Hill, Amy Disclaimer: This E-Mail (Including Attachments) Is Subject To

Hill, Amy

From: Peter van Heerden Sent: 11 January 2017 10:47 AM To: Hill, Amy Cc: Riaan Van Eeden Subject: RE: Stakeholder Comment Period: Revised Draft Scoping Report for the Proposed Redevelopment of the River Club in Observatory, Cape Town

Wed 11-01-17 10h25

Good morning Amy.

I have picked up an error in your letter in which you refer to the TRUP Local Area Spatial Development Framework. The correct term in terms of the Municipal Planning By-Law and mandate received from the Mayor, is the Local Spatial Development Framework for the TRUP.

This change in methodology has very specific stipulations relating to the substantive content required in the final Report. This mistake must be corrected before any confusion in Stakeholder Public Forums occur. You can ask Mathew to contact me, should further clarity be required.

Regards Pete (Spatial Planning & Urban Design, CCT).

From: Hill, Amy [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 11 January 2017 10:14 AM Subject: Stakeholder Comment Period: Revised Draft Scoping Report for the Proposed Redevelopment of the River Club in Observatory, Cape Town

Dear Registered Stakeholder

Please find attached letter regarding the release of the Revised Draft Scoping Report for the proposed redevelopment of the River Club in Observatory, Cape Town.

Kind regards

Amy Hill BSC (Hons)(Biodiversity and Ecology) Environmental Consultant

SRK Consulting (South Africa) Pty Ltd.

The Administrative Building, Albion Spring, 183 Main Road, Rondebosch, 7700 Post Net Suite #206, Private Bag X18, Rondebosch, 7701

Tel: +27-21-659-3060 ; Fax: +27-21-685-7105 Direct: +27 (0)21 659 3063 Email: [email protected] www.srk.co.za

This transmission is intended for the sole use of the addressee, and may contain information that by its privileged and confidential nature is exempt from disclosure under applicable law. You are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or duplication of this transmission by someone other than the intended recipient or its designated agent is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to this transmission, or by collect call to the above phone number. Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

Disclaimer: This e-mail (including attachments) is subject to the disclaimer published at: http://www.capetown.gov.za/general/email-disclaimer Please read the disclaimer before opening any attachment or taking any other action in terms of this e-mail. If you cannot access the disclaimer, kindly

1 send an email to [email protected] and a copy will be provided to you. By replying to this e- mail or opening any attachment you agree to be bound by the provisions of the disclaimer.

Hill, Amy

From: Alvin Cope Sent: 12 January 2017 01:51 PM To: Hill, Amy Subject: RE: Stakeholder Comment Period: Revised Draft Scoping Report for the Proposed Redevelopment of the River Club in Observatory, Cape Town Attachments: The River Club Development - JN 11912

Hi Ms AH,

1. Your Project No 478320 of 11 January 2016 (sic) ; DEA&DP Ref No 16/3/3/6/7/2/A7/17/3104/16.

2. The comment in this Branch’s e-m to you of 24 August 2016 (attached) applies mutatis mutandis to the Revised DSR.

Thanx,

Regards.

Alvin L Cope WCG 9 Dorp Street P O Box 2603 Cape Town 8000 Road Network Management - Room 3-36 +27 21 483 2009 (tel) [email protected]

Dear Registered Stakeholder

Please find attached letter regarding the release of the Revised Draft Scoping Report for the proposed redevelopment of the River Club in Observatory, Cape Town.

Kind regards

Amy Hill BSC (Hons)(Biodiversity and Ecology) Environmental Consultant

SRK Consulting (South Africa) Pty Ltd.

The Administrative Building, Albion Spring, 183 Main Road, Rondebosch, 7700 Post Net Suite #206, Private Bag X18, Rondebosch, 7701

Tel: +27-21-659-3060 ; Fax: +27-21-685-7105 Direct: +27 (0)21 659 3063 Email: [email protected] www.srk.co.za

"All views or opinions expressed in this electronic message and its attachments are the view of the sender and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of the Western Cape Government (the WCG). No employee of the WCG is entitled to conclude a binding contract on behalf of the WCG unless he/she is an accounting officer of the WCG, or his or her authorised representative. The information contained in this message and its attachments may be confidential or privileged and is for the use of the named recipient only, except where the sender specifically states otherwise. If you are not the intended recipient you may not copy or deliver this message to anyone."

2 Hill, Amy

From: Keagan-leigh Adriaanse Sent: 07 February 2017 08:57 AM To: Law, Matthew Charles; Hill, Amy Subject: RE: Tracking comments submitted re-DRAFT River Club re-development Scoping Report

Good day Matthew and Amy,

Please see below for comments received on the revised pre-application Scoping Report.

Kind regards Keagan-leigh

From: TRUP Secretary [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 06 February 2017 01:33 PM To: Dimitri Georgeades; Zaahir Toefy; Hudson McComb; Hudson McComb Coo; Lynette Munro Subject: Tracking comments submitted re-DRAFT River Club re-development Scoping Report

Hi Dimitri and Zaahir

I suspect neither of you remember me, (from a distant past with the EEU), but I have been connected with supporting the TRUP Association (legally constituted from the 2003 contextual framework spatial planning process).

I have just come across your comments towards the end (the very last infact!) of the 20 Appendices in the Revised Scoping Report for the Re-development of the River Club.

I write to Thank You, on behalf of the TRUPA, for your (extensive) time and energy spent on raising valid concerns regarding the proposed re-development of the River Club.

Further, on behalf of the TRUPA, we would like to request that you ensure that your comments have been meaningfully dealt with in the Revised Scoping Report, as other stakeholders have raised concerns that their issues have not been adequately dealt with, or even considered, in the Revised Report.

Most notably, as you both indicate, a more detailed description of how the River Club development would fit into plans for the development of the surrounding TRUP area (Section 3.1 in Zaahir’s submission, and Sections 4 and 7 of Dimitri’s document), and due consideration of the role the TRUP plays, and should be allowed to play in the future (as per the "needs and desirability discussion").

1 Also to enquire considering the POS consideration of alternatives (Zaahir, section 9), rather than a “no go” or “22+buildings and massive infilling” option. (Consultants and officials present at the River Club presentation evening last week Wed 1 Feb failed to respond to this issue raised by various local NGO reps).

I am sure you are aware that comments on the Revised SR are due this Friday, again to [email protected] and that the doc is online via the SRK website, public docs link.

Yours sincerely, Lynette Munro (on behalf of the TRUP Association)

-- Secretary Two Rivers Urban Park Association

2 Hill, Amy

From: Melodie Campbell Sent: 08 February 2017 04:20 PM To: Hill, Amy Cc: Gerrit Coetzee Subject: RE: Stakeholder Comment Period: Revised Draft Scoping Report for the Proposed Redevelopment of the River Club in Observatory, Cape Town

Good day Amy

Your request for comment pertaining to the abovementioned has reference.

Please note that the comment provided by the Western Cape Education Department, dated 10 August 2016, remains unchanged.

However, the department would like to reserve the right to comment, once the residential component of the proposed development has been determined in order to ascertain the need for school provisioning.

Kind regards

Melodie Campbell (Pr. Plan A/1995/2014) Directorate: Physical Resource Planning and Property Management Western Cape Education Department Western Cape Government Rm 23-04, 23rd Floor, Sanlam Building (Golden Acre), Adderley Street Tel: 021 467 2605 Fax: 021 467 2565 E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.westerncape.gov.za

Dear Registered Stakeholder

Please find attached letter regarding the release of the Revised Draft Scoping Report for the proposed redevelopment of the River Club in Observatory, Cape Town.

Kind regards

Amy Hill BSC (Hons)(Biodiversity and Ecology) Environmental Consultant

SRK Consulting (South Africa) Pty Ltd.

The Administrative Building, Albion Spring, 183 Main Road, Rondebosch, 7700 Post Net Suite #206, Private Bag X18, Rondebosch, 7701

Tel: +27-21-659-3060 ; Fax: +27-21-685-7105 Direct: +27 (0)21 659 3063 Email: [email protected] www.srk.co.za

DATE 10 February 2017 TO SRK Consulting ATTENTION Amy Hill APP # SRK Consulting: Report No. 478320/2 for Liesbeek Leisure Properties Trust (LLPT) DEADP Ref. No. 16/3/3/6/7/2/A7/17/3104/16 dated January 2017 ERF # 151832, 26426, 26427, 108936, 151833 Liesbeek Parkway & Observatory Road, River Club, Observatory

COMMENT ON THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE RIVER CLUB, OBSERVATORY, CAPE TOWN, REVISED DRAFT SCOPING REPORT (DSR)

1 CITY DEPARTMENT COMMENTS ATTACHED -

Department Name of Contact Comment received

Specialised Environmental Health, Andre Bester Attached Air Quality ANNEXURE 1 Urban Planning & Mechanisms Peter van Heerden Attached ANNEXURE 2

Electricity: Generation and Distribution Shiraaz Swartland Attached ANNEXURE 3

2 COMMENTS

The scoping phase of the EIA is accepted as not assessing any proposals as it is intended to identify all possible issues for investigation and assessment at a later phase. From our side it appears that all issues have been identified at this stage.

