence have been adequately and explicitly considered (i.e. to avoid, minimise and rehabilitate / restore impacts). Offsets are the ‘last resort’ form of mitigation, only to be implemented if nothing else can mitigate the impact.”
The following (abridged) principles underpin the Draft National Biodiversity Offsets Policy:
1. The Ecosystem Approach – Biodiversity offsets take an ‘ecosystem approach’ to biodiversity conservation that promotes the integrated management of land, water and natural capital;
2. Offsets - the last resort in the Mitigation Sequence – Biodiversity offsets should only be considered as a mitigation option of last resort, after consideration of feasible actions to avoid, minimize and repair impacts;
3. Limits to what can or should be offset – Biodiversity offsets are to be used where the EIA process identifies negative residual impacts of ‘medium’ or ‘high’ significance on biodiversity. Activities resulting in impacts of ‘low’ significance may not require an offset. Impacts on biodiversity of ‘very high’ significance may not be able to be fully offset and alternatives to the proposal should be sought;
4. Ecosystem Protection – Biodiversity offsets should ensure the long-term protection of priority ecosystems and improve their condition and function;
5. No Net Loss up to specified limits of acceptable change – Biodiversity offsets should be designed in such a way that scientific targets for conserving ecosystems and other biodiversity features in the long term are attainable. No biodiversity feature (species or ecosystem) should be at risk of being pushed beyond “Endangered” status;
6. Locating biodiversity offsets in the landscape – Biodiversity offsets should help to secure priority areas for conservation, improve connectivity between priority areas, and / or consolidate or expand existing protected areas;
7. Equivalence – ‘like for like’ – Biodiversity offsets should benefit the same biodiversity components as those negatively affected by development. In exceptional cases, biodiversity offsets may target a relatively more threatened ecosystem or habitat;
8. Additionality – new action required – Biodiversity offsets must result in conservation gains above and beyond measures that are already required by law or would have occurred had the offset not taken place;
9. Timing and duration of biodiversity offsets – Biodiversity offsets should be approved and implemented before the listed activity starts / impacts occur, or as soon thereafter as reasonable and feasible. The offset should endure at least for the duration of the residual impact, but preferably in perpetuity and be monitored and managed adaptively for biodiversity outcomes;
10. Defensibility – Biodiversity offsets should be based on the best available biodiversity information and sound science and incorporate local knowledge as appropriate. Offsets must consider all significant direct, indirect and/ or cumulative residual impacts on biodiversity;
11. Precaution – Biodiversity offsets should be designed in a risk-averse and cautious way to take into account uncertainties about the measure of residual negative impacts;
REUT/DALC 448281_Hermanus CBD Bypass_Amended FEIR_Finalised September 2020 SRK Consulting: 448281 Hermanus CBD Bypass Amended Final EIA Report Page 31
12. Fairness and equity – The determination of residual negative impacts, and the design and implementation of biodiversity offsets, should be open and transparent, providing for stakeholder engagement. Biodiversity offsets should not displace negative impacts to other areas, and/or cause significant negative effects;
13. Non substitutable – A biodiversity offset cannot be exchanged for, or traded off against, compensation for social, cultural heritage or other residual impacts unrelated to biodiversity;
14. Enforceable and auditable – Offsets must be able to be monitored and audited against clear management and performance targets. In addition, they must be able to be enforced through explicitly worded, legally binding conditions, and/or common law contracts.
The guidelines provide for the following minimum offset ratios (see Table 2-2).
Table 2-2: Minimum biodiversity offset ratios in Draft National Biodiversity Offset Policy
Biodiversity feature Minimum Notes offset ratio Areas of irreplaceable 30:1 Only where no alternatives to the development biodiversity / Critically project are deemed feasible and where project is Endangered ecosystems of overriding public importance. Offset sites to comprise areas of highest conservation priority that are currently without protection. Areas of composite 20:1 Only where no alternatives to the development biodiversity significance project are deemed feasible and where project is recognised in approved of overriding public importance. biodiversity policy, Offset sites to comprise areas of highest bioregional, biodiversity or conservation priority that are currently without spatial conservation plans protection. Endangered ecosystems 10:1 to 20:1 Offset requirements should be adjusted where necessary on the advice of a biodiversity specialist, to account for the condition of impacted site, and the condition of and ability to restore offset areas. Vulnerable ecosystems 1:1 to 5:1 Least Threatened No offset Provided other criteria do not apply. ecosystems
2.2.13 Draft Western Cape Guideline on Biodiversity Offsets (2015) The draft Western Cape Guideline on Biodiversity Offsets (March 2015) updates the provincial biodiversity offset guideline which was prepared in 2005, revised in 2007 and published as an Information Document in 2011. The guideline has not been formally adopted.
The proposed biodiversity offset system in the Western Cape is to be based on compensation in the form of ‘like or better’ habitat. In some instances, monetary compensation may be appropriate and comprise contributions to an accredited biodiversity conservation trust for acquisition and management of priority habitat for biodiversity and/or expanding or managing public protected areas.
Where appropriate, offsets may need to comprise either a single area or composite areas to compensate adequately for residual biodiversity loss. Offsets are calculated by multiplying the residual loss by a basic offset ratio linked principally to the conservation status of the affected ecosystem, but also taking into account composite considerations (see Table 2-3).
REUT/DALC 448281_Hermanus CBD Bypass_Amended FEIR_Finalised September 2020 SRK Consulting: 448281 Hermanus CBD Bypass Amended Final EIA Report Page 32
Table 2-3: Basic offset ratios in Draft Western Cape Guideline on Biodiversity Offsets
Biodiversity feature Basic offset Notes ratio Areas considered to be 30:1 The area determined by the basic offset ratio is irreplaceable in terms of then adjusted by a range of context-specific achieving biodiversity targets considerations, including: (e.g. CBAs) • The condition of the impacted habitat; Critically Endangered • The significance of residual impacts on ecosystems threatened species; Endangered ecosystems 10:1 to 30:1 • The significance of residual impact on special Vulnerable ecosystems 1:1 to 4:1 habitats; Least Threatened No offset • The significance of residual impact on important ecosystems ecological corridors or process areas; and • The significance of residual impact on biodiversity underpinning ecosystem services with socio-economic or heritage value.
Requirements for the size of biodiversity offsets inside an urban edge are substantially less than those required outside the urban edge, in support of the WCPSDF’s drive to contain development within these boundaries.
Offsets should be located in an ‘offset receiving area’, namely a CBA, Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Area or area identified by CapeNature as being targeted for the expansion of protected areas.
The long-term security of the offset is vital to achieve the intended benefits to biodiversity and support the sustainability of the development project. For this reason, a careful offset design process must be followed:
• Measuring the residual negative impacts on biodiversity to determine an appropriate offset;
• Determining the most appropriate type of offset: ‘like for like habitat’, ‘trading up’ (where habitat of a higher priority for biodiversity conservation than that affected by development is targeted as an offset) or monetary compensation;
• Determining the size and optimum location of the offset required to compensate for residual negative impacts on biodiversity;
• Checking the feasibility of securing offset site(s) and deciding on the best way to secure the offset: e.g. through the Stewardship Programme, conservation servitude, or as a donation to a statutory conservation authority (i.e. CapeNature or SANParks) or an accredited Public Benefit Organization; and
• Reaching in-principle agreement with landowners on the offset.
Where biodiversity offsets are needed, an Offset Report must be included in either the Basic Assessment Report or Environmental Impact Report. Should the application for Environmental Authorisation be accepted conditional on an offset, then a detailed Offset Report and Offset Agreement would need to be prepared, together with an Offset Management Plan, providing details of how the offset site would be secured, financial requirements and provision, and implementation arrangements. These documents would need to be reviewed and accepted by CapeNature and the Competent Environmental Authority before the proposed activities could commence.
2.3 Environmental Assessment Process The general approach to this study is guided by the principles contained in Section 2 of NEMA and those of Integrated Environmental Management (IEM).
REUT/DALC 448281_Hermanus CBD Bypass_Amended FEIR_Finalised September 2020 SRK Consulting: 448281 Hermanus CBD Bypass Amended Final EIA Report Page 33
NEMA lists a number of principles that apply to the actions of organs of state and that also serve as reference for the interpretation of environmental legislation and administration of environmental processes. The principles most relevant to environmental assessment processes and projects for which authorisation is required are summarised below.
Principles relevant to the EIA process: • Adopt a risk-averse and cautious approach; • Anticipate and prevent or minimise negative impacts; • Pursue integrated environmental management; • Involve stakeholders in the process; and • Consider the social, economic and environmental impacts of activities.
Principles relevant to the project: • Place people and their needs at the forefront of concern and serve their needs equitably; • Ensure development is sustainable, minimises disturbance of ecosystems and landscapes, pollution and waste, achieves responsible use of non-renewable resources and sustainable exploitation of renewable resources; • Assume responsibility for project impacts throughout its life cycle; and • Polluter bears remediation costs.
This S&EIR process complies with these principles through its adherence to the EIA Regulations, 2010 and associated guidelines, which set out clear requirements for, inter alia, impact assessment and stakeholder involvement (see below), and through the assessment of impacts and identification of mitigation measures during the Impact Assessment Phase.
In accordance with the IEM Information Series (DEAT, 2004), an open, transparent approach, which encourages accountable decision-making, has been adopted.
REUT/DALC 448281_Hermanus CBD Bypass_Amended FEIR_Finalised September 2020 SRK Consulting: 448281 Hermanus CBD Bypass Amended Final EIA Report Page 34
The underpinning principles of IEM require: • Informed decision making; • Accountability for information on which decisions are made; • A broad interpretation of the term “environment”; • An open participatory approach in the planning of proposals; • Consultation with interested and affected parties; • Due consideration of alternatives; • An attempt to mitigate negative impacts and enhance positive impacts of proposals; • An attempt to ensure that the social costs of development proposals are outweighed by the social benefits; • Democratic regard for individual rights and obligations; • Compliance with these principles during all stages of the planning, implementation and decommissioning of proposals; and • The opportunity for public and specialist input in the decision-making process.
Although various environmental authorisations, permits or licences are required before the proposed project may proceed, the regulatory authorities are committed to the principle of cooperative governance and in order to give effect to this principle, a single S&EIR process is required to inform all applications.
The study will also be guided by the requirements of the EIA Regulations, 2010 (see Section 2.1.2), which are more specific in their focus and define the detailed approach to the S&EIR process, as well as relevant guidelines published by the DEA and the DEA&DP, including:
• DEA’s Draft Companion to Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations of 2010 (DEA, 2010); and
• DEA&DP’s EIA Guideline and Information Document Series (DEA&DP, 2013), which includes guidelines on Generic ToR for EAPs and Project Schedules, Public Participation, Alternatives, Need and Desirability, Exemption Applications and Appeals, an information; and
• DEA&DP’s Information Document on the Interpretation of the Listed Activities (DEA&DP, 2011).
The lead authority for this project will be DEA&DP. Supplementary applications will be made as required for the remaining authorisations.