GENERAL: EIA PROCESS

The proposed EIA process is supported. Although stated in the document that City Parks are now included, please add them to the list under section 7.2: Consultation with relevant authorities.

Identified Specialist Studies are supported, including the terms of reference for these studies.

Once all baseline studies and specialist studies have been completed, the identification and detailed assessment of potential environmental impacts of the proposed development can be undertaken. The significance of these impacts can then be determined. We will then be in a position to comment on the suitability of proposals offered for the redevelopment of the site, referring back to the existing zoning rights for the site, current role of the site in existing approved planning documentation and its wider open space context and bearing in mind cumulative impacts.

GENERAL: ZONING AND LAND USE

The zoning of the site is Open Space 3. This allows for certain primary use right, namely open space, private road and environmental conservation use. Council may allow certain consent uses as laid out in the Municipal Bylaw, namely, environmental facilities, tourist facilities, place of instruction, place of assembly, place of entertainment, plant nursery, utility service, cemetery, cultural and social ceremonies et al, as long as the consent use does not compromise the use of the land for its primary purpose of open space.

Given this, it is imperative that if any development is to take place here, that the open space amenity (recreational and ecological) and visual function must remain and must equally not be compromised.

We reiterate our previous comment made on the Draft Scoping Report, that, “this site can be developed in a way that provides for the work, play, live concept and enhance the site’s opportunities that are currently underutilised (e.g. recreation alongside river and canal) and enhance the ecology of the site. Towards this goal we envisage the creation of a park-like environment with buildings in it, rather than the creation of a building complex and the provision of park /open spaces around it”.

Section 3.5.3 Layout Alternatives Progression states that the layout alternatives are to be refined during the EIA process. This statement is not sufficient. It must be stated upfront that all Heritage baseline studies (which should identify all Heritage Related Design Informants), HIA’s and all environmental specialist studies (including traffic and visual) that are to be part of the EIA must first and foremost be the indicators for any prospective allocation and design of building footprints and further planning and design that is to take place on the site. This is put forward with reference to all the preliminary alternative layout proposals that are offered in the revised Draft Scoping Report.

The green corridors (rivers and water bodies and buffers to these), together with the cultural landscapes and landmark or place making elements of heritage significance together must direct the location, form and scale of any subsequent development. Here, especially the Important heritage indicators should guide the design. The high landscape qualities, visual connections with TRUP and adjacent sites, and character defined by surrounding rivers, green landscape and the location in a floodplain should inform the final proposals.

Existing contextual frameworks and Spatial Development Frameworks must guide this planning process, and the role of the site as part of the structuring open space system must not be lost.

DOCUMENT PAGE 17: Planning and Policy Framework, Par 3: Section 2.2.3: Cape Town SDF Key strategy 2.

It is stated that the site forms part of an open space system that is much more localised, extending from the River Club to Mowbray gold course, when in fact the site is part of an entire coast to coast greenway that was identified and mapped by the City in 1992. The site is part of a larger Black River Parkway and “greenway” that extends all the way to Prices Vlei in the south. The coast to coast greenway still features as a linear green structuring element on the natural assets layer (See Figure 4.2, pg 30 of the CTSDF, 2012) of Section 4 “Long-term metropolitan spatial structure” as it incorporates river systems and adjacent open spaces (many recreational areas), and it prescribes how to manage the visual qualities along the M5, which is a route with good scenic qualities distant views of the mountains.

Par 6: It is stated that the site does not hold substantial ecological value. This sends out an incorrect message when in fact there is ecological value on this site, as referred to in section 2.2.4.1.

DOCUMENT PAGE 64, Section 3.6.9 Stormwater Infrastructure

The Stormwater management system for the River Club must be planned and designed in accordance with best practice criteria and guidelines laid down by Council to support Water Sensitive Urban Design principles. Here the following must be taken into account with all planning for the site, namely to Improve quality of stormwater runoff, to control quantity and rate of stormwater runoff and to encourage natural groundwater recharge.

Refer specifically to the City’s Stormwater Policies w.r.t sustainable urban drainage systems (CCT Management of Urban Stormwater Impacts). Sustainable urban drainage systems should be combined with other Water sensitive urban design programmes (such as reduction of potable water use through re-use of wastewater effluent, rainwater harvesting, stormwater re-use), and with other broader sustainability initiatives. A separate section in forthcoming documentation should address this.

ISSUES AROUND FLOODING

The impact of this site being developed must be assessed together with the possible scenario that TRUP as a whole may be developed.

All assumptions must be interrogated in the EIA. There is an overland escape route through PRASA for flood waters. What are the impacts on this land and the possibility that the PRASA land be developed? Will PRASA have to create channels on their land to accommodate 1:100 year flooding? What are the impacts of floodwaters into and over and dissipating from this land which has heavy metal soil contamination? The assumption that no flooding will occur is based on the fact that no stormwater pipes will be blocked. How will this be guaranteed in future?

Impacts of all the proposed alternatives for this proposed development and the TRUP total planned development planned w.r.t hard surfacing and runoff impacts must be scoped.

TRUP STUDIES

In the table provided that details the Scoping Phase Response, item 42. It is acknowledged that the current development proposal is not aligned with the existing approved TRUP Contextual Framework (2003). The main differences should be put forward.

With regard to the new TRUP study it is stated that the RC proposal is largely congruent with the current TRUP project Team’s plan for the TRUP site. This is misleading, for example, TRUP recommends a max of 5 floors, whereas the RC study says 12 storeys?

FRESHWATER ECOLOGY IMPACT ASSESSMENT

The terms of reference should also include the recommendation of ecological setbacks and corridors for ecological rehabilitation and safe movement of fauna. We note that all issues raised in the Responses Table to Cape Nature and the Amphibian Specialist Group will be taken up in the Assessment phase of the EIA. The impact of people on movement corridors must be assessed. Note that the areas set aside for recreation and ecology must be separate areas, the latter to be a “no go” area.

Chapter 8: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The statement in Chapter 8 that “key environmental issues associated with the redevelopment have been identified” should continue “and will be further investigated and assessed in the EIA phase”.

COMMENT FROM CITY OF CAPE TOWN , CATCHMENT MANAGEMENT: BEN DE WET

CCT comments (dated 1 Sep 2016) 2.1 is not quite correct. The impact of filling the site to the 1:100 y flood level is small in the event of a 1:100 y flood. For the current situation. It is not entirely impossible that the Salt River canal is widened or duplicated, in which case the above statement will no longer be true. Also the impact is of lower order floods and for separate flooding of the Liesbeek and Black rivers, has not been demonstrated. 7.2 - There is no need to mitigate against flooding in the current site use.

The Revised DSR Exec Summary – re reinstating the “natural” (western) course of the Liesbeek. The effect of the canalised Liesbeek in sustaining the Raapenberg wetland needs to be investigated and not disrupted. 3.6 – Bridges need to be high enough not to cause further obstruction of flood flows. What arrangement will be in place for dewatering basements? 3.6.9 – SW infrastructure will comply with City policies, unless shown to have a negative consequence – not only when deemed possible. Need to investigate whether or not infiltration is at all possible on the site, especially in winter. There is a need to investigate the ground water levels and the possible effect of buildings and basements on the ground water levels 3.8 – Special care will be needed to prevent polluted runoff from reaching the rivers during construction. Construction dewatering? 3.9.2 - Will LLPT own the development in perpetuity? Either LLPT or a Body Corporate will be responsible for maintenance of SUDs 3.9.7 – Attenuation effect of remodelled Liesbeek cross sections is to be demonstrated. Need to determine if it would not perhaps be better not to attenuate large event local runoff on site so as to allow on site flood water to disperse before the larger catchment runoff peak reaches the site. 4.1.6.2. – It is not clear which of the 2 branches, if any, can be described as the original course. It is more likely that the Liesbeek has always meandered in the River club area. 5

4.1.6.3 – The berm on the west bank of the Liesbeek canal was illegally built by the current owners of the River Club. A notice of intent, to which they have not yet responded adequately, was served on the owners in 2014. 4.1.7 – Finalisation of currently ongoing studies required.

Specialist Study – surface water hydrology. The City has previously commented on their reservations regarding the methodology used by the consultant AED. We note with amusement that the report criticises previous City authorities for allowing development of the Salt River mouth/Paarden Island area and the goes on to propose that the current authorities allow development of the last green belt in that system.

I was under the impression that the TRUP studies will essentially be the SDF for the area. Anything proposed whish deviates from the TRUP ideas will therefore not comply with the SDF?

END

ANNEXIRE 1

CITY HEALTH SPECIALISED ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT UNIT

André Bester Senior Air Quality Practitioner

T: 021 – 590 5204 F: 021 – 590 5215 E: [email protected]

2017/01/18

To Environmental Resource Management Department DEA&DP Ref 16/3/3/6/7/2/A7/17/3104/16 AQM Ref 33/7/4/3/4-178 Suburb Observatory Attention Ronelle Clarke

RE: COMMENTS FROM THE AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT UNIT ON THE REVISED DRAFT SCOPING REPORT FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE RIVER CLUB, OBSERVATORY, CAPE TOWN

The Air Quality Management Unit scrutinised the Revised Draft Scoping Report (RDSR) and have no comments as all comments submitted by this department in response to the Draft Scoping report are included in the RDSR.