2.3.1 Submission of Applications Various environmental authorisations, permits or licences are required before the proposed project may proceed. The required authorisations and their status are listed in Table 2-4.
REUT/DALC 448281_Hermanus CBD Bypass_Amended FEIR_Finalised September 2020 SRK Consulting: 448281 Hermanus CBD Bypass Amended Final EIA Report Page 35
Table 2-4: Environmental authorisations, permits and licences required for the Project8
Application Authority Status EA DEA&DP Application was submitted to DEA&DP on 7 November 2014 and accepted on 25 November 2014. Reference number 16/3/1/2/E2/15/2124/14 was issued for the application. Heritage HWC Notification of Intent to Develop was submitted on 2 December 2014. application A response was received from HWC on 9 January 2015 and Case No 14112403AS1203E was allocated to the project. WUA application DWS The Scoping Report was submitted to BGCMA and Reference No 4/10/2/G40H/Hermanus was allocated to the project. An application for Water Use Authorisation was submitted to the BGCMA on 4 December 2017; the application was subsequently also submitted through the online e-WULAAS on 19 February 2018 (see Appendix H4). BGCMA undertook a site visit on 23 August 2018.
2.3.2 S&EIR Process and Phasing The S&EIR process consists of two phases, namely the Scoping Phase and an Impact Assessment Phase (see Figure 2-9 below). The principal aim of the Scoping Phase is to determine the environmental issues and impacts that require further investigation in the Impact Assessment Phase.
More specifically, the objectives of the Scoping Phase are to:
• Identify stakeholders and inform them of the proposed activity, feasible alternatives and the S&EIR process;
• Describe the affected environment and present an analysis of the potential environmental issues and benefits arising from the proposed project that may require further investigation in the Impact Assessment Phase;
• Develop ToR for specialist studies to be undertaken in the Impact Assessment Phase;
• Provide stakeholders with the opportunity to participate effectively in the process and identify any issues and concerns associated with the proposed activity, review specialist study ToR and the Plan of Study for EIA; and
• Produce a Scoping Report for submission to the relevant authority (in this case, DEA&DP).
The aim of the Impact Assessment Phase is to:
• Inform and obtain contributions from stakeholders, including relevant authorities, the public and local communities and address their relevant issues and concerns;
• Build capacity amongst stakeholders during the S&EIR process so that they may actively and meaningfully participate;
• Document and contextualise the ecological baseline conditions of the study area and the socio- economic conditions of affected communities;
• Assess in detail the environmental and socio-economic impacts that may result from the project;
• Identify environmental and social mitigation measures to avoid and/or address the impacts assessed; and
8 Other permits or licences may be identified during the S&EIR process.
REUT/DALC 448281_Hermanus CBD Bypass_Amended FEIR_Finalised September 2020 SRK Consulting: 448281 Hermanus CBD Bypass Amended Final EIA Report Page 36
• Develop and/or amend environmental and social management plans based on the mitigation measures developed in the EIA Report.
Submit Application Form(s)
1st public comment period Authority Acceptance on Background ~14 days Information document
Scoping Report including Plan of Study for EIA 2nd Public Comment Period 30 days Final Scoping Report including Plan of Study for EIA
3rd Public Comment Period
Authority Acceptance ~44 days
Environmental Impact Assessment Report including Environmental Management Programme 4th Public Comment Period
Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report
5th Public Comment Period
Amended Final EIA Report
6th Public Comment Period
Authority Decision ~121 days
Opportunity for Appeal Appeal lodged 20 days
No appeal lodged
Project may commence Appeal Process
Figure 2-9: S&EIR Process followed for this application
REUT/DALC 448281_Hermanus CBD Bypass_Amended FEIR_Finalised September 2020 SRK Consulting: 448281 Hermanus CBD Bypass Amended Final EIA Report Page 37 3 Project Description 3.1 Introduction The project information in this chapter reflects the information available at the time of the compilation of the EIA Report, as provided by the Joint Venture in the Overstrand Transport Plan (OTP) (Joint Venture, 2015, provided in Appendix O), supplemented in the Traffic Study in Support of the Environmental Impact Assessment, which has been updated in response to review findings (Joint Venture, 2020) in Appendix A1. However, as is normal practice, some aspects of the conceptual design are being undertaken concurrently with the EIA to address potential impacts identified in the EIA process. Detailed design will be undertaken once an EA has been granted (so as to focus on approved alignments and incorporate conditions of approval). As such, the project description has evolved (see Section 7.3.3) and will be further refined after the EIA process.
3.1.1 Background to the Project The WCDTPW is the responsible road authority for provincial roads in the Western Cape. The principal function of provincial roads is to facilitate regional mobility, while lower-class roads, administered by local authorities, are the principal providers of accessibility. Provincial roads, and particularly the R43 (Trunk Road (TR) 28), form the backbone of the Overstrand regional transport system.
The R43 connects Wolseley and Ceres in the Witzenberg Municipality to Bredasdorp in the Cape Agulhas Municipality. The road also links Worcester, Villiersdorp, Botrivier, Fisherhaven, Hawston, Hermanus, Stanford, Gansbaai, Franskraal and Pearly Beach (see Figure 3-1). In Hermanus, the R43 leads through the entire length of town, including the Hermanus CBD.
A bypass around Hermanus has been under consideration for many years, and a brief overview of previous bypass proposals is provided in Section 3.1.2 below.
REUT/DALC 448281_Hermanus CBD Bypass_Amended FEIR_Finalised September 2020 SRK Consulting: 448281 Hermanus CBD Bypass Amended Final EIA Report Page 38
R43
Hermanus
HERMANUS CBD BYPASS Project No. ALIGNMENT OF THE R43 448281
Figure 3-1: Alignment of the R43
3.1.2 Overview of Previous Bypass Proposals
3.1.2.1 Pre-1970 Bypass Proposal A possible bypass located north of Hermanus, extending along the entire length of the town, is shown in a general town layout plan dating back more than 40 years (see Figure 3-2). This route initially formed part of the planning for a new coastal national road; however, this proposal was later abandoned in favour of upgrading the N2 along its current alignment through Caledon. This bypass nevertheless remained a viable long-term option and the route was officially recognised in the September 1971 proclamation of the FNR which stated that: “the proposed new national road reserve would form the southern boundary of the Nature Reserve.”
In June 2000, the FNR proclamation was revised and reference to the bypass was omitted in anticipation of the expansion of the Hermanus golf course and the development of Fernkloof Estate. The development of the Fernkloof Estate requires a realignment of the original bypass proposal to avoid this now built up area, a portion of which overlays the route originally proposed for the bypass.
REUT/DALC 448281_Hermanus CBD Bypass_Amended FEIR_Finalised September 2020 SRK Consulting: 448281 Hermanus CBD Bypass Amended Final EIA Report Page 39
HERMANUS CBD BYPASS Project No. PRE-1970s BYPASS PROPOSAL 448281
Figure 3-2: Pre-1970s bypass proposal Source: unknown
3.1.2.2 CBD Relief Road In 1990, the Hermanus Structure Plan made provision for a local bypass of the CBD area. The bypass followed an alignment along Spence Street, Royal Street and Lord Roberts Street and is nowadays commonly referred to as the CBD Relief Road. In 1994 Ninham Shand drew up a preliminary design for this route on behalf of the Hermanus Town Council.
The Hermanus Transportation Plan compiled by Jeffares & Green in 1997 for the Hermanus Town Council confirmed the need for a CBD relief road as an element of a larger municipal transportation system. The study evaluated four route alternatives for a CBD relief road, identified through a public participation process. These included the route proposed by Ninham Shand in 1994 and a modified version thereof, as well as two routes along Mountain Drive (see Figure 3-3). The study concluded that the 1994 Ninham Shand alignment (Alternative 1 on Figure 3-3) would best meet the objectives of a CBD Relief Road and the Hermanus Transportation Plan in general at the time. The purpose of the CBD Relief Road was to provide a short- to medium-term solution that would relieve anticipated traffic congestion in the CBD.
While the construction of the CBD Relief Road (Alternative 1 on Figure 3-3) was in principle supported by the WCDTPW, the proclamation of the Hermanus CBD Relief Road as a provincial road was not supported by the WCDTPW as the road would:
• Function primarily as a municipal road;
• Provide direct property accesses, compromising the mobility function of the road; and
• Have a constrained reserve width, with limited opportunity for future improvements.
REUT/DALC 448281_Hermanus CBD Bypass_Amended FEIR_Finalised September 2020 SRK Consulting: 448281 Hermanus CBD Bypass Amended Final EIA Report Page 40
The CBD Relief Road was therefore not considered suitable as a long-term solution and for proclamation as a provincial road. The CBD Relief Road was constructed by the Overstrand Municipality in 2008 and has notably alleviated localised congestion in the CBD.
F a ir w ay s A v e
L or d R ob erts S t
M ountain Road e Av lia o n g a M
D ir k ie U y s S t R o y a l S t
Paterson St St S y n o m r a H
M itchell St M R 2 8 S p e n c e S t L o n g S t
M a in R d
M a in R d
H a r b o u r S t
572 ExistingEXI STI NG Route RO UTE AlternativeALTERNATI VE 1 1 AlternativeALTERNATI VE 2 2 AlternativeALTERNATI VE 3 3 AlternativeALTERNATI VE 4 4
HERMANUS CBD BYPASS Project No. CBD RELIEF ROAD 448281
Figure 3-3: CBD Relief Road
3.1.2.3 Fairways Relief Road As noted in Section 3.1.2.2, Jeffares & Green also identified two possible bypass routes along Mountain Drive in the 1997 Hermanus Transportation Plan (see Figure 3-3). In September 1997 the Hermanus Ratepayers Association (HRA) evidently expressed their support for this by-pass route as a “permanent” long term solution, and the Overstrand Municipality recommended that action should be taken to protect the Mountain Drive corridor and to begin planning for its possible use as a by-pass route in the long term.
While the Overstrand Municipality decided to implement the CBD Relief Road first, it noted during the Basic Assessment conducted for the CBD Relief Road in 2008 that “the project was only one of several initiatives considered by the Municipality to address traffic problems experienced in the Greater Hermanus area. A Mountain Drive bypass was another one of these initiatives and therefore not considered an alternative to the proposed CBD Relief Road project” (SRK, 2008).
Noting that the CBD Relief Road would not be suitable for proclamation as a provincial road, in 2008 the WCDTPW indicated that, with the support of Overstrand Municipality, they would pursue a new bypass route on the urban edge on the mountainside of Hermanus to serve regional traffic (as part of the Whale Tourism Route).
The WCDTPW indicated to the Overstrand Municipality that the identification and acceptance of a new route with adequate capacity and operational efficiency would allow the de-proclamation of the existing provincial road (R43) through the CBD. The existing section of the R43 through the Hermanus CBD would then be administered by the Overstrand Municipality.
REUT/DALC 448281_Hermanus CBD Bypass_Amended FEIR_Finalised September 2020 SRK Consulting: 448281 Hermanus CBD Bypass Amended Final EIA Report Page 41
On 8 October 2008 the Overstrand Municipality initiated an investigation into the proclamation of a bypass along the mountainside of Hermanus. Work undertaken by the Overstrand Municipality culminated in an Initial Assessment Report dated May 2009 that supported the proposed 1970s bypass.