Yours faithfully,

HEAD: SPECIALISED ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERVICES: CITY HEALTH / AIR QUALITY OFFICER

ANNEXURE 2

DATE 06-02-17 TO Ronelle Clarke ATTENTION P & BDM – Table Bay District APP 478320/2 ERF Erf 151832

URBAN PLANNING & MECHANISMS COMMENTS ON THE REVISED DRAFT SCOPING REPORT RELATING TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR THE RE-DEVELOPMENT OF THE RIVER CLUB, OBSERVATORY, CAPE TOWN.

1) Background & Intent

The Liesbeek Leisure Properties Trust (LLPT) together with Zenprop are proposing to redevelop the River Club in Observatory on 7.4 ha of a total footprint of 15.7ha.

The primary Erf is 151832, privately owned by LLPT, but will also incorporate portions of Erf 15334 (PRASA), remainder of Erf 15326 (CCT) and Erf 26423 (National Research Foundation).

The current thinking relating to the Development is to provide a Bulk of 130 000 sq.m of mixed use at a cost of approximately R4b and phased over X3 phases, completed in September 2021. The Development will consist of the following, namely:

o Mixed Use (office, retail, residential and community). o Public accessible spaces (green and hard). o Rehabilitation of the River Systems. o Recreation and Leisure facilities. o Pedestrian friendly, NMT options. o Raise ground level by approximately 3m. o Building Heights ranging from 4-12 storeys. o Support of TRUP Local Site Development Plan (LSDF) and Guidelines.

SRK Environmental Consultants, together with a team of multi-disciplinary specialists ( Urban Planner/Urban Designer/Land Economist/Hydrologist/Freshwater Ecologist/Heritage Practitioner, Visual Specialist, Geotechnical Specialist and Engineering Services Specialist) have been appointed to undertake a Scoping & Environmental Impact Report (S&EIR) process.

The comments underpinning this report are linked specifically to the release of the Revised Draft Scoping Report as part of the Scoping Phase, which when approved, will lead into the Impact Assessment Phase (EIAR and EMP).

It is generally felt, that the Report successfully achieves what it sets out to do, namely:

o to provide an overview of the legal requirements with regard to the proposed Project, the proposed Project description and anticipated environmental and social issues and impacts that will further be investigated in the EIA, and:

o setting out the Scope of the EIA process and the Terms of Reference (ToR) for the Specialist Studies and outlining the approach and methodologies to be used in the EIA processes.

2) Discussion

It should be noted that a financially viable existing Golfing Practice Range and Conferencing Facility already exists on the site, the majority of which is privately owned.

The purpose of the Project is to deliver a mixed-use development on the site, act as a Western Gateway into the broader Two River Urban Park (TRUP) and act as a Catalytic Project in restructuring the Apartheid City and rejuvenating this strategic City Precinct.

Support is given to the fact that no other activity alternatives (other than the No Go alternative) are considered feasible to the proponent, as an existing financially viable set of uses already exists.

In terms of Layout Alternatives and Progression, the layout is being refined through a number of iterations in response to a number of aspects, including inter alia, the ecological status of the site, potential inundation, cultural and heritage factors, traffic and access, urban plans, the TRUP as well as commercial and technical considerations from a set of Specialist Studies. This is to be highly commented.

It is possible that a layout alternative or layout alternatives will be presented in the EIA Report and comparatively assessed for authorisation.

Stakeholder engagement is a key component of the S&EIR process. It is felt that the Objectives of the Scoping Report Phase is being adequately and efficiently managed and addressed re:

o Identifying Stakeholders and informing them of the proposed activity, feasible alternatives and process. o Describing the affected environment, potential environmental issues and benefits arising from the Project and ones that might require further investigation. o Developing TOR’s for Specialist Studies to be undertaken in the Impact Assessment Phase. o Providing Stakeholder’s with the opportunity to participate in the process and to identify issues and concerns.

Support is given to the fact that issues raised by Stakeholders have been summarised in a comprehensive ‘Issues & Responses’ and ‘Analysis of Need & Desirability’ Reports that are appended to the Revised Draft Scoping Report and fact that where appropriate, the Scoping Report has been revised to reflect Stakeholder comments.

Urban Development & Mechanisms and Urban Design are generally in support of the responses reflected in both the abovementioned Reports and again the Consultants need to be commended in incorporating comments into and modifying, the Revised Draft Scoping Report.

This shows that the EIA process that is being implemented and managed is being totally all-inclusive and transparent.

Cognisance is likewise taken of the fact that the majority of issues raised by Stakeholders relate to the Project Description and impacts of the development and the fact that these issues will be addressed in the EIA Phase of the EIA process, when final Project information is available and following Specialist impact assessment.

Cognisance is also taken of the fact that all attempts are being made to incorporate the outcomes of the TRUP process (JV with Province and City) that is currently running concurrently to this EIAR and EMP process and fact that the Specialists relating to both processes, are attempting to reach consensus on the Technical issues.

These will in turn, be reflected in the broader Spatial Development Framework underpinning the LSDF Concept Plan for the 300ha TRUP area and final Layout Option underpinning the River Club final EIAR and EMP Proposal.

The process followed in the Scoping Phase, should also be commended, for allowing additional Specialist Studies to be incorporated into the process, ensuring that the Contextual Analysis in based on a sound ‘Reality Check.’

These relate specifically to issues and concerns raised by Stakeholders and are currently being undertaken and include the following, namely:

o Faunal Comment (to inform freshwater ecological impact assessment). o Botanical Comment (to inform freshwater ecology impact assessment). o Hydrological Comment (to inform freshwater ecological impact assessment). o Traffic Study (Kantey & Templar) o Socio-Economic Study (SRK) o Economic Desirability Study (Rode)

3) Conclusion

Urban Planning & Mechanisms together with Urban Design are in support of the changes made in the Revised Draft Scoping Report (4783201/2) and are in favour of the Final Scoping Report being prepared for authorisation and the Impact Phase be entered into.

Peter van Heerden for: URBAN PLANNING & MECHANISMS with input from Liezel Kruger-Fountain & Pieter Wasserman from URBAN DESIGN

ANNEXURE 3

ENERGY ELECTRICITY GENERATION & DISTRIBUTION

Calvin Davids Principal Technician

T: 021 444 2181 F: 021 444 2213 M: 084 900 4266 E: [email protected] Our Ref: Eng17-899 DSD/cd

2017-02-03

ENVIRONMENTAL AND HERITAGE MANAGEMENT

ATTENTION: Ronelle Clarke

COMMENTS ON THE REVISED DRAFT SCOPING REPORT (478320/2) REDEVELOPMENT OF THE RIVER CLUB, OBSERVATORY ERVEN 151832, 26426, 108936, 26427, 151833 AND 15326-REM, CAPE TOWN

I refer to your request for comments and reiterate our comments as follows:

1. The existing authorised capacity to this development area is deemed to be 400 A.

2. The estimated bulk capacity as specified by others for this development is 9.37 MVA. There is currently sufficient firm capacity at a surrounding main substation to supply this anticipated load but cannot be reserved since another development located nearby (TRUP) requires an upgraded supply as well.

3. Any power requirement exceeding the specified 9.37 MVA can only be achieved by establishing a new 132/11 kV main station on the development site or adjacent TRUP site. This new main station will only be operational within 3 years after the land has been transferred to the City and will be subject to the availability of funds at the time a formal application is lodged.

4. The supply configuration will depend on how the property is subdivided. A master site development plan, indicating the phasing of the development plans of the individual sites, is required. Note that the electricity infrastructure serving each site may not be dedicated to that site alone. Infrastructure such as protected and unprotected substation sites will be required to serve a wider area or future phases of the project.

5. Individual site development plans are required prior to or concurrently with subdivision applications and not thereafter.

6. Additional substation sites will be required within development in locations approved by this department. These properties shall be directly accessible from public road and shall not be traversed by any other services. Sites required can take the form of a combination of the following:  One Main Station on 50 m x 50 m site and  Multiple outdoor substations on 5 m x 4 m free-standing sites and  Two substation buildings on 20 m x 14 m free-standing sites. These substations shall be appropriately subdivided and zoned in the sub-division plan approved by the Surveyor General as well as transferred to the City free of charge.

7. The electricity reticulation network is to be installed in the public road reserve with a sidewalk width sufficiently wide to accommodate the electricity network required. Special attention will be required 11

where high voltage cables are to be accommodated. An electricity servitude of sufficient width is to be registered to these departments’ requirements over all cable routes.

8. Where road widening is required that affects installed electricity infrastructure, these services will be relocated at the applicants’ expense. Electrical wayleaves must be applied for from our Drawing office.

9. The Applicant shall provide and install in an approved manner and at his own cost all pipe ducts required across roads and access ways for electricity cables for both internal services and future bulk services. The position of each of these duct crossings shall be permanently marked on the kerb edge.

10. The applicant shall provide, at his own cost, the internal electrical reticulation and street lighting networks serving the specific subdivision. To this end, the applicant shall appoint a consulting electrical engineering practitioner registered with ECSA to carry out the design and to supervise the installation of the internal electrical reticulation and street lighting networks to City of Cape Town standards and specifications. On completion, the electrical reticulation and street lighting networks shall be handed over to the Department for operation and maintenance.