The Joint Venture was appointed in October 2011 to assist the road infrastructure and transport management branch with the planning, design and implementation of a relocation of Trunk Road 28 to by-pass Hermanus.
3.2 Description of the Project Area Hermanus is situated along a narrow stretch of the coast between the Kleinrivier Mountains and the Atlantic Ocean. It is the largest town in the Overstrand Municipal area and the business, cultural and administrative centre of the region.
Due to its reputation as one of the best land-based whale watching destinations in the world and its scenic landscape, Hermanus is a popular holiday and retirement destination for local and international visitors alike, who support a flourishing hospitality industry, specialty shops, shopping centres and restaurants.
Section 3.2.1 describes the project site, while Section 3.2.2 provides a description of the land use surrounding the project site.
3.2.1 Bypass Route Description The proposed Hermanus CBD bypass is located north of the Hermanus CBD. The western section of the bypass is located north of the existing urban area and Mountain Drive, which effectively forms the urban edge in this area, and inside the southern boundary of a western portion of the FNR. This section is largely located on the southern edge of an area densely vegetated with fynbos (see Sections 4.1.8 and 4.1.10 for a description of the FNR and vegetation).
The eastern section of the bypass is located within the existing urban area immediately to the west of the Hermanus Golf Course. The proposed bypass largely follows and/or will be aligned parallel to existing roads (see Figure 3-4 and Figure 3-5). The route is described in more detail in Section 3.4.2.
REUT/DALC 448281_Hermanus CBD Bypass_Amended FEIR_Finalised September 2020 SRK Consulting: 448281 Hermanus CBD Bypass Amended Final EIA Report Page 42
Western section of Mountain Drive, looking east; the bypass will be aligned parallel to Mountain Drive
Central section of Mountain Drive, looking west Eastern section of Mountain Drive, looking west
Approximate alignment of bypass north of Mountain Drive, looking west Approximate alignment of bypass north of Mountain Drive, looking east
View towards Hermanus cemetery and sports complex
HERMANUS CBD BYPASS Project No. VIEWS OF THE PROPOSED BYPASS AREA – WESTERN SECTION 448281
Figure 3-4: Views of the proposed bypass project area – western section Source: SRK, December 2014
REUT/DALC 448281_Hermanus CBD Bypass_Amended FEIR_Finalised September 2020 SRK Consulting: 448281 Hermanus CBD Bypass Amended Final EIA Report Page 43
Jose Burman Drive, looking east; the bypass will be on Jose Burman
View of proposed sports complex area north of Jose Burman Drive Fernkloof Dr looking north (school on left, Innesbrook Village on right)
Corner of Moffat Street (to the right) and Fairways Avenue
Location of proposed new intersection of bypass (on vacant plot) with R43 (on the left)
HERMANUS CBD BYPASS Project No. VIEWS OF THE PROPOSED BYPASS AREA – EASTERN SECTION 448281
Figure 3-5: Views of the proposed bypass project area – eastern section Source: SRK, December 2014
REUT/DALC 448281_Hermanus CBD Bypass_Amended FEIR_Finalised September 2020 SRK Consulting: 448281 Hermanus CBD Bypass Amended Final EIA Report Page 44
View of cricket oval on sports complex north of Jose Burman Drive – Generation School on the right, Bosko at the far right
Fairways Close during construction August 2019 Constructed residential units in Fairways Close November 2019
View of Hermanus Sports Complex (left) and Hermanus High School fields (right) from Hoy’s Koppie
HERMANUS CBD BYPASS Project No. UPDATED VIEWS OF SELECTED BYPASS PROJECT AREAS 448281
Figure 3-6: Updated views of the selected bypass project areas Source: SRK, December 2019
REUT/DALC 448281_Hermanus CBD Bypass_Amended FEIR_Finalised September 2020 SRK Consulting: 448281 Hermanus CBD Bypass Amended Final EIA Report Page 45
Directly affected properties are listed in Table 3-1.
Table 3-1: Erf numbers of properties affected by the Hermanus CBD Bypass
Erf number Owner Northern alternative Southern alternative 243 Overstrand Municipality X X 342 Overstrand Municipality X X 1253 Overstrand Municipality X X 11014 Propgen (Pty) Ltd (Generation School) X 5310 WCDTPW X X 9935 Hermanus Golf Club X X 1023 R.J. and I.M. Jordon X X 10558 NMH Trading 23 (Pty) Ltd X X 1249 Stonehage Hermanus Prop (Pty) Ltd X X 1158 Winkler Trust X X 1157 Winkler Trust X X 1156 Winkler Trust X X 1154 Winkler Trust X X 1153 J.L. Makepeace X X
3.2.2 Surrounding Land Use Land use adjacent to the proposed bypass route is described in Section 3.2.2.1.Since the proposed bypass aims to alleviate congestion on and allow for de-proclamation of the R43 section that runs through the Hermanus CBD, Section 3.2.2.2 provides a more detailed description of the R43 in that section.
3.2.2.1 Land Use Surrounding the Bypass Route The proposed bypass route abuts urban areas to the south and west, the FNR to the north along the western bypass section and the Hermanus Golf Course to the east along the eastern bypass section. Residential areas near the proposed Hermanus CBD Bypass are located south of Mountain Drive, east of Fernkloof Drive and west of Fairways Avenue. Approximately 50 high-income, long-established private residences are located adjacent to Mountain Drive and Fairways Avenue (depicted in yellow in Figure 3-7). The most notable land uses adjacent to the route are shown in Figure 3-7 and described in further detail below.
REUT/DALC 448281_Hermanus CBD Bypass_Amended FEIR_Finalised September 2020 SRK Consulting: 448281 Hermanus CBD Bypass Amended Final EIA Report Page 46
7
Northern bypass 10 6 alignment (pink) 9 11 13 1 8 5 Southern bypass 14 alignment (green) 8 4 12
3 2
HERMANUS CBD BYPASS Project No. SURROUNDING LAND USES 448281
Figure 3-7: Surrounding land uses Legend: 1 - Fernkloof Nature Reserve, 2 - Hoy’s Koppie, 3 - Northcliff residential area, 4 - Eastcliff residential area, 5 - Hermanus High School, 6 – Generations School Hermanus, 7 - Bosko School and Church, 8 - Places of worship, 9 - Hermanus Sports Complex, 10 - Hermanus Country Market, 11 - Innesbrook Village residential complex, 12 – Fairways Close, 13 - Hermanus Golf Course, 14 - Hermanus cemetery
1. Fernkloof Nature Reserve is a proclaimed nature reserve managed by the municipality and extends along the entire northern edge of Hermanus. A number of recreational users visit FNR, mostly during the day. The bypass is located on the southern boundary of a portion of the western FNR extension. The main section of the FNR, access gate and most formal paths are located approximately 4 km east of the bypass (see Section 4.1.10).
2. Hoy’s Koppie9 is located between the residential suburbs of Northcliff and Eastcliff. Archaeological remains, including stone tools dating back to the Middle Stone Age, have been uncovered at the Klip Kop cave near the summit of Hoy's Koppie. Boardwalks and paths provide access to different points on the koppie that provide scenic views of surrounding areas.
9 Sir William Hoy was the first general manager of the South African Railways and was knighted for his services in 1916. Sir William and Lady Hoy lie buried on the top of Hoy’s Koppie.
REUT/DALC 448281_Hermanus CBD Bypass_Amended FEIR_Finalised September 2020 SRK Consulting: 448281 Hermanus CBD Bypass Amended Final EIA Report Page 47
Figure 3-8: View of Hoy's Koppie from Mountain Drive Source: SRK, December 2014
3. Northcliff is a well-established residential suburb located between Mountain Drive and the R43, close to the centre of Hermanus. Hermanus Primary School is located between Northcliff and Hoy’s Koppie.
Figure 3-9: View of Northcliff residential suburb from above Mountain Drive Source: SRK, December 2014
4. Eastcliff is an established suburb situated between the eastern edge of the town centre / Hoy’s Koppie and Hermanus Golf Course. The area is within walking distance of the sea, town centre and mountain hiking paths. Hermanus High School is located on the northern edge of the suburb. Apartment blocks as well as single residential units are located along Fairways Avenue.
REUT/DALC 448281_Hermanus CBD Bypass_Amended FEIR_Finalised September 2020 SRK Consulting: 448281 Hermanus CBD Bypass Amended Final EIA Report Page 48
Figure 3-10: Apartment blocks along Fairways Avenue Source: SRK, December 2014
5. Hermanus High School moved to its current location in 1977. It caters for more than 900 learners and has expanded in recent years. School grounds include a number of sports facilities, including netball courts, tennis courts, rugby fields, cricket pitches and hockey fields.
6. Hermanus Generation School is a private school located between the Hermanus Sports Complex and Fairways Avenue, on the northern bypass alignment alternative. It accommodates more than 100 learners and has expanded in recent years.
7. Bosko School and Church is a private school located north-east of the Hermanus Sports Complex on the northern bypass alignment alternative. It caters for ~150 learners and also accommodates a church.
8. Several Places of Worship are located near the proposed bypass route: three Christian churches and a Jewish centre and synagogue on the western section of Jose Burman Drive (on the southern bypass alignment) and a Christian church (Bosko) on Fernkloof Drive (on the northern bypass alignment).
9. The Hermanus Sports Complex is located north of Hermanus High School on land leased from the Overstrand Municipality. The complex has been under development for some years and provides outdoor facilities for a range of sports such as cricket, tennis, netball, hockey (on astroturf) (see Figure 3-6). Additional outdoor as well as indoor facilities are under development or planned. It can be used by locals, visiting teams and schools.
10. Hermanus Country Market (outlined in white in Figure 3-6) has been located on the grounds of the Hermanus Cricket Club since 2009. It operates on Saturdays and accommodates ~70 traders10 who sell local products and attracts visitors from Hermanus and beyond (communication by Liza van Coppenhagen, May 2015). Many traders report that they rely heavily on income from the market. On market days, some 130 people are directly employed at the market and another 80 are indirectly employed (e.g. in cleaning and preparation) (L. van Coppenhagen, 21 May 2015). The market thus provides or contributes to livelihoods for more than 200 people11.
10 Some fluctuations in these numbers will not materially affect the impact assessment rating. 11 Some fluctuations in these numbers will not materially affect the impact assessment rating.
REUT/DALC 448281_Hermanus CBD Bypass_Amended FEIR_Finalised September 2020 SRK Consulting: 448281 Hermanus CBD Bypass Amended Final EIA Report Page 49
Some of the stalls support historically disadvantaged traders and/or fund organisations working with the poor.
The market is also reported to play an important social role by providing a platform for meetings, fundraising initiatives and interaction of various organisations with the community. It is also an increasingly popular attraction for tourists and visitors.
It is understood that as part of the planned development / expansion of the Hermanus Sports Complex (independently of the Hermanus CBD Bypass proposal), the current market site will be used to develop parking at the Hermanus Sports Complex, and arrangements had already been made for the market to relocate within the premises of the Hermanus Sports Complex (however, the new site would be occupied by the bypass).
Figure 3-11: Hermanus Country Market Source: SRK, December 2014
11. Innesbrook Village residential complex forms part of the Fernkloof Estate that surrounds the Hermanus Golf Course. Innesbrook Village (Precinct 2 of the Fernkloof Estate) is one of the smallest of the precincts developed on the Estate and comprises 22 erven. Some plots are vacant or under development.
Figure 3-12: Access to Innesbrook Village from Fernkloof Drive Source: SRK, December 2014
REUT/DALC 448281_Hermanus CBD Bypass_Amended FEIR_Finalised September 2020 SRK Consulting: 448281 Hermanus CBD Bypass Amended Final EIA Report Page 50
12. Fairways Close is a new development located on Erf 10558, at the eastern end of the bypass. It forms part of the Fernkloof Estate that surrounds the Hermanus Golf Course and comprises 12 planned residential units (six double-units). Construction of residential units commenced in mid- 2018, and the six eastern units have been constructed (see Figure 3-6).
13. Hermanus Golf Course is a 27-hole course located in the centre of Hermanus, separating east and west Hermanus. Between 2004 and 2006 the golf course was redeveloped as the Fernkloof Estate to expand the golfing facilities and establish residential development on adjacent, previously undeveloped land.
Figure 3-13: Boundary of Hermanus Golf Course along Fairways Avenue Source: SRK, December 2014
14. Hermanus cemetery is located between Hoy’s Koppie and the Kleinrivier Mountains, on the edge of Hermanus at the intersection of Mountain Drive and Jose Burman Drive. Existing roads are already located to the south and east of the cemetery.
Paragliders use three areas adjacent to Jose Burman Drive as landing sites (see Figure 3-14):
A. The Hermanus High School sports field is used as the main landing area for paragliding students, in agreement with the school, as it has few obstacles and large enough for inexperienced pilots;
B. The area opposite of the Hermanus High School, within the planned Hermanus Sports Complex, can be used by more experienced pilots; and
C. The Hermanus cricket ground is used as an emergency landing ground. A
REUT/DALC 448281_Hermanus CBD Bypass_Amended FEIR_Finalised September 2020 SRK Consulting: 448281 Hermanus CBD Bypass Amended Final EIA Report Page 51
B C
A
Figure 3-14: Paragliding landing sites Source: Personal communication Bevan Pope, July 2015
Adjacent properties are listed in Table 3-2.
Table 3-2: Erf numbers of properties adjacent to the Hermanus CBD Bypass
Both alternatives Northern only Southern only 4453 9970 4689 1022 7343 11027 4450 4668 5484 9935 7164 11028 4410 5699 4754 1054 7673 4454 5503 4755 6017 1838 4457 5428 4765 1062 4482 4647 4808 325 4483 4677 4806 329 6884 4680 4769 1064 4487 6055 9972 6908 4488 6128 9971 7607 4491 4685 9968 1159 5321 4688 9967
3.2.2.2 Description of the R43 through Hermanus The following overview of the R43 has been largely sourced from the OTP (Joint Venture, 2015, provided in Appendix O).
Hermanus straddles the R43, which has been an important urban structuring element since the establishment of Hermanus in the early 1900s. The road also functions as the main collector road for the town, but its regional mobility has been compromised due to a large number of minor road connections, direct property access and commercial developments directly adjacent to the road, particularly in the CBD area. The CBD Relief Road (see Section 3.1.2.2) was built to accommodate external traffic around the busiest section of the CBD.
Shortly after entering Hermanus from the west, the R43 passes through established residential areas before entering the small but very active business district. In the town centre, the road turns sharply north-east, closely following the coastline located less than 200 m to the south-east for much of the
REUT/DALC 448281_Hermanus CBD Bypass_Amended FEIR_Finalised September 2020 SRK Consulting: 448281 Hermanus CBD Bypass Amended Final EIA Report Page 52
alignment through Hermanus. For most of the way, developments are located on both sides of the road, with direct property accesses onto the R43. The R43 road reserve and roadside environment vary in different sections of Hermanus, as described in Table 3-3 and shown in Figure 3-15.
Table 3-3: Description of R43 road sections through Hermanus
R43 road section Road layout Notes Swartdam Road to 45 m wide Class 212 road reserve No on-street parking or direct property access is Mountain Drive with median island and two traffic allowed, except for a left-out slipway from the (0.46 km) lanes per direction Gateway Shopping Centre onto the R43. Mountain Drive to Church 20 m road reserve with one traffic Direct property access is allowed. The existing Street lane per direction and no formally road is wide enough to accommodate following (1.2 km) marked on-street parking except traffic to pass turning vehicles. in front of police station Church Street to Lord 10 to 20 m road reserve with 20 m Parking is allowed along some of the wider Roberts (CBD) road widening scheme of sections of the road. Direct property access is (0.86 km) unknown status allowed. Lord Roberts to Fairways 13 to 25 m road reserve with For most of the way, bicycle lanes (1.5m wide) are Avenue some limited opportunities to present on both sides of the road, and direct (0.77 km) create a uniform 20 m reserve property access is allowed. Fairways Avenue to Pool’s 20 m road reserve with one traffic No on street parking is allowed, except where Bay / Loch Street lane per direction and occasional parking bays have been provided. Bicycle lanes (1.1 km) right turn slots (1.5m wide) are present on both sides of the street, up to the Voëlklip traffic circle. Pool’s Bay to Caravan Park/ 25 m road reserve with two traffic Section operates at high level of service. There 17th Avenue lanes per direction (undivided) appears to be little side friction and safety (3.8 km) and parking bays on both sides of problems, despite the fact that direct property the road access is allowed. Source: Joint Venture (2015)
Traffic volumes on the R43 fluctuate significantly between high-season (summer) and low season (winter) and are generally higher in the western section of the R43 through Hermanus (see Section 3.3.1.1).
The section of the R43 between Hawston and Hermanus is an important public transport route.
12 See Section 3.3.1 on details regarding this road class.
REUT/DALC 448281_Hermanus CBD Bypass_Amended FEIR_Finalised September 2020 SRK Consulting: 448281 Hermanus CBD Bypass Amended Final EIA Report Page 53
R43 section between Swartdam Road and Mountain Drive R43 section between Mountain Drive and Church Street
R43 section between Church Street and Lord Roberts (CBD) R43 section between Lord Roberts and Fairways Avenue
R43 section between Fairways Avenue and Pool’s Bay / Loch St R43 section between Pool’s Bay and Caravan Park / 17th Ave
HERMANUS CBD BYPASS Project No. R43 ROAD SECTIONS THROUGH HERMANUS, LOOKING EAST 448281
Figure 3-15: R43 road sections through Hermanus, looking east
3.3 Project Motivation The information in this section has been provided by the project proponent.
Please also refer to the “Synthesis of Background information relating to the Project Need and the Traffic Study” provided in Appendix A3, which concisely synthesize information on road hierarchy, movement systems, need and traffic growth (including updated 2020 traffic counts) which underpin the project motivation, some of which has been integrated into this section.
REUT/DALC 448281_Hermanus CBD Bypass_Amended FEIR_Finalised September 2020 SRK Consulting: 448281 Hermanus CBD Bypass Amended Final EIA Report Page 54
The main motivation for the project is to address existing capacity constraints on the R43 through the CBD environment. The R43 from Mountain Drive through the CBD to Fairways Avenue has numerous intersections and direct erf accesses. This compromises the mobility function of the R43 through the Hermanus CBD environment.
Given the projected population growth in the area, it is inevitable that traffic will increase over time, and as such it is important to plan for an alternative mobility route for the R43, to bypass the CBD environment. While the initial brief was for a bypass of the whole of Hermanus, the initial investigations carried out as part of the Overstrand Transport Plan indicated that a more localised CDB bypass was more appropriate than the full bypass, considering the limited demand for through traffic through the whole of Hermanus.
In terms of traffic growth, this will be a function of local traffic growth within Hermanus as well as external traffic growth (i.e. traffic originating outside of Hermanus). A good indication of external traffic growth is provided by the traffic data from the permanent count station on the R43 between the N2 and the R44 turn-off. While traffic varies considerably depending on the season (Easter holidays, Whale Festival and December / January holidays), there are also variations within the week, with Monday – Thursday traffic typically excluding the influx of weekend holiday makers. Historical average annual daily traffic data from 2004 to 2018 from this count station are summarised in Figure 3-16.
Figure 3-16: Average annual daily traffic from 2004 – 2018 at the R43 counting station between N2 and R44 turn-off Source: EFG, provided January 2020
While there are times when the traffic declines, the growth rate in the Annual Average Daily Traffic from 2004 to 2018 is 1.5% per annum (all days i.e. Monday to Sunday), and 1.9% per annum when only considering Mondays to Thursdays. Friday traffic was considered to be part of the weekend traffic due to the high volume of weekend traffic to Hermanus on Fridays.
Typical weekday traffic (Monday to Thursday) has been growing at a higher rate than average daily traffic (Monday through to Sunday). This supports the assumption that Hermanus is becoming more than just a holiday destination. The Western Cape Government: Socio-Economic Profile Overstrand Municipality, 2017 states that “In 2018 this Municipality will have an estimated population of 91 190, after five years this population is estimated to be 98 065. This equates to an estimated growth of 7.5 per cent over this time period.” (WCG, 2018).
The increased growth within the greater Hermanus environment is also reflected when considering new developments which include new schools, the expansion of existing schools, construction of a new regional shopping centre and numerous new residential developments.
REUT/DALC 448281_Hermanus CBD Bypass_Amended FEIR_Finalised September 2020 SRK Consulting: 448281 Hermanus CBD Bypass Amended Final EIA Report Page 55
This all points towards an increasing demand for a CBD bypass over and above the current R43 though Hermanus and the CBD Relief Road. The CBD bypass needs to focus on mobility rather than accessibility. This will then create further development and access opportunities within the CBD and adjacent coastal area.
It is not desirable for a high mobility route to pass through a CBD environment as this results in increased conflict between cars and pedestrians. In a CBD environment there should be more focus on slower traffic, more accessibility, more parking and giving priority to pedestrians, non-motorised transport and public transport.
The implementation of a CBD Bypass would therefore support and ensure that the CBD Renewal Framework becomes a reality. The aim of the CBD Renewal Framework is to limit the through traffic through the CBD so as to better accommodate the demand for local and tourism activities within the CBD precinct.
Possible improvements (widening) of the R 43 through the CBD, or along the CBD Relief Road, are constrained in terms of the current narrow road reserve in places and existing development which makes widening difficult. Furthermore, unless the numerous direct erf accesses and intersections can be reduced it will still be very difficult to improve mobility along the route. The focus was therefore to consider other options that did not pass through the CBD or which ran along the edge of the CBD.