11. Electricity distribution and street lighting infrastructure in private roads will not be taken over by the City but will remain the responsibility of the property owner.

12. The existing Liesbeek Park substation on erf 26423-RE is to be subdivided off from the parent erf, registered and transferred to the City at the applicant’s cost if the design requires the substation site in this location.

13. Will the 1.8 MVA solar generation be from one plant or will it comprise multiple smaller solar generation plants? Solar power generation will be governed by NRS 097 suite of standards. Application for each solar installation must be made to the Electricity Generation and Distribution Department for approval.

Yours faithfully

Pp DIRECTOR: ELECTRICITY GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION

COMMENT ON THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE RIVER CLUB, OBSERVATORY, CAPE TOWN, REVISED DRAFT SCOPING REPORT (DSR)

1 CITY DEPARTMENT COMMENTS ATTACHED -

Department Name of Contact Comment received

Specialised Environmental Health, Andre Bester Attached Air Quality ANNEXURE 1 Urban Planning & Mechanisms Peter van Heerden Attached ANNEXURE 2

Electricity: Generation and Distribution Shiraaz Swartland Attached ANNEXURE 3

2 COMMENTS

GENERAL: EIA PROCESS

The proposed EIA process is supported. Although stated in the document that City Parks are now included, please add them to the list under section 7.2: Consultation with relevant authorities.

Identified Specialist Studies are supported, including the terms of reference for these studies.

GENERAL: ZONING AND LAND USE

Existing contextual frameworks and Spatial Development Frameworks must guide this planning process, and the role of the site as part of the structuring open space system must not be lost.

DOCUMENT PAGE 17: Planning and Policy Framework, Par 3: Section 2.2.3: Cape Town SDF Key strategy 2.

DOCUMENT PAGE 64, Section 3.6.9 Stormwater Infrastructure

ISSUES AROUND FLOODING

The impact of this site being developed must be assessed together with the possible scenario that TRUP as a whole may be developed.

Impacts of all the proposed alternatives for this proposed development and the TRUP total planned development planned w.r.t hard surfacing and runoff impacts must be scoped.

TRUP STUDIES

FRESHWATER ECOLOGY IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Chapter 8: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

COMMENT FROM CITY OF CAPE TOWN , CATCHMENT MANAGEMENT: BEN DE WET

4.1.6.2. – It is not clear which of the 2 branches, if any, can be described as the original course. It is more likely that the Liesbeek has always meandered in the River club area. 4.1.6.3 – The berm on the west bank of the Liesbeek canal was illegally built by the current owners of the River Club. A notice of intent, to which they have not yet responded adequately, was served on the owners in 2014. 4.1.7 – Finalisation of currently ongoing studies required.

I was under the impression that the TRUP studies will essentially be the SDF for the area. Anything proposed whish deviates from the TRUP ideas will therefore not comply with the SDF?

END

ANNEXIRE 1

CITY HEALTH SPECIALISED ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT UNIT

André Bester Senior Air Quality Practitioner

T: 021 – 590 5204 F: 021 – 590 5215 E: [email protected]

2017/01/18

To Environmental Resource Management Department DEA&DP Ref 16/3/3/6/7/2/A7/17/3104/16 AQM Ref 33/7/4/3/4-178 Suburb Observatory Attention Ronelle Clarke

RE: COMMENTS FROM THE AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT UNIT ON THE REVISED DRAFT SCOPING REPORT FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE RIVER CLUB, OBSERVATORY, CAPE TOWN

Yours faithfully,

HEAD: SPECIALISED ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERVICES: CITY HEALTH / AIR QUALITY OFFICER

ANNEXURE 2

DATE 06-02-17 TO Ronelle Clarke ATTENTION P & BDM – Table Bay District APP 478320/2 ERF Erf 151832

URBAN PLANNING & MECHANISMS COMMENTS ON THE REVISED DRAFT SCOPING REPORT RELATING TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR THE RE-DEVELOPMENT OF THE RIVER CLUB, OBSERVATORY, CAPE TOWN.

1) Background & Intent

The Liesbeek Leisure Properties Trust (LLPT) together with Zenprop are proposing to redevelop the River Club in Observatory on 7.4 ha of a total footprint of 15.7ha.

The primary Erf is 151832, privately owned by LLPT, but will also incorporate portions of Erf 15334 (PRASA), remainder of Erf 15326 (CCT) and Erf 26423 (National Research Foundation).

It is generally felt, that the Report successfully achieves what it sets out to do, namely:

o setting out the Scope of the EIA process and the Terms of Reference (ToR) for the Specialist Studies and outlining the approach and methodologies to be used in the EIA processes.

2) Discussion

It should be noted that a financially viable existing Golfing Practice Range and Conferencing Facility already exists on the site, the majority of which is privately owned.

It is possible that a layout alternative or layout alternatives will be presented in the EIA Report and comparatively assessed for authorisation.

Stakeholder engagement is a key component of the S&EIR process. It is felt that the Objectives of the Scoping Report Phase is being adequately and efficiently managed and addressed re:

This shows that the EIA process that is being implemented and managed is being totally all-inclusive and transparent.

These relate specifically to issues and concerns raised by Stakeholders and are currently being undertaken and include the following, namely:

3) Conclusion

Peter van Heerden for: URBAN PLANNING & MECHANISMS with input from Liezel Kruger-Fountain & Pieter Wasserman from URBAN DESIGN

ANNEXURE 3

ENERGY ELECTRICITY GENERATION & DISTRIBUTION

Calvin Davids Principal Technician

T: 021 444 2181 F: 021 444 2213 M: 084 900 4266 E: [email protected] Our Ref: Eng17-899 DSD/cd

2017-02-03

ENVIRONMENTAL AND HERITAGE MANAGEMENT

ATTENTION: Ronelle Clarke

COMMENTS ON THE REVISED DRAFT SCOPING REPORT (478320/2) REDEVELOPMENT OF THE RIVER CLUB, OBSERVATORY ERVEN 151832, 26426, 108936, 26427, 151833 AND 15326-REM, CAPE TOWN

I refer to your request for comments and reiterate our comments as follows:

1. The existing authorised capacity to this development area is deemed to be 400 A.

5. Individual site development plans are required prior to or concurrently with subdivision applications and not thereafter.

where high voltage cables are to be accommodated. An electricity servitude of sufficient width is to be registered to these departments’ requirements over all cable routes.

11. Electricity distribution and street lighting infrastructure in private roads will not be taken over by the City but will remain the responsibility of the property owner.

Yours faithfully

Pp DIRECTOR: ELECTRICITY GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION

10th February 2017

Amy Hill SRK Consulting Cape Town

Dear Ms Hill

Comments on Revised Scoping Report for the River Club: DEA&DP Reference Number: 16/3/3/6/7/2/A7/17/3104/16

SRK Consulting will receive a number of submissions regarding the Revised Scoping Report for the River Club, below are some specific comments from the Observatory Civic Association (OCA).

Public Participation Process

Public Participation is a requirement by law. We raise a number of concerns with the process which we believe severely compromise the integrity of this EIA Scoping Report.

1. Neither the River Club Open Day nor the River Club Presentation by Specialists was advertised widely with the community. The OCA did not receive an invitation to either of these events, and neither did any other community based organisation. 2. The fact that the SRK database still lists a former chair of the OCA as the OCA chair (someone who has not been chair for more than three years and no longer lives in Observatory), despite the opportunity to identify the chairperson’s of local organisations, seems to reflect the casualness with which SRK has approached the public participation process. 3. The OCA is also concerned about the manner in which the Presentation by Specialists was conducted. The tone was condescending and patronising, and the River Club and its specialists would have been better served by allocating the bulk of time to simply listening to, and noting the queries and issues raised by the general public. The general public are not stupid, the general public can read all the reports. As a result, too much time was taken up by consultants presenting their own views, and specific questions around certain critical issues were not adequately dealt with during the presentation. The way in which the meeting was structured, despite a clear request to leave time for discussion from the OCA, and the way discussion was handled, is a serious threat to any trust needed in ongoing EIA consultations. 4. Additionally, it is duplicitous to treat the River Club development in isolation to the proposed CoCT and Province TRUP development – and the latter process has been marked by a lack of transparency and openness, with information given out on a ‘need to know’ basis (with the officials deciding what the public needs to know) rather than in a transparent, open manner. This has wasted a huge amount of time for all concerned, and it is not difficult to come to the conclusion that these developments are not really seeking public engagement, but are rather just fulfilling the tick box requirement for some engagement. 5. It was clear to those present at the public meeting on the 1st February that plans regarding the viability of the site were presented as being final. This is misleading and a mockery of public participation processes. For SRK to tolerate this kind of presentation is extremely poor administration of the process and insulting to the public. The Observatory community views the River Club as part of our community, we seek to work with the owners to ensure that the area is best utilised for the benefit of ALL.

Representative Forum for Residents and Businesses in Observatory 20 Nuttall Road, Observatory 7925

EIA and the alternatives

It appears that the revised draft scoping report trivialises alternatives. The report simply states that “No other activity alternatives (other than the No Go alternative) are considered feasible to the proponent.” This not how an EIA is conducted. The EIA must consider other alternatives, not just what is suitable for the proponent.