While the CBD bypass will support the CBD Renewal Framework in terms of the project motivation, the main aim remains the need to address existing capacity constraints along the R43 between Mountain Drive and Fairways Avenue and to improve the mobility function of the R43 between Mountain Drive and Fairways Avenue.
The project motivation thus has traffic and planning elements.
The project was initiated on request of and is supported by the Overstrand Municipality. The Municipality is engaged with an on-going project to regenerate / revitalise the Hermanus CBD. The project was started in 2002 and is gaining new momentum with the development and approval of the new "Hermanus CBD Regeneration Framework". On 1 September 2017 the Overstrand Municipality commented that it:
• Supports the current endeavours by the WCDTPW to find an alternative alignment for the provincial road through Hermanus;
• Considers it essential that the provincial road be relocated and moved out of the Hermanus CBD to realise the objectives of the Hermanus CBD Regeneration Framework;
• Prefers the northern route (and specifically option 1C); and
• Does not support the No-Go alternative.
Local and provincial authorities have a responsibility to conduct forward planning, since approval of development without forward planning of infrastructure reduces the opportunities to effectively implement infrastructure afterwards. Failures in forward planning are evident in the approval of the Fernkloof development, which ignored historic plans for a bypass dating back to the 1970s, and the relatively recent extension of the FNR from the powerline south to Mountain Drive at a time when there was already an indication for the need for an alternative route other than the Relief Road. Forward planning is required to protect corridors from development so that, when necessary, the infrastructure can be implemented.
3.3.1 Traffic Projections The investigation of the need and desirability and possible alignments of a bypass along the mountainside of Hermanus arose from a higher-level investigation of the municipal road network as
REUT/DALC 448281_Hermanus CBD Bypass_Amended FEIR_Finalised September 2020 SRK Consulting: 448281 Hermanus CBD Bypass Amended Final EIA Report Page 56
part of the OTP (provided in Appendix O), which included, amongst others, review of pertinent planning legislation, traffic counts in December 2011 and October 2013 and the development of a transport model.
Key results from the investigation were as follows:
• Traffic growth for the next 20 to 25 years does not warrant the “pre-1970” full bypass alignment;
• There is potential for significant growth to the west of the CBD and within the CBD (as envisaged by approved long-term spatial plans for Hermanus); and
• There is demand for a CBD bypass that focuses more on mobility rather than accessibility to create further development and access opportunities within the CBD.
Aspects related to traffic counts and traffic modelling that are relevant to the Hermanus CBD Bypass proposal, and hence this EIA, are discussed in more detail below.
3.3.1.1 Traffic Counts Traffic information to inform the motivation for the Hermanus CBD Bypass was obtained from:
• The permanent provincial traffic counting station (No. 5017) on the R43, just north of the intersection with the R44. This station provides detailed 15-minute counts over 24 hours per direction of travel, distinguishing between heavy and light vehicles;
• High-season 11-hour traffic counts between 19 and 22 December 2011, focussing on key intersections along the R43 and R44 across the entire Overstrand area;
• A number plate survey on 21 December 2011 at the R43 / Mountain Drive intersection, the Voëlklip Traffic Circle and on the R43 next to the caravan park to determine the extent of through traffic in Hermanus; and
• Low-season 11-hour traffic counts in October 201313 that were largely confined to the Hermanus area to provide additional detail for the model calibration.
All 11-hour traffic counts were done from 7h00 to 18h00 and distinguished between passenger vehicles, heavy vehicles (freight), minibus taxis and buses.
Additional traffic counts were conducted at three intersections on 9 June 2016 (see Appendix A).
Analysis of the collected traffic data highlights a number of key trends for the area (Joint Venture, 2015):
• Peak holiday traffic (December – January) on the R43 outside Hermanus grew at a consistent rate of 2.3% per annum between 2003 and 2007 and declined thereafter (see Figure 3-29). Similar data from other stations in the region suggests that the decline in traffic volumes was regional and in response to economic stagnation and a depressed property market along the Overstrand and Garden Route Corridors. Since 2012, traffic volumes have increased at a rate of 6.15% per annum;
• Traffic volumes on the R43 fluctuate significantly between high-season (summer) and low season (winter). Average December traffic volumes are typically 50% higher than average May / June traffic volumes (see Figure 3-17). These seasonal variations are mainly due to holiday traffic, recreational activities and tourism;
13 The second traffic counts were undertaken some 2 years after the first counts because the upgrade of the R43 commenced shortly after the first counts, and traffic flow only normalised after mid-2013.
REUT/DALC 448281_Hermanus CBD Bypass_Amended FEIR_Finalised September 2020 SRK Consulting: 448281 Hermanus CBD Bypass Amended Final EIA Report Page 57
Figure 3-17: Seasonal variations in traffic volumes on the R43 (from permanent station) Source: Joint Venture, 2015
• Traffic volumes are highest on Fridays and Sundays due to the regular influx of weekend visitors;
• Traffic volumes on the R43 increase appreciably near Hermanus. Eastbound traffic during the morning peak increases from ~250 vehicles per hour on the R44 to nearly 1 500 vehicles per hour at Zwelihle. Westbound traffic volumes reduce at greater distances from Hermanus (see Figure 3-18);
• Traffic volumes on the R43 in the Hermanus town centre reduce to less than 200 vehicles per hour in an eastbound direction and 300 vehicles per hour in a westbound direction during off-peak times, largely due to the CBD Relief Road (Royal Street / Lord Roberts Street) and Mountain Drive, which provides access to some of the schools and also functions as a secondary bypass. Mountain Drive is the only road in Hermanus central that carries appreciably more off-season than on-season traffic due to its role as a commuter route and de facto urban bypass.
• Typical morning and afternoon commuter peaks, at around 08h00 and 17h30 respectively, occur on roads west of the Hermanus town centre. Roads east of the town centre service far fewer commuters;
• The R43 through the CBD currently carries traffic that goes:
a) Straight through Hermanus to other towns (~7%);
b) Through the CBD but remains within the greater Hermanus area (~21%); and
c) To the CBD ~72% (see Figure 3-19).
This indicates that approximately 28% of all traffic currently travelling through the CBD (comprising flows a) and b) above) does not stop in and access the CBD.
REUT/DALC 448281_Hermanus CBD Bypass_Amended FEIR_Finalised September 2020 SRK Consulting: 448281 Hermanus CBD Bypass Amended Final EIA Report Page 58
Figure 3-18: Traffic volumes during morning peak hours on the R43 around Hermanus (from 2011/13 traffic counts) Source: Joint Venture, 2015
Figure 3-19: Average traffic based on 2011 Number plate analysis (vehicles per hour) Source: Joint Venture, 2015 Note: This figure shows a general travel pattern in Hermanus and does not show actual traffic volumes on existing roads.
Updated traffic counts were carried out on 23 January 2020 at various signalised intersections along the R43. These are deemed comparable to the previous October 2013 counts, considering general seasonal traffic, and can thus be compared in terms of traffic growth over the last 6.3 years. January 2020 traffic counts indicate an average traffic growth rate of 5.3% per annum in the AM peak hour and 8.2% per annum in the PM peak hour over the last 6.3 years. Traffic on Mountain Drive increased on average by 7.7% per annum in the AM and PM peak hour (see Figure 3-20). While the high growth rates may not be sustainable in the long term, the growth rate of ~2% as used in the EMME/3 model
REUT/DALC 448281_Hermanus CBD Bypass_Amended FEIR_Finalised September 2020 SRK Consulting: 448281 Hermanus CBD Bypass Amended Final EIA Report Page 59
and Traffic Study are realistic if not conservative when looking ahead to a 2035 scenario (see Appendix A3 for more detail).
Figure 3-20: Comparison of AM and PM hour traffic counts: October 2013 vs January 2020 Source: EFG (2020)
3.3.1.2 Traffic Model An EMME/3 transport model, focussing on peak hour commuter traffic, was developed for the Hermanus area to:
• Assess the transport and traffic implications of various long-term road network proposals in terms of the present and future traffic demand;
• Study the impact of the original Hermanus bypass proposal as well as possible alternatives; and
• Provide an assessment of the town’s internal road hierarchy (Classes 1 – 3), thereby assisting with the development of a long-term Road Master Plan.
Model Inputs and Methodology
The following key inputs were used in the model to determine morning peak hour trip generation:
REUT/DALC 448281_Hermanus CBD Bypass_Amended FEIR_Finalised September 2020 SRK Consulting: 448281 Hermanus CBD Bypass Amended Final EIA Report Page 60
• Historic traffic counts on the R43 (see Figure 3-29 in Section 3.3.3), which indicate that traffic growth on the R43 outside the urban area was 2.3% per annum between 2003 and 2007. Although traffic volume declined between 2008 and 2011, it has increased since 2012, with peak holiday traffic growing at close to 6% per annum;
• 2013 traffic count and 2012 number plate survey (see Section 3.3.1.1);
• Census data;
• Growth management studies;
• Hermanus Infrastructure Management Query Software (IMQS) system, which reflects the findings and strategic objectives of the HDGMS and Overstrand IDP and suggests that the total number of dwelling units between Fisherhaven in the west and the Hermanus caravan park in the east may increase from currently 16 784 to 27 089 by 2035. This represents a total growth of 61% over the next two decades, or an average growth of 1.5% per annum over the next 20 years. While growth potential is limited in the older established parts of Hermanus, large-scale urban expansion and densification is expected around Hawston to address backlogs in middle to lower income housing (see Figure 3-21); and
Figure 3-21: Estimated present and future number of dwelling units in the greater Hermanus area Source: Joint Venture, 2015
• Other sources of municipal information regarding future land use initiatives.
The model was set up for the base year (2013) by developing a 2013 morning peak hour traffic demand matrix and trip generation model, which was compared to actual traffic counts for calibration purposes.
The long-term network requirements for the greater Hermanus area for 2035 were then modelled by inputting future growth estimates into the model. The model considered various scenarios, including retention of the existing road network and implementation of road links proposed in the Hermanus
REUT/DALC 448281_Hermanus CBD Bypass_Amended FEIR_Finalised September 2020 SRK Consulting: 448281 Hermanus CBD Bypass Amended Final EIA Report Page 61
long-term transport plan and preliminary proposals for the full Hermanus bypass / Fairways Relief Road.
Taking historical traffic growth and future land use planning in the Overstrand Municipality into account, the model assumes an annual growth rate of:
• 1.5% for local traffic (internal traffic growth due to development within Greater Hermanus); and
• 2.5% for external traffic (as a result of visitors to, and traffic through, Hermanus).
As the external traffic around the CBD is less than the internal traffic, the total average annual traffic growth rate that underlies the traffic model is estimated at over 1.5% for the next ~20 years. This is deemed a conservative estimate taking into account that Hermanus is becoming more active throughout the year, with more permanent residents moving to Hermanus and “holiday homes” becoming permanently occupied.
An even lower growth scenario was not considered, because this could lead to a discrepancy between future potential land use developments and the provision of transport infrastructure. Such a scenario would also imply that growth in Hermanus would effectively stagnate.
Model Outcomes
At present, trips predominantly originate14 west of Hermanus, in Onrus and Sandbaai, while destinations are located predominantly in the central Hermanus area (see Figure 3-22). Significant growth in the number of trips, particularly those originating in western areas and destined for the CBD, is expected by 2035 (see Figure 3-23). Trips originating from lower-income areas lag expected population growth due to the lower incidence of car ownership. As travel to the CBD is predicted to increase, this portion of traffic destined for the CBD would take up all or most of the road capacity in the CBD.
14 Trip origins reflect the total number of (peak hour) car trips generated by each residential zone, while trip destination indicate the number of peak hour vehicular trips that end at places of economic activity, education etc.
REUT/DALC 448281_Hermanus CBD Bypass_Amended FEIR_Finalised September 2020 SRK Consulting: 448281 Hermanus CBD Bypass Amended Final EIA Report Page 62
Figure 3-22: Trip origins and destinations in 2013 Source: Joint Venture, 2015
Figure 3-23: Trip origins and destinations in 2035 Source: Joint Venture, 2015
REUT/DALC 448281_Hermanus CBD Bypass_Amended FEIR_Finalised September 2020 SRK Consulting: 448281 Hermanus CBD Bypass Amended Final EIA Report Page 63
The existing road network functions with largely adequate capacity at present (see Figure 3-24)15. However, modelling indicated that predicted 2035 traffic volumes will exceed the capacity of many portions of the existing network (see Figure 3-25) and require a number of future interventions, such as:
• Dualling the R43 between Onrus and Sandbaai;
• Additional road capacity all along the R43 up to Hawston;
• Dualling of the single lane section of the R43 into Hermanus16; and
• Dualling of the CBD Relief Road17.
Figure 3-24: Capacity analysis on the existing road network: 2013 traffic volumes Source: Joint Venture, 2015
15 Volume/capacity (V/C) ratios of up to 0.9 (90%) are deemed acceptable for existing roads. Long-term planning should aim for a V/C ratio of less than 0.8 (80%). 16 Note that this would not be required with the construction of the Hermanus CBD bypass. 17 Note that this would not be required with the construction of the Hermanus CBD bypass.
REUT/DALC 448281_Hermanus CBD Bypass_Amended FEIR_Finalised September 2020 SRK Consulting: 448281 Hermanus CBD Bypass Amended Final EIA Report Page 64
Figure 3-25: Capacity analysis on the existing road network: predicted 2035 traffic volumes Source: Joint Venture, 2015
The small proportion of through-traffic travelling through the entire length of Hermanus as shown in Figure 3-19 does not currently justify the need for a full bypass around Hermanus, considering that such a road would have significant environmental and cost implications.
The modelling results shown in Figure 3-26 and Figure 3-27 do however make a strong case for a shorter Hermanus CBD bypass between Mountain Drive and the R43 / Fairways Avenue intersection, which would serve a larger part of Hermanus east of the golf course. It is expected that this route may capture some 25% of the traffic that enters Hermanus.
The implementation of the Hermanus CBD bypass is predicted to significantly improve capacity on the roads in and around the town centre (see Figure 3-27). More than 750 vehicles per hour (both directions combined) are expected to be diverted onto the bypass by 2035. The western section of Mountain Drive is expected to be the busiest, carrying more than 1 500 vehicles per hour during peak times largely due to the presence of the Hermanus High School in this area, which is a major peak hour traffic generator. The model suggests that the CBD will remain somewhat congested in 2035 due to future traffic growth associated with the continued expansion and development of the town centre, which would not have been possible without the construction of a bypass that diverts traffic from the CBD road network.
REUT/DALC 448281_Hermanus CBD Bypass_Amended FEIR_Finalised September 2020 SRK Consulting: 448281 Hermanus CBD Bypass Amended Final EIA Report Page 65
Figure 3-26: Capacity analysis of future road network without Hermanus CBD bypass: predicted 2035 traffic volumes Source: Joint Venture, 2015
Figure 3-27: Capacity analysis of future road network with Hermanus CBD bypass: predicted 2035 traffic volumes Source: Joint Venture, 2015
REUT/DALC 448281_Hermanus CBD Bypass_Amended FEIR_Finalised September 2020 SRK Consulting: 448281 Hermanus CBD Bypass Amended Final EIA Report Page 66
3.3.2 Required Functionality of the R43 through Hermanus According to the RCAM road classification system, the R43 should be a Class 2 Major (Urban) Arterial in Hermanus in terms of its route continuity and regional mobility functions. A Class 2 Major (Urban) Arterial should comply with the following main characteristics (Joint Venture, 2015):
• Always receive priority of movement, except in dense urban areas where traffic signals or roundabouts may be considered;
• Direct access to properties is not permitted unless the development:
− Is sufficiently large to warrant a traffic signal in terms of the Road Traffic Signs Manual;
− Meets the access spacing criteria; and
− There is no future need for a public road;
• Accesses should be minimised and spaced at ~800 m (± 15% / 120 m) to reduce the need for stopping and starting;
• Minimum recommended speed limit of 60 to 80 km/h, depending on the geometric design of the road and other constraints;
• Traffic calming, 4-way stop controls and parking should not be permitted, although public transport stops can be provided at intersections; and
• Pedestrian facilities should be provided off the road.
Retaining mobility on the R43 is considered critical to secure the future accessibility of Hermanus, as the town’s local economy largely depends on the movement of visitors, tourists and holiday makers.
Jeffares & Green produced a report on the traffic conditions and upgrading of the R43 between Fisherhaven and Hermanus in January 1998, which recommended that the road between Onrus and Hermanus should be dualled. This was followed by an Addendum Report compiled in May 2006, which updated the 1998 traffic projections and confirmed the 1998 recommendation18. The Addendum Report also highlighted the need for a long-term mobility bypass around Hermanus, and urged the planning authorities to expedite this issue. The report estimated some 9 500 vehicles would initially use the road per day.
3.3.3 Current Functionality of the R43 through Hermanus Urban environments, and particularly town centres, have a higher demand for accessibility, parking, traffic calming and pedestrianisation, and a high degree of mobility and capacity in such environments can have negative safety implications. The R43, together with the CBD Relief Road, are the only high order roads in Hermanus performing the dual functions of urban collectors as well as regional mobility routes, which can result in conflict and constraints on traffic seeking to terminate and travel through this part of town. The speed limit is 60 km/h and the R43 has priority of movement except at traffic signals and traffic circles. The OTP (Joint Venture, 2015) highlighted a number of key strategic issues regarding transport provision in the Overstrand Municipality, including the following:
• Settlements have developed into long linear developments along the coastline that are structured around the provincial road system, which encourages the use of (provincial) mobility routes as local roads;
18 The dualling of the R43 between Sandbaai and Mimosa Street (TR 28/2) was completed at the end of 2013.
REUT/DALC 448281_Hermanus CBD Bypass_Amended FEIR_Finalised September 2020 SRK Consulting: 448281 Hermanus CBD Bypass Amended Final EIA Report Page 67
• The Overstrand Municipality experiences large seasonal fluctuations in population numbers, which contribute significantly to transport problems in and around the main urban areas. Lower income (permanent) residents are dependent on public transport;
• The area is sandwiched in between the coast and mountain ranges, constraining the development of alternative or additional access routes to and from the area; and
• There is evidence that demand for coastal properties could experience a significant upswing in the near future, as more people retire to the area and technology enables remote work opportunities.
Hermanus and surrounding areas have experienced increased tourism and rapid development, which have resulted in increased traffic through the Overstrand area, putting pressure on the current road network:
• Population in the greater Hermanus area grew substantially between 2001 and 2011 (see Section 4.2.2.1 for more detail). This trend is expected to continue with the imminent retirement of the 1950s cohort (baby boomers);
• Following a steady decline in the number of building plans approved by the Overstrand Municipality for new houses since 2006, the trend reversed in 2013, and the number of approved plans for new houses is on the rise (see Figure 3-28). A similar trend is apparent in the number of new Municipal water connections. In addition, it is likely that many people planning to retire in Hermanus have already bought properties in the area and that holiday homes will increasingly be occupied on a permanent basis. The permanent population, and associated traffic, could thus increase without an increase in new houses;
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
Number of of plansNumber 60
40
20
0
New houses Alterations
Figure 3-28: Building plans approved by the Overstrand Municipality per month 2006-2014 Source: Overstrand Municipality personal communication Stephen Müller, 2015
REUT/DALC 448281_Hermanus CBD Bypass_Amended FEIR_Finalised September 2020 SRK Consulting: 448281 Hermanus CBD Bypass Amended Final EIA Report Page 68
• Traffic figures for 2013 and 2014 obtained from provincial counting station 5017 show a renewed moderate increase in traffic, with peak and off-peak traffic volumes exceeding 2007 volumes for the first time in 201319 (see Figure 3-29); and
16000
ADT: 15 Dec - 15 Jan 14000 ADT: Feb Workdays ADT: June Workdays 12000
10000
8000 Average Average Daily Traffic 6000
4000
2000
0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Year
Figure 3-29: R43 traffic volumes: 2003 – 2014 Source: Joint Venture, 2015 • A larger permanent population supports more local businesses all year round, which would increase internal (local) traffic more than external (regional) traffic. As a result, one would expect to see more traffic growth within the Hermanus urban area. A number plate survey and modelling studies show that approximately 25% of traffic that enters Hermanus could reasonably be expected to use a CBD bypass. Traffic counts also indicate that a number of vehicles already avoid the CBD area by using Mountain Drive, Fairways Avenue and other smaller detour roads that serve the residential areas and schools to the north of the CBD area. These roads are generally not designed to carry such through traffic, resulting in traffic-related problems such as congestion, noise and unsafe pedestrian environments, as evidenced by the traffic calming measures implemented along Mountain Drive and Fairways Avenue. These measures are, however, unlikely to discourage future traffic growth on these routes.
Mountain Drive already carries more than 700 vehicles per hour (both directions combined), and it is expected that this will increase by approximately 200 vehicles per hour over the next 25 years without the construction of a bypass. This is mainly due to the anticipated growth in Hermanus, the constrained CBD road network and future changes in travel patterns (e.g. schools and shopping centres in Sandbaai).
3.3.4 Anticipated Future Trends Affecting the Functionality of the R43 While current (2013) traffic conditions in and around the Hermanus CBD are generally acceptable at present, the network is close to capacity (see Figure 3-24). Three anticipated trends trigger the need for the Hermanus CBD Bypass:
19 The Hermanus Times also reported on 8 January 2015 that tourism establishments experienced record occupancy rates from August to December 2014, with indications that visitor numbers will remain high in 2015.
REUT/DALC 448281_Hermanus CBD Bypass_Amended FEIR_Finalised September 2020 SRK Consulting: 448281 Hermanus CBD Bypass Amended Final EIA Report Page 69
1. Increase in traffic bypassing or driving through the CBD, exceeding the capacity of the CBD road network or of lower-class residential roads used as de facto bypasses;
2. Increase in traffic destined for the CBD which reduces the capacity of the CBD road network to accommodate through-traffic; and
3. Increasing demand for traffic calming and urban renewal in the CBD.
These are further discussed below. Delays into and in Hermanus are expected to increase without further road network improvements, particularly in the CBD area, which may limit expansion and development of the town centre (also see Section 3.4.3).