Below is text lifted verbatim from a DEAT document (DEAT (2004) Criteria for Determining Alternatives in EIA, Integrated Environmental Management, Information Series 11, Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT), Pretoria.) outlining criteria to be used in considering alternatives in EIA’s:

“Consideration of potential alternatives in the EIA process is one of the most critical elements of the scoping phase (DEAT, 2002). Its importance is highlighted by Glasson et al. (1999) and by the Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) in the United States, which describes the consideration of alternatives as the ‘heart’ of EIA (CEQ, 1978). By implication, alternatives are essential to the EIA process, yet they are often inadequately handled. It is not uncommon to find that feasible alternatives are omitted deliberately or that alternatives proposed by stakeholders are rejected without adequate justification… The role of alternatives is to provide a framework for subsequent decision-making by a competent authority (Glasson et al., 1999). The importance of their role cannot be overestimated. Full disclosure of all impacts associated with relevant alternatives provides the basis for sound decision-making based on the principles of sustainable development. Decision-makers should be provided with adequate information to enable them to determine the most acceptable alternative by making trade-offs between biophysical, social, economic, historical, cultural and political factors.”

“…Alternatives should be identified as early as possible in the project cycle (e.g. during the pre-feasibility stage). Identification of alternatives usually takes place during the scoping phase of the EIA.”

“The search for alternatives should be broad and objective and should be well documented. Stakeholders should be consulted in the identification of alternatives and their views taken into account. Key criteria when identifying alternatives are that they should be “practicable”, “feasible”, “relevant”, “reasonable” and “viable”. Once all the alternatives are identified, it may be necessary to focus on a few and to eliminate others. The elimination process should be well documented and substantiated, with an explanation of why certain alternatives are not being considered in detail. It is usually possible in consultation with stakeholder groups to eliminate some alternatives. A detailed analysis of potential environmental impacts should be given for each of the remaining preferred alternatives, as well as a consideration of technical and financial aspects as they also have potential impacts…|”

The role of various stakeholders in the identification and evaluation of alternatives is also clearly spelled out in the guideline:

“In order to ensure full disclosure of alternative activities, it is important that various role players contribute to their identification and evaluation.

The role of the environmental practitioner is to encourage the proponent to consider all feasible alternatives, provide opportunities for stakeholder input to the identification and evaluation of alternatives, document the process of identification and selection of alternatives, provide a comprehensive consideration of the impacts of each of the alternatives; and document the process of evaluation of alternatives.

The role of the proponent is to assist in the identification of alternatives, particularly where these may be of a technical nature, disclose all information relevant to the identification and evaluation of alternatives, be open to the consideration of all reasonable alternatives; and be prepared for possible modifications to the project proposal before settling on a preferred option.

Representative Forum for Residents and Businesses in Observatory 20 Nuttall Road, Observatory 7925

favoured alternative that suits all stakeholders and that alternatives will be evaluated across a broad range of criteria, including environmental, social and economic aspects.”

It would appear that the Draft Scoping Report does not meet these criteria: The Draft Scoping Report does not provide a clear justification for not considering alternatives, let alone rationale for why such alternatives are not “considered feasible to the proponent.” It appeared from the presentations on the 1st Feb that all the consultants took as a given the fact that the only alternative feasible to consider is the one with the maximum profit opportunities for the proponents.

There is no evidence provided that the environmental practitioner did anything to encourage the proponent to consider all feasible alternatives – it is simply taken at face value that alternatives are not feasible and are not to be considered.

It is clear that a number of submissions from Observatory residents expressed concern over the ratio of built development / recreational features. One such example is that Dr Leslie London, in his submission, suggested that “one might have expected a consideration of an alternative to the configuration proposed in which there is greater allocation to recreational opportunities and open space than is proposed by the developers. For example, rather than having a ratio of 5.24 ha for built development and only 1.66 ha for recreational features, a greater allocation to recreational features would materially improve the quality of a proposal and constitute a real alternative that might meet more of the City’s strategic development objectives…” However, this was ignored – both in the revised draft and in the narrative of comments and responses. A number of other submissions also proposed alternatives.

However, in the narrative of comments and responses, the consultants state that “The respective impacts and benefits of the various feasible development alternatives (including the No-Go Alternative) will be comparatively assessed during the EIA Phase …”. This gives the impression that alternatives will be considered when in fact they are not going to be substantive alternatives, but rather alternative ways to deliver the same development.

The Economic Desirability Study

This is not an economic study at all. It is a study of opportunities for investment from a property perspective. It is titled “An analysis of the potential of the property market” and authored by a valuator. A serious economic study would need to take a ‘whole-of-society’ perspective rather than a property market perspective, since adopting the perspective of one stakeholders simply means defining desirability in terms of what the proponent wants rather than what is desirable for surrounding communities or for Cape Town. The opportunity costs of lost recreation and of adverse consequences of the development on local community fabric are nowhere to be seen in the report. The impact on indigenous cultural symbols and traditions are completely absent in this analysis because they mean nothing to property markets.

Framing the study of the potential of the property market as an Economic Desirability Study is misleading. By titling it an “Economic Desirability Study”, it creates a spurious scientific label which does not exist. In fact, searching in Google on “what is a Economic Desirability Study” yields the first 10 hits, all of which are about the River Club development, indicating that the it is the consultants who have coined this term. A Google Scholar search on the term “Economic Desirability Study” yielded exactly ZERO hits. In other words, there is no such methodology in Economic Costing science as an “Economic Desirability Study” and it is misleading to imply such.

Representative Forum for Residents and Businesses in Observatory 20 Nuttall Road, Observatory 7925

An Economic Study, whether it is called a “Desirability” study or not, should be properly done taking the full costs to society into account, rather than limiting itself to the cost-benefits for the proponent. It is unacceptable that this highly fraught method, which relies 100% on the perspective of the client, is used to underpin a decision not to consider any substantive alternative to one put forward that maximises the area of the development footprint.

Inclusivity

The way in which the revised Scoping Report deals with inclusivity and social housing is, in our opionion, very superficial. For example, in responding to various policy directives, the Scoping Report, in relation to the need to “promote sustainable, integrated and inclusive housing in the formal and informal markets” simply dismisses social housing as not viable, because “this is a private development initiative” and “..the cost of servicing the site with water, sewage electricity, road access etc. for social housing would be too high for a private developer.” The OCA and members of the Observatory community are accutely aware of the dire need for housing in our city. Observatory, as a suburb, prides itself in its inclusivity – both racially and income wise – and we would like to see this spill over to the River Club precinct.

If a private developer is going to achieve a windfall, why should the state not regulate a certain proportion of housing units for social housing? This policy has been implemented in other countries without developers finding they are unable to make profits. If, as the draft report states, the development continues by targeting its residential component to households earning more than R15 000 per month, this will not make a dent on the problems facing the most excluded of Cape Town’s residents and will increase inequality and exclusion. The fact that “the developer has undertaken to include a build-to-let tenure option in addition to a build-to-sell option” is unlikely to “open opportunities to a wider sector of the market” in the absence of a social housing commitment, since the rentals will necessarily be too high to allow owners to recoup the costs of their investments. High income property sales should subsidise a proportion of social housing.

Public Open Space

Currently, the River Club site is zoned Public Open Space. With the projected population growth expected to increase from 3 997 718 to 4 255 857 by 2031 (Dorrington, 1999), as well as the densification of the Voortrekker Road Corridor, the former District Six area and the CBD, the need for public open space will be even greater. As stated in the DSR “The fact that the site does not hold substantial ecological value, combined with the possibility to effectively mitigate against flooding by raising the ground on the site, means that the River Club should be considered as a site to accommodate urban development”. Whilst this statement is not necessarily incorrect, we believe consideration must be given to the site’s role in the larger open space and river systems and the need for quality future open spaces given the expected increase in population into the area. “The proposed site forms a significant part of the open space system within the metropole and is highly accessible. The various spaital policy documents acknoweldge the value and role this property can play with regards to open air recreation and activities. The consideration of the TRUP must therefore be incoroporated into the need and desirablity of the proposed development.” (Submission by Mr Zaahir Toefy, Director of Environmental Management Region 1)

In addition, there seems to be a great deal of confusion over the sale of the River Club property - it seems to have been sold for a remarkably low price of under R13 million. Since its development potential was marginal, due to its zoning, the market value was low. It would seem that the new owners were aware of the potential for developemnt on the site prior to purchase, and possibly even had 4

Representative Forum for Residents and Businesses in Observatory 20 Nuttall Road, Observatory 7925

communication with Province and City of Cape Town officials. It would seem that the investment of half a billion rands to alter the flow of the rivers and canals, and raise the overall level of the ground by 3/3.5 metres (almost as high as the rise on which The Astronomical Observatory is situated) leaves any reasonable person to conclude that any further substantive development is not viable. In order to make any development viable, there would have to be construction of a dense precinct of buildings between four and eleven stories high which would sell for enough money to recoup the investment.

But this requires an outright departure from the current zoning, and sets a president for the overall development of the TRUP which the TRUP Association has not yet agreed to, nor sanctioned, nor been involved in. It is, therefore, disingenuous of the developer to pretend that the "only viable future" for the River Club is to build multiple high rise buildings on it. In fact, this is really the only viable way to get a return on the initial R5 billion; it is a circular argument….. "We must build the huge buildings to pay for raising the ground level" and "We must raise the ground level to enable us to build these huge buildings".

In fact, the only properly viable plan for the River Club property is to recognise its immense value as a public open space, urban riverine system (with all the ecological benefits this implies) and historical site. This means low impact development (if any) together with public/private investment to maintain the area primarily as a central feature of the wider TRUP development, in keeping with the low level of the land and its proximity to surrounding residential and urban areas.

One can, therefore, only conclude that the dense high-rise development of the River Club property is not viable without destroying the very environment from which it seeks to profit.

The fact that the authorities apparently discretely sanctioned the sale of the property by Transnet implies connivance in the developer's narrow definition of "viability", and suggests that the developer knew in advance that re-zoning would be approved. In which case the very low purchase price is even more questionable.

The OCA has merely highlighted some aspects of the Revised Scoping Report on the River Club Development and concommitant issues raised by this development, and we trust that these comments will be taken seriously as was the intention in recording our concerns.

Yours sincerely

Carolyn Neville Chairperson (no signature as electronic document)

Representative Forum for Residents and Businesses in Observatory 20 Nuttall Road, Observatory 7925 OCA AH Response to the Revised Draft Scoping Report on The River Club Site 10 February 2017 rev 1b., Observatory C.T 10 Feb 2017 Rev 1 b.

Observatory Civic Association - Architecture and Heritage. C/o 34 Nuttall Road, Observatory. 7925. Cape Town, South Africa.

10 February 2017

Mathew Law, Senior Environmental Consultant Amy Hill, SRK Consulting (SA) Pty Ltd.

RE: Revised Draft Scoping Report on Proposed Redevelopment of the River Club site, Observatory C.T.

Dear Amy Hill, Mathew Law, Bridget O’Donogue and HWC

While we thank you for including our response to the first Draft Scoping Report in the Revised Draft along with many other interesting responses, unfortunately nothing has been revised sufficiently for us to regard the proposal as being any better than before.

The proposed development remains highly problematic on a range of points and we regard the lack of response to our points of criticism as unfortunate. We only have two options left to contribute. We prefer to see the Two Rivers Urban Park attain its broader vison, become a world class people’s park with appropriate development that respects its character and potential. If Liesbeek Leisure (pty) LTD has nothing better to contribute to achieving real benefit to the park and to boost the area, then it has misguided intentions that are unfortunately totally misplaced. The options we have are: a. To propose an appropriate vision for the River Club land that recognises its existing status as part of the Two Rivers Urban Park, its entrenched zoning as Open Space, that may have some limited potential for appropriate development to fit in with the existing sustainable environmental constraints of TRUPA . Serious consideration needs be given to the site’s particular heritage significance dating from before 360 years ago when the first colonialist farmers evicted the first people from their ancestral land. The site, bounded by the two rivers and their confluence which has special significance historically and environmentally has an underrated Grade 2 status and it also borders on the Grade 1, SAAO hill that is very sensitive to disrespectful development around it that will severely disrupt its context! (The River Club submission prepared by SRK, offers very little in the way of comparing the existing environment with the inappropriate development proposal. We expect the truth will out when it is appropriately examined in an EIA process!) or b. The “NO GO” option!

It appears clear that the “Liesbeek Leisure applicant is pushing its illegitimate expectation to develop the River Club land’s way beyond what could be regarded as a worthy project. Not only is it non-compliant with planning policy and the open space zoning but its scope and design is strongly not in the public interest and generates numerous negative impacts that are severely detrimental to the Two Rivers Urban Park and the ‘Heart of the City’ area as a whole. The proposed development generates unacceptable negative impact and is non- compliant. There are a huge range of points that disqualify this project from being supported by us and we reject it as it since the negative impacts are too ghastly to contemplate! The existing building has qualities and value worth maintaining yet the proposal insists it be demolished! The open space that has very high heritage significance dating back to precolonial times would have its sense of space and heritage memory qualities totally destroyed!

OCA AH Response to the Revised Draft Scoping Report on The River Club Site 10 February 2017 rev 1b., Observatory C.T 10 Feb 2017 Rev 1 b.

1. Planning Policy guidelines that need to deliver a good quality environment

The Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act (SPLUMA) lists key principles which should guide all development, including spatial justice, spatial sustainability, efficiency and spatial resilience. We believe that the Revised Scoping Report has failed miserably to locate the proposed development within these principles.

- The land is well established as a part of a very significant Park (Two Rivers Urban Park) and it is protected and preserved in the TRUP Local Management Plan, The Local and District Plan and is zoned as Open space for public or community use (mainly sport, recreation, conferencing and hospitality) . - SPUMLA clarifies and defines beyond doubt: “OPEN SPACE, in relation to a land area, means land set aside for use, by a community as a recreation area, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE OWNERSHIP of such land”. - The fact that it was sold for a song under questionable circumstances does not change its prevailing use by the public who should not have their rights to enter limited. (There are acceptable temporary safety/ security reasons that may be seen as reasonable cause, if proposed by management and accepted by the mandated authority on the Park which in this case is the TRUP Association, who represents all stakeholders and sets the rules for the park). We also assume that business rights apply in specific buildings with limited conditions, and there is no automatic right to demolish or add new buildings into the park (even when the land is privately owned). - Any proposed change to the park should adequately address questions of spatial justice! - The project does not address spatial sustainability and resilience in a reliable and responsible way.

2. Unique environment and very significant heritage under threat

We note that the River Club site is zoned ‘Open Space’, with community facilities. Consideration must surely be given to the site’s role in the larger open space and river systems. The need for quality open spaces is expected to increase as the area’s population increases.

We agree with the fact that: “The proposed site forms a significant part of the open space system within the metropole and is highly accessible. The various spatial policy documents acknowledge the value and role this property can play with regards to open air recreation and activities. The consideration of what is required for TRUP must be incorporated as desirable into the proposed development”

- The lack of respect for the sensitive environment is outrageous. Disruption to the ecology and heritage as proposed raises grave concerns and this has been poorly addressed. It is sorely lacking. - Substantial well documented information is presented regarding very significant heritage issues of the site yet this is wished away or largely ignored in the practical planning proposals. We are not convinced by arguments about required profits that result in our park being destroyed. This can’t be justified even by land owners. We regard the proposal as destructive, disrespectful to the precious environment. The unique heritage dates back thousands of years. Its 360 years ago that the site was the ‘First Frontier” and it had huge impact on the nature of our country and the Legacy of Colonialism

3. Public Participation Process has been flawed

- Failure to advertise broadly and effectively - Stating the same things without considering alternatives that may have less negative impact is not consultation. Its blind propaganda. - The River Club should not be dealt with in isolation from the TRUP consultations - Misrepresenting the TRUP process so as to appear that there are already decisions made on TRUP which determine how the River Club should be considered OCA AH Response to the Revised Draft Scoping Report on The River Club Site 10 February 2017 rev 1b., Observatory C.T 10 Feb 2017 Rev 1 b.

- Consultants involved in both TRUP and the River Club coming to their own conclusions about what is perceived as good for the developments while neglecting stakeholder comments.

3. Inclusivity is sorely lacking

- There is very limited prospect in this development for housing lower to middle income groups, yet redressing victims of apartheid, is claimed as a superficial promise. There appears to be no social housing, so the claim to justify taking this land away from the people for their benefit is false! - The priority is clearly set for profit, while multi-cultural, racially mixed inclusivity and potential also for a broad income mix in the proposal, as a redeeming feature appears totally absent. - The focus is clearly on returns to cover unjustified high costs needed to transform a park to an office park rather than locate this in an existing serviced environment. There is absolutely no justification for this negative destructive impact that undermines potential for the whole area to being appropriately developed, while the park remains available to add the “play” to balance the” live and work” in future near to compact, well located, affordable units that would be stimulated if the park is not destroyed.

4. An EIA process needs well considered alternatives to validate a supported option.

- The Revised Scoping Report lacks any meaningful consideration for proposed alternatives. - Failure to follow guidelines and to provide alternatives shows lack of professional integrity on the part of consultants. Profitability is, not a base for recommendation for approval required by law. - Alternatives need proper evaluation also taking into account the result of destroying the Two Rivers Urban Park, the local unique environment and the sensitive heritage preserved in the footprints and shadows of the place as it is when the character of the space and place is preserved.

5. The Economic Desirability needs to extend into the broad impact over time and on the broad context.

An Economic Desirability Study needs to compare a range of alternatives rather than disregarding them An independent development and environmental economist should consider all factors that determine economic desirability as it effects everyone, including stakeholders. - It should take account of the obvious costs and of opportunity costs for what is being lost to the environment, to the heritage, to tourism, to stimulate other development, to others who use the park, to the City who will have to find other property to substitute for the lost park to provide recreation and other facilities to new high density development nearby. - descendants of the indigenous culture, who have the limited symbols of memory and retain the wounds of the past are to be stripped of what remains of the context that gave rise to its traditions?

6. Flooding

Development is not permitted to in a flood plain and proposed in-filling of the expansive area as proposed is clearly not wise. It is not logical either since it will simply cause more flooding to happen much more often. It is totally undesirable for the park with its natural habitat and ecology. Facilities will be inaccessible, more often. The neighbouring residential, sport and office parks will be submerged more often as will the transport routes.