A Synthesis of Background Information relating to the Project Need and the Traffic Study dated March 2020 and provided in Appendix A3 provides updated traffic counts and an indication of traffic growth from 2013 to 2020. Recent traffic data support the growth rates used in the previous studies and the need for a bypass.
3.3.4.1 Growth in Through-Traffic Densification of residential, institutional (schools) and commercial developments on the periphery of town was identified as a general land use planning and development trend that has received municipal planning support (Joint Venture, 2015) and will increase the demand for traffic through and/or around the CBD. These include the following larger-scale commercial and residential developments west of Hermanus:
• Whale Coast Village Mall: 38 087 m2 retail shopping centre in Sandbaai;
• Sandbaai Commonage Development: ~1 459 residential units and a 2.5 ha commercial component in Sandbaai;
• Sandbaai Curro School: Further increase in learner numbers (the school accommodates more than 550 learners in 2015).
The HDGMS also predicts a significant increase in the total number of dwelling units in the region by 2035, particularly in the form of large-scale urban expansion and infill development around Hawston to address backlogs in middle to lower income housing (see Figure 3-21). It is expected that the Hermanus – Hawston area will ultimately merge into a single large integrated urban system in future.
The opening of newly upgraded corridors from Caledon to Hermanus and from Hermanus to Gansbaai, Elim and beyond in the near future will further contribute to an increase in through-traffic.
3.3.4.2 Growth in Traffic Destined for the CBD Traffic destined for the CBD is expected to continue growing in response to further developments in the town centre, such as commercial and residential densification within the CBD. Hermanus was deemed to have sufficient growth potential to support the enhancement, growth and densification of the CBD in addition to the regional mall, which fulfils a different bulk retail function. According to the HDGMS, more densification is planned in central Hermanus, and specifically the CBD core area, with notable implications for the long-term viability of R43 and CBD Relief Road. The remainder of the increase would come from the subdivision or re-development of properties in existing residential areas, particularly those adjacent to the R43 (Joint Venture, 2015).
The HDGMS does not make any proposals for new roads in the central area, except for recognising that the (at the time future) CBD Relief Road would ease traffic congestion and offer significant development potential in the form of high density housing at selected nodal points along its alignment.
REUT/DALC 448281_Hermanus CBD Bypass_Amended FEIR_Finalised September 2020 SRK Consulting: 448281 Hermanus CBD Bypass Amended Final EIA Report Page 70
The motivation for the bypass is therefore based on projected long-term future traffic demand as a result of population growth, urban expansion and densification around the CBD area, as envisaged in the HDGMS and the Overstrand Draft IDF.
3.3.4.3 Demand for Traffic Calming in the CBD More requests for the implementation of traffic calming measures and safer pedestrian precincts in the town centre are anticipated. The establishment of multi-functional activity areas in the CBD with emphasis on access, parking and non-motorised transport, as well as residential densification in the CBD, was identified as a general land use planning and development trend in the OTP (Joint Venture, 2015). However, such activities do not comply with the requirements of a Class 2 Major (Urban) Arterial (see Section 3.3.1) and can thus not easily be implemented in the CBD while the R43 retains the status of a provincial road.
3.3.5 Aims and Objectives of the Hermanus CBD Bypass The overarching aims and objectives of the Hermanus CBD Bypass are to:
• Provide additional road capacity for through traffic;
• Provide a mobility route for through traffic for the local and regional communities who do not wish to stop within the CBD;
• Match future road capacity with long-term land use proposals;
• Deal with new traffic demand patterns as a result of structural changes in the urban land use development in Hermanus; and
• Support the Hermanus CBD Regeneration Framework currently investigated by the Overstrand Municipality.
Specifically, the implementation of the Hermanus CBD Bypass aims to:
• Provide a mobility route for through traffic between the eastern and western parts of Hermanus that complies with the necessary standards for a Class 2 Urban Arterial;
• Improve accessibility, traffic flow and safety in the CBD area;
• Enable business development within the Hermanus CBD by optimising accessibility, parking and non-motorised access, as envisaged in the Hermanus CBD Regeneration Framework;
• Create a more liveable and economically viable CBD environment; and
• Identify a strategic back-up route in the event of developments east of Hermanus.
The bypass will enable the WCDTPW to proclaim the Hermanus CBD Bypass as the new provincial trunk road and de-proclaim the R43 section through the Hermanus CBD. The current R43 section through the CBD would then become a municipal road that can be administered by the Overstrand Municipality, providing local accessibility rather than regional mobility.
It is expected that the bypass will primarily benefit residents and the commercial sector in the greater Hermanus urban area, as the majority of traffic on the bypass is expected to be from vehicles commuting between the eastern and western parts of Hermanus, e.g. traffic from Sandbaai wanting to access the beaches to the east and traffic from the east wanting to access the industrial, commercial and institutional (e.g. Curro school) areas to the west. The proposed bypass will not only allow local and regional through traffic to bypass the CBD, but also provide improved access to the schools, sports fields, farmers market and other institutions in the area along Jose Burman Avenue. This
REUT/DALC 448281_Hermanus CBD Bypass_Amended FEIR_Finalised September 2020 SRK Consulting: 448281 Hermanus CBD Bypass Amended Final EIA Report Page 71
proposed bypass will reduce the traffic on the local roads/streets currently providing access to this institutional / recreational node.
Rather than starving the CBD of visitors, it is aimed at enhancing development opportunities in central Hermanus. A congested inaccessible CBD will accelerate the establishment of commercial developments outside the CBD.
The purpose of the current exercise is to secure a future road alignment at an early stage to reduce costs and minimise future impacts on property owners and the environment. In this instance, a bypass alignment could have and should have been proclaimed at least 20 years ago. The failure to do so may contribute to current concerns about the project.
3.4 Project Alternatives The EIA Regulations, 2010, require that all S&EIR processes must identify and describe ‘alternatives to the proposed activity that are feasible and reasonable’. Different types or categories of alternatives can be identified, e.g. location alternatives, type of activity, design or layout alternatives, technology alternatives and operational alternatives. The ‘No-Go’ or ’No Project’ alternative must also be considered.
Not all categories of alternatives are applicable to all projects. However, the consideration of alternatives is also inherent in the detailed design and the identification of mitigation measures. Numerous alternatives were identified and considered during the early feasibility and design phases of the project and during the EIA process. These are summarised in Table 3-4 and are described in more detail in Section 3.4.1 and 3.4.2.
Alternatives proposed by stakeholders were first considered by the proponent for feasibility in terms of achieving the objectives of the project – to obtain an alternative provincial mobility route to replace the current provincial route on Main Road through the CBD. The proponent then advised SRK of feasible alternatives, which were then assessed in the EIA.
Most alternatives were not considered viable options by the proponent for reasons summarised in Table 3-4 and described in Section 3.4.1.
Alternatives that are considered viable by the proponent and assessed in this report are described in the Section 3.4.2, in addition to the No-Go Alternative described in Section 3.4.3, and relate to:
• Alternative alignments of Hermanus CBD bypass at the Hermanus Sports Complex:
o Northern alignment (north of the Hermanus Sports Complex); and
o Southern alignment (south of the Hermanus Sports Complex).
REUT/DALC 448281_Hermanus CBD Bypass_Amended FEIR_Finalised September 2020 SRK Consulting: 448281 Hermanus CBD Bypass Amended Final EIA Report Page 72 Table 3-4: Analysis of alternatives considered to date
Alternative Proposed by Status Key reason for considering the alternative not Report feasible Section Use of alternative regional routes Stakeholders in Dec 201420, Jul Screened out in Scoping Report Alternative regional routes do not meet the objective of 3.4.1.1 201521, Jun 201722 (June 2015) addressing Hermanus-internal traffic through the CBD. Full bypass WCDTPW (investigated prior to this Screened out in Scoping Report At present there is insufficient demand forecast on the 3.4.1.2 EIA) (June 2015) eastern section of a full bypass to justify the expense Stakeholders in Dec 2014, Jun and impacts of a full bypass. 2015 FGM23, Jul 2015 Upgrade CBD Relief Road Stakeholders in Dec 2014, Jul Screened out in Scoping Report The width of the current roads / road reserves is 3.4.1.3 2015, Jul 2015 FGM, Jan 201624, (June 2015) insufficient to accommodate a proposed road cross- Jun 2017, Jun 2017 FGM section. The intersection spacing on the current roads is too close to provide the mobility that is an objective of this Upgrade R43 through the CBD Stakeholders in Dec 2014, Jun Screened out in Scoping Report project. 3.4.1.4 2017 (June 2015) There are many direct accesses onto the current roads, which conflict with the mobility that is an objective of this project. Upgrading existing roads to the desired cross-section would impact on adjacent properties, resulting in high expropriation costs. Upgrading existing roads does not sufficiently address predicted future congestion in and around the CBD, as no alternative route is created. Upgrading existing roads does not align with the Hermanus CBD Regeneration Framework, which envisages a more pedestrian / people-oriented environment in the CBD area.
20 Comments on the BID, captured in Appendix D of the Scoping Report 21 Comments on the Scoping Report, captured in Appendix F of the Final Scoping Report 22 Comments on the EIA Report, captured in Appendix S of the Final EIA Report 23 Focus Group Meeting - Notes of meetings are appended to the respective reports 24 Comments on the Final Scoping Report, captured in Appendix E4 of the EIA Report
REUT/DALC 448281_Hermanus CBD Bypass_Amended FEIR_Finalised September 2020 SRK Consulting: 448281 Hermanus CBD Bypass Amended Final EIA Report Page 73
Alternative Proposed by Status Key reason for considering the alternative not Report feasible Section Alternative alignments of Hermanus CBD bypass at Mountain Drive: − Upgrade Mountain Drive WCDTPW, Stakeholders in Jul Screened out in Scoping Report There are many direct accesses onto Mountain Drive, 3.4.1.5 2015, Jun 2017 (June 2015) which conflict with the mobility that is an objective of this project. Traffic calming measures that have been implemented on Mountain Drive and are desired by adjacent residents are in conflict with the mobility that is an objective of this project. − Construct new road parallel to Mountain Drive: • Away from Mountain Drive Stakeholders in Jul 2015 Screened out in FSR (December Locating the bypass (slightly) away from Mountain 3.4.1.6 2015) Drive, and hence further into the FNR, would affect more land in the sensitive FNR without making a significant difference to anticipated noise levels. • Adjacent to Mountain Drive WCDTPW Assessed in EIA n/a Alternative alignments of 3.4.1.7 Hermanus CBD bypass at sports fields: − Northern alignment WCDTPW Assessed in EIA n/a − Southern alignment: WCDTPW • Raised along Jose Burman WCDTPW Assessed in EIA n/a • Sunken along Jose Burman Stakeholders in Jun 2015 FGM Screened out in FSR (December Sinking the road below ground level along Jose 3.4.1.7 2015) Burman is associated with several problems: − High cost due to excavations and retaining walls; − Challenges associated with water table, which will require ongoing future management; and − Geometric problems with connections to local road network, which will require steep ramps or more land take to accommodate gentler slopes at connecting points (e.g. using loop ramps).