We who live in the area witness regular flooding of roads and rail lines that cause a shut- down every year. It gets much worse in the 50 or 100 year floods. Infilling will result this higher degree of flooding, that will happen far more often. There is no sense in the ‘false science’ evidence presented that the 100 year flood levels will not be any higher or worse! This report does not concern itself with actual future disaster that will be experienced once the developer’s advisors have got away (with the loot). It is the City authorities who will be blamed and by that time they will have been replaced so why should they be concerned either? OCA AH Response to the Revised Draft Scoping Report on The River Club Site 10 February 2017 rev 1b., Observatory C.T 10 Feb 2017 Rev 1 b.

The stakeholders will still be present and it is ample reason why we refuse this totally misguided proposal.

The development is not immune to floods nor fools who implement these birdbrain ideas! We will not permit our area to be destroyed by poorly conceived proposals that will have far too much negative impact.

There is no sound reason to exempt this project on so many week points when there are positive alternatives for good quality development that are sorely needed and where precious environment will not be destroyed.

We would not support a massive development in Kirstenbosch nor would we support one on Clifton beach! Clearly the down side and loss would be too destructive. It is the same with the River Club but the River Club Land is much more sensitive and heritage precious than those other two examples. We cannot accept appointed technical consultants submissions on the pay roll of the developer providing selective information while they reject our concerns as trivial.

The truth is they have given insufficient diligence to their tasks and negligent in the extensive negative impact.

The existing river system frames the site as a flood plain. It should be cleaned up and rehabilitated, including reducing some of the previously filled areas so that some wetland can be rehabilitated, yet the intention is the opposite, to fill the majority of the site by over 3 meters of fill! This is totally unacceptable environmentally and it is being justified by false science that does not examine or present the full truth of the consequences of this insane proposal! It is easy to accept the insignificant fact that ‘100 year flood levels will not rise higher as a result (since at that level additional water flushes over the constraining level railway tracks and bridges that act as a dam wall), It skirts the fact that these high level floods will occur much more frequently than every 100 years since even an ordinary amount of rain will reach that level! (We have no doubt that the truth will be exposed during the EIA!)

There is legislation that prevents filling in the flood plain and building in the flood plain and while some limited exceptions may be worthy in some limited cases, this proposed development is anything but limited or worthy!

The River Club is a part of the Two Rivers Urban Park and should be compliant with its guidelines to protect the environment and limit development, particularly in the flood plain and the land should remain open space as part of the park. The consultation process for TRUP is ongoing at present and River Club should be evaluated within that process where a large “Stakeholder Group” is assisting in determining the future of the park environment, under the guidance of Provincial Environmental Authorities and the Province appointed design team with City planners and stakeholder participation.

The Consultation process has shown that stakeholders have been solidly involved in this process. For over a year and more, we have strongly supported the “preserved park’ concept as reflected in Scenario ‘C’ that is strongly supportive of intensified higher density development in the’ Heart of the City’ area, where this does not have negative impact on heritage resources or sensitive environments.

The River Club’s development proposal is totally non-conforming to the values and vision of the TRU Park. It will be destructive and very disruptive to the future of the park and will have a very negative impact on the environment while the loss of heritage quality will be huge! Rather than filling the flood plain, and building huge blocks in the park, we have stated that the owners should be expected to clean the area of dumping and pollutants (dumped by the previous owner PRASA) and to rehabilitate the natural environment. The current owner has a responsibility to return some areas to wetland and to continue to upgrade facilities to keep the existing commercial rights viable and suitable for popular community use. Types of sport and recreation, conferencing and entertainment do change and they should be encouraged to keep them and the existing buildings well managed in the existing buildings. There is also potential to substantially improve on this primary use. If one looks at Kirstenbosch Gardens and the Green Point Urban Park as example, there is ample example of what is possible and desirable in this much more accessible and high potential park. OCA AH Response to the Revised Draft Scoping Report on The River Club Site 10 February 2017 rev 1b., Observatory C.T 10 Feb 2017 Rev 1 b.

TRUP Stakeholders have shown strong support for an alternative vision of TRUP that includes the River Club. It proposes a well located modest sized Hotel next to the existing conference facility that would add to its potential and add extra support to the other recreation facilities. We have proposed a Gym, a ‘Green Learning Centre’, play areas and multiple paths, over time and opportunities for contained urban agriculture. There is a huge need for Heritage and Memory spaces that can open up the special significance of the site and open links to the Raapenberg Bird Sanctuary, SAAO and the rest of TRUP.

We have encouraging support for the concept of an alternative siting of the new S K A headquarters, so that it does not have a destructive presence in the flood plain, blocking the south –north flow of space in the park.

Probably the biggest ‘Game Changer’ idea is to be found in the north where a proposed alternative route of the problematic ‘Malta to Berkley Road’ that unfortunately has not been well considered. It never went through any EIA process even though this poorly conceived proposal is hugely disruptive to the River Club environment that has significant heritage context and character, with the flood plain in close proximity to the SAAO hill.

This alternative development concept should be included in the EIA process regardless of stated intentions by the applicant who offers only a ‘NO GO’ option as an alternative to destroying the T R U Park environment and its heritage. How can this is supported by some in the City for seemingly short sighted benefits to pet projects? This ‘NO GO’ option is a sign of a lack of imagination to make a positive contribution that is more worthy.

What we propose as a preferable option to the stakeholders has a good balanced approach that would be beneficial to the Park, the ’Heart of the City’ and even to Liesbeek Leisure, if they were to take on this option rather than be the ones proposed to destroy the park or have their project stopped!

We propose shifting the Liesbeek River ditch on the north of River Club that once ‘flowed’ west to east. We propose moving the Malta –Berkley road reserve so the road would be positioned north of the river and the future flowing river would be south of that. We would then retain the vast majority the existing open space that makes the River Club as it is. It is essential that the land should be cleaned up and rehabilitated, with dumping removed. It can’t be ignored!

With an appropriate Malta-Berkley Road planned on the north of the repositioned river,(within TRUP appropriate landscaping could also increase wetland and create additional habitat. The road is proposed to have’ mixed use’ blocks on both sides of the road (mainly outside of the future park space but inside the existing TRUP boundary). See drawings. It would have a range of types of apartments that includes some affordable and some penthouse types.

On the south of the repositioned river there is room for a few freestanding group housing buildings that would be set at an appropriate scale to screen the open space of the park from the larger buildings outside the park.

PRASA would also be encouraged to also benefit by rerouting the southern line to provide a continuous loop that is connected to Salt River transport interchange and it would run directly to Pinelands and continue to the east line past Langa and further. This would free up the very underutilised site south of the PRASA barns for Mixed use office park developments opportunities, far in excess of what is being proposed on this ill-advised River Club proposal. It would be far more preferable and better linked, not impact the park negatively and retain the heritage determinants and the rivers retain the flood plain!

In addition to the more appropriate more affordable development plan in terms of construction costs, it also enables the existing park to be preserved as a major asset that will stimulate additional high value and mixed use and affordable development that supports live- work balance located closer to existing activity corridors. The existing public transport along underutilised brown field land north of PRASA is better located than River Club to link existing transport. OCA AH Response to the Revised Draft Scoping Report on The River Club Site 10 February 2017 rev 1b., Observatory C.T 10 Feb 2017 Rev 1 b.

Those underutilised land have as far greater potential as a development opportunity due to the multiple directional growth in all directions and the nett gain with less downside than overloading the heritage and environmentally sensitive green field lands.

The plan includes additional mixed use or office accommodation that can be added also to the west of the fields on the west of Liesbeek parkway and some smaller special scaled buildings that line the inside of the river on the inner ring of the river that creates an edge and screening to traffic and larger buildings outside. A picture is like a thousand words and the Updated Scenario ‘C’ concept will be shared in the T R U Park workshop next week that we hope will reinforce a consolidated option for TRUP, including The River Club and the Future of the Heart of the City as a whole.

The EIA considering the River Club proposal with all its problematic impacts and illegitimate expectations to change planning policy and the character of the park, should not be supported and certainly not considered outside of all the valuable broader contextual studies that are being looked at the context of TRUP in the greater Heart of the City context and that is on a path of achieving a fresh valid well-supported LSDF that also will guide the hugely significant part of TRUP that is River Club.

The Park and the people who it belongs to should not be sold down the river! We want balance of Development and Conservation. We need to see heritage being taken care of as something uniquely precious! This is particularly important for the hugely significant River Club land, where there is such an essential trace record of what happened in the Cape with its ”good hope and some storms”! We should learn from history and recall what happened 360 years ago when the first farms intruded onto Ancestral Land that was precious to the first people for thousands of years and recognising the ‘First Frontier’ is a potential opportunity to rise to a new level with fresh vision of great hope, or be trapped in a protracted “Final Frontier’ where we sink into conflict between self- interest and what is greater good for the community.

We have a well-supported alternative that simply needs to be considered and evaluated objectively by independent specialists to score the pro-s and cons in a professional way according to the values we see in SPUMLA and the IDP. The goals of the park, the people and the planet rather than short term profit needs to come first! Any development should bring a good nett benefit in the long term and if it has little benefit on the sustainability of the environment or lacks spatial justice and ruins memory attached to the site, we have to reject it!.