REUT/DALC 448281_Hermanus CBD Bypass_Amended FEIR_Finalised September 2020 SRK Consulting: 448281 Hermanus CBD Bypass Amended Final EIA Report Page 74
Alternative Proposed by Status Key reason for considering the alternative not Report feasible Section Alignment of bypass along Lord Stakeholders in Jun 2015 FGM, Jul Screened out in FSR (December This option essentially shortens the bypass and only 3.4.1.8 Roberts Drive 2015, Jun 2017 2015) provides an alternative route for the eastern portion of the CBD, it therefore does not meet the project’s objective to alleviate congestion along the entire route from Mountain Drive to Fairways Avenue. Alignment of bypass along Stakeholders at Jun 2015 FGM, Screened out in FSR (December There are several direct accesses on Fernkloof Drive, 3.4.1.9 Fernkloof Drive Jun 2017, Jun 2017 FGM 2015) which conflict with the mobility objective of the project. Aligning the bypass along Fernkloof Drive impacts on ~10 additional residential units along Fernkloof Drive, increasing the total number of affected units by ~20% (from 50 units as per Section 3.2.2), with limited alleviation of other impacts. Alignment of bypass along Nichol Stakeholders in Jun 2017 Screened out in FEIR (December There are many direct accesses onto Moffat Street, 3.4.1.10 and Moffat Street 2017) which conflict with the mobility objective of the project. This route impacts on ~20 additional residential units along Nichol Street and Moffat Street, increasing the total number of affected units by ~40% (from 50 units as per Section 3.2.2). Alignment of bypass along WCDTPW in June 2019 Screened out in Amended FEIR This alternative would impact on the commercial 3.4.1.11 Fairways Avenue to Main Road buildings and block of flats on either side of Fairways Avenue and require the relocation or closure of the filling station on Main Road. The alignment also provides less mobility than the alignment across Erf 10558 and does not eliminate the sharp bend on Main Road. Various improvements to Stakeholders in Dec 2014, Jul Screened out in FSR (December Improvements to the internal road network may be 3.4.1.12 Hermanus road network 2015, Jun 2017 2015) required irrespective of this project, and are the responsibility of the Overstrand Municipality. They do not address the objective of the project to provide an alternative mobility route to the provincial road. Provision of public transport Stakeholders in Dec 2014, Jul Screened out in FSR (December Demand for public transport and land use patterns / 3.4.1.13 2015, Jul 2015 FGM, Jun 2017, Jun 2015) residential densities are at present deemed insufficient 2017 FGM in Hermanus to allow for efficient and cost-effective public transport that would be affordable to the municipality / provincial government.
REUT/DALC 448281_Hermanus CBD Bypass_Amended FEIR_Finalised September 2020 SRK Consulting: 448281 Hermanus CBD Bypass Amended Final EIA Report Page 75
Alternative Proposed by Status Key reason for considering the alternative not Report feasible Section Funding alternative projects Stakeholders in Dec 2014, Jul Screened out in FSR (December Funds allocated to the WCDTPW: Roads Infrastructure 3.4.1.14 2015, Jul 2015 FGM, Jun 2017 2015) cannot be used for projects falling under the ambit of other government authorities. Funding alternative projects is thus not considered a feasible alternative. No-go alternative WCDTPW To be assessed in EIA n/a 3.4.3
REUT/DALC 448281_Hermanus CBD Bypass_Amended FEIR_Finalised September 2020 SRK Consulting: 448281 Hermanus CBD Bypass Amended Final EIA Report Page 76
3.4.1 Alternative Alignments of the Hermanus CBD Bypass Not Considered Feasible Numerous alternatives were identified and considered during the early feasibility and design phases of the project and during the EIA process. Alternatives proposed by stakeholders were first considered by the proponent for feasibility in terms of achieving the objectives of the project – an alternative provincial mobility route to replace the current provincial route on Main Road through the CBD. The proponent then advised SRK of feasible alternatives.
All alternatives that were considered and deemed not feasible, and reasons therefore, are described below. The information in this section has been provided by the project proponent. Most of the information was previously presented in the Final Scoping Report. Any additional information incorporated based on responses previously provided to stakeholder comments and additional information provided by the proponent is marked in italic and underlined font.
3.4.1.1 Alternative Regional Routes Hermanus is connected to a regional route network that allows travellers to bypass the entire Hermanus area via the:
• R316 that leads from Botrivier via Caledon to Bredasdorp (or Stanford via the R326); or
• R320 to Caledon that branches off the R43 at Sandbaai before Hermanus.
These routes are however of limited relevance as shown by the 2011 Hermanus number plate survey, which indicated that only 7% of vehicles passed straight through Hermanus. As such, it is assumed that traffic destined for areas far beyond Hermanus is already largely using alternative regional routes, and that the traffic recorded on the roads in and near Hermanus largely originates from and/or travels to the area and would thus not make use of alternative regional routes. This alternative would thus not address the traffic volumes and anticipated congestion stemming from largely local traffic between the eastern and western section of greater Hermanus through, but not destined for, the CBD.
It should further be noted that the towns such as Stanford, Gansbaai and Pearly Beach are part of the Overstrand. At the same time the route through Hermanus towards Cape Town is shorter and a more scenic route. This route (i.e. the R43) is therefore naturally the preferred route.
3.4.1.2 Full Bypass Construction of a ‘full’ Hermanus Bypass north of Hermanus, extending along the entire length of town, was considered based on the early pre-1970s proposal discussed in Section 3.1.2.1 and amended to take account of existing conditions, such as the development of Fernkloof Estate (see Figure 3-30). This proposal involves the total re-alignment of the R43 from the Mountain View Drive intersection through to and past the last residential developments west of the caravan park over ~15 km to provide an uninterrupted high order Class 2 arterial with a single carriageway and a road reserve of ~25 m.
The need for a full bypass was tested in the traffic model. The model assumed some (limited) connectivity of the bypass with the urban road network and relatively high travel speeds.
The traffic model predicts that some 400 vehicles per hour (both directions combined) would use the full bypass25. Traffic volumes on the existing CBD road network were forecast to reduce by the same amount as for the shorter Hermanus CBD Bypass.
School traffic is expected to make a significant contribution to traffic on the western section of the bypass, where traffic volumes in excess of 1 500 vehicles per hour (both directions combined) were
25 The 2011 number plate analysis indicated that only 7% of vehicles passed straight through Hermanus and could reasonably be expected to use a full bypass.
REUT/DALC 448281_Hermanus CBD Bypass_Amended FEIR_Finalised September 2020 SRK Consulting: 448281 Hermanus CBD Bypass Amended Final EIA Report Page 77
predicted. In the east, the majority of traffic destined for the central and western parts of Hermanus was expected to use the bypass, but traffic volumes and travel time reductions for this section are low.
Traffic volumes particularly on the eastern section of the full bypass are deemed too low to justify the construction of a full bypass, considering that such a road would have to be designed for traffic demand that justifies the construction costs and environmental impact. Only large traffic increases between Hermanus and Stanford would justify construction of this section of the bypass; there are no indications of such increases in the foreseeable future (planning horizon).
REUT/DALC 448281_Hermanus CBD Bypass_Amended FEIR_Finalised September 2020 SRK Consulting: 448281 Hermanus CBD Bypass Amended Final EIA Report Page 78
HERMANUS CBD BYPASS Project No. ALIGNMENT OF FULL BYPASS ALTERNATIVE 448281
Figure 3-30: Alignment of full bypass alternative
REUT/DALC 448281_Hermanus CBD Bypass_Amended FEIR_Finalised September 2020 SRK Consulting: 448281 Hermanus CBD Bypass Amended Final EIA Report Page 79
3.4.1.3 Upgrade CBD Relief Road The existing CBD Relief Road along Royal Street and Lord Roberts Street performs an important function in the CBD road network and has appreciably reduced congestion along Main Road in the CBD area since its inauguration in 2010. The CBD Relief Road was constructed by the Overstrand Municipality and in principle supported by the WCDTPW.
However, the proclamation of the Hermanus CBD Relief Road as a provincial road was not supported by the WCDTPW as it was not built to the required standards for a mobility route due to the same reasons laid out below (also see Section 3.1.2.2).
Upgrading the CBD Relief Road to a standard suitable for the required functionality as described in Section 3.3.1 would be very difficult considering the:
• Numerous intersections and direct property accesses located along the CBD Relief Road, which is embedded in the urban fabric;
• Narrow road and road reserve width that makes widening difficult (the road reserve of the CBD Relief Road varies between 14 m and 20 m);
• Realignments required along Royal Road to improve geometric standards, and impacts on adjacent land uses;
• Close proximity of existing buildings and developments to the CBD Relief Road along the entire corridor, which would result in extensive and costly expropriation that would significantly affect land uses adjacent to the CBD Relief Road (see Figure 3-31). Preliminary indications are that the land acquisition costs to accommodate the widening would be in the order of R 78 million;
• Heritage buildings located adjacent to the CBD Relief Road (see Figure 3-32) which would be impacted by an upgrade of the road. While the widening of the CBD Relief Road would not require demolition of heritage buildings, the road edge would move much closer to these buildings;
• Increase in commercial and other development that has taken place along the CBD Relief Road in response to the improved accessibility provided by the road, which may be at risk if the CBD Relief Road were upgraded to a higher-order mobility route; and
• Increased emphases placed on the accessibility function of the existing CBD Relief Road to the CBD in the Hermanus CBD Regeneration Framework. Upgrading / widening the CBD Relief Road to emphasise its mobility function would be in conflict with the Hermanus CBD Regeneration Framework. Upgrading the CBD Relief Road to a mobility route would also result in ongoing conflict between the needs to provide mobility, direct access, pedestrian and cyclist movement and safety and parking.
The effects of upgrading the CBD Relief Road as a bypass were tested with the EMME transport model. The model indicates that the R43 between Mountain Drive and Church Street and sections of the CBD Relief Road would be close to, or beyond, capacity using 2013 traffic volumes (see Figure 3-33) on the upgraded cross-section, as more traffic is attracted to the CBD Relief Road. The model also indicates that future traffic in 2035 would exceed the future capacity of the upgraded CBD Relief Road on large sections (see Figure 3-34).
Based on the above considerations, upgrading the R43 from Mountain Drive to Fairways Avenue via the CBD Relief Road is not considered a viable alternative.
REUT/DALC 448281_Hermanus CBD Bypass_Amended FEIR_Finalised September 2020 SRK Consulting: 448281 Hermanus CBD Bypass Amended Final EIA Report Page 80
Figure 3-31: Expropriation implications (properties with circled numbers) of upgrading the existing CBD Relief Road Source: EFG and iCE, provided in December 2015
REUT/DALC 448281_Hermanus CBD Bypass_Amended FEIR_Finalised September 2020