The problems of the proposal as contained in the Revised Scoping Report is : 1. There is only one basic idea being proposed and considered (even if there are a few minor variations in layout). They are a little like rearranging the same deckchairs on the same ship deck that does not consider a changed course with less icebergs!

2. The secret purchase of the site that is designated as an essential part of TRUP as was consulted with our community for years, back in 1998 and was designated and declared an Urban Metropolitan Park with great significance in terms of environmental sensitivities and very significant historical heritage in 2003 and been under TRUP Association mandate since then. It is zoned open space with various existing recreation facilities together with the range of other precincts that make up the Park. SPUMLA in “Introductory Provisions” defines ‘open space’, in relation to a land area, means land set aside for use by a community as a recreation area, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE OWNERSHIP OF SUCH LAND”. Clearly this is not the way the owner of the River Club and their advisors look at it since they falsely thing owning the land (however questionable that process was secretly achieved and unacceptably achieved), to them implies that they can do whatever they chose with it. We reject that!

3. This site has been very significant contended territory, after thousands of years of treasured use by Khoisan First People were intruded on by Colonial first settler farmers that became the ‘First Frontier’ which quickly OCA AH Response to the Revised Draft Scoping Report on The River Club Site 10 February 2017 rev 1b., Observatory C.T 10 Feb 2017 Rev 1 b. ended in disaster. The vanquishing of the first people after ploughing up their ancestral grazing land and the eviction that led to a yearlong war. This appears irrelevant to the applicants regardless of the clear research presented in heritage reports that recognise significant Grade One and Grade Two Heritage ratings to the River Club context. There are numerous heritage specialist statements impressing the special sensitivities of the site, where design guidelines are largely ignored! The proposed design appears to have proceeded with increased vigour, without having learnt the lessons of history, now 360 years after Mostert, the River Club land that became his stolen private farm after thousands of years that it was previously used as ‘common tribe ancestral land’ under the authority of the Khoisan king.

4. The Open Space designated for community use in ‘Zoning’ still stands, regardless of ownership and the vision for the future stands clearly in the Local and District plans. We do not see a contradiction in the SDF which placed the area as suitable for development since this is not actually interpreted correctly!

5. The purchaser bought the property knowing full well that there is no right to build on this open space without going through substantial planning application processes.

6. The River Club is part of TRUP and proposals regarding TRUP should follow TRUP Associations, guidelines, particularly when this proposal flagrantly ignores TRUP Association’s rulings and guidelines. TRUP Association supports good development appropriate to its location. What we see proposed is not good for the park!

7. The size, intensity, use and planning of locating and defining scale on River Club land at best, simply do not add to the experience of the park. At worse it is very destructive!

8. We find the Flood studies totally unconvincing in terms of being a claimed game changer to be able to build in the flood plain when there is a lack of evidence to regard this as valid. It is particularly unsatisfactory to propose the huge filling in of the ground levels to be clear of the 100 year flood levels, without showing reliable scientific evidence that looks at the full range of data including intermediate levels to explore the impact on frequency of substantial flooding. We are not prepared to destabilise the TRUP environment with such undesirable risks and negative potential impact.

9. We are very surprised at the unsatisfactory process underway where the river Club is proceeding with its attempted approval for a development that is totally out of keeping with TRUP Association policy. It is out of ‘sink’ with prevailing Planning Policy and should not be supported.

10. It is essential to insist that the proposed application for new development on the River Club property should be in line with TRUP guidelines as a whole and also take cognisance of the Stakeholders Manifesto for TRU-Park plus the strong support for the ‘Preserved Park’ vision of the park that aims to balance increased development appropriate to the park with appropriate conservation of the natural and heritage of the park so this is preserved, while promoting substantial increased high density development outside of the park, to benefit the city as a whole.

The purchase of the River Club property did not come with any development rights and it is would be an illegitimate expectation on the part of the owners that new development rights be granted, particularly when the proposal is not in line with the vision for TRUP in the Planning policy, TRUP Association’s founding documents nor the strong positions expressed by stakeholders as seen in supporting Scenario ‘C’ and the wording of our manifesto.

“Architecture & Heritage sub group of OCA submitted a response to the first Scoping report and submit the above as an update. Nothing we submitted previously is lost its relevance.

OCA AH Response to the Revised Draft Scoping Report on The River Club Site 10 February 2017 rev 1b., Observatory C.T 10 Feb 2017 Rev 1 b.

Process and background detail: OCA had a number of public meetings consulting our community on the issues involved. We have been active for many years relating to the Two Rivers Urban Park since it was researched as the Black River Urban Park Spatial Development Framework around 1998 and through the various Local and District Plans, the formation of the TRUP Association and the recent intense consultation regarding ‘T R U Park’, with Ndabeni industrial area added.

We have expressed strong opinions about the River Club site. A good quality preserved T R U Park includes River Club land. This preserved park is key to unlocking substantial increase in development in the central ’Heart of the City’ area. With the park upgraded as a quality enhanced, ecologically sound area with its unique cultural and heritage features conserved, with maximum recreation opportunities for all people who use the park and participate in its rich range of community facilities. This upgraded safe, central metropolitan park will provide an integrative quality space, promoting environmental education and we are certain that the parks presence will in turn stimulate intense and successful sustainable development, throughout the central area, that we call the ‘Heart of the City’, around the park.

There is much underutilised ‘brown field land’ that is within close proximity to the park, that when developed, could enable a quality ‘live-work-play’ resource efficient lifestyle, that can improve the quality of our central environment, and contribute to a more efficient and sustainable city, while promoting user friendly sustainable forms of transport.

We have serious concerns about the Proposed Redevelopment of the River Club as set out in the Draft Scoping Report. Our comments also aim to reflect the range of opinion and concerns of the people of Observatory. I trust this will be seen as a work in progress and that additional comment and corrections will be permitted if these are required.

OCA involvement with TRUP Association has given us insight into the complex range of T R U Park issues:  Protection of the unique natural environment and the riverine systems that are not functioning adequately.  The required need for alternative systems of technology to sustain ecological integrity in the area.

Proposals for the River Club lands should be seen in context of an evolving ‘T R U Park’ Local Plan and District Plan where values should tie in with the updated SDF towards a fully developed Master Plan for the entire central, Heart of City areas. Decisions should be appropriately in context and should not be driven by the interest of developers without being judged based on nett gain and what contributes sustainability also for the greater good of the City as a whole.  We see the immense value of the Two Rivers Urban Park being preserved and upgraded as a vibrant Urban Park providing available recreation opportunities and a range of community facilities accessible and open to all.  We need to achieve highest standards of environmental protection, sustainability, social interaction and tourism.  Preservation of the ‘T R U Park’ is key to facilitating maximum successful development all around the park, that promises to provide quality of life to all inner city communities living in greater density, with access to the park.

The Liesbeek and Black Rivers flowing into the Salt River are integral parts of “The River Club” and this is an essential part of ‘THE PARK’. Historically, this is highly charged “frontier territory” with great historical and heritage significance dating back to the early pre-colonial Cape, predating the encounter of early settlers. The Khoekhoen (Khoisan) were first people. This River Club land presents its open space ‘theatre’ with the rivers and natural systems almost intact and the natural wonder of Table Mountain stands as backdrop linking us to that early time.  We acknowledge the place of first people who held these sites dear and who should be encouraged to express their cultural traditions in ancestral sacred spaces and to share their heritage links with others.  This area at the confluence of the two rivers was sacred ceremonial space of the Khoehhoen, besides it being their ancestral grazing and hunting land.  The River Club Land was part of the land that was first granted to Free Burgers, 360 years ago and it was specifically, the famous Wouter Cornelis Mostert who ‘first’ attempted to farm it in 1657 in the shelter of the hill which is now the SAAO. It was called ‘Den Uitwijk’. Mostert failed to grow grain and after 4 years of trying, distracted by war fighting the evicted Khoekhoen, he then gave it up and built a mill that still stands near UCT.  Jan Van Riebeeck, took over this (River Club) ‘Den Uitwijk’ farm land in 1659, according to the fascinating, recently published book “Wheatfields & Windmills”. Apparently, he had the use of an available garrison, to chase the Khoekhoen out the area, arresting the leader, referred to as Harry, who was possibly the first prisoner detained on Robin island. (Is this the same as ‘Doman’?). With the use of slaves, Van Riebeeck managed to grow the first grain crop, which was a good barley harvest. See pg 6, 7, 810, 12, 13 & 15 and 64,65, 69 & 71.This is fascinating history giving special significance to the place and it explains something important about the difficult early days. OCA AH Response to the Revised Draft Scoping Report on The River Club Site 10 February 2017 rev 1b., Observatory C.T 10 Feb 2017 Rev 1 b.

 The sketchy map, on page 22 of DSR in Section 3, Figure 10 done by Dept. of geography, University of Waterloo, shows some “Site Context” and besides being rather limited and questionable in comparison, it seems to have “Coornhoop in an unusual location and does not even include ‘Den Uitwijk’ (or Malta Farm as it was later known).  It is worth noting the item 2.2.4 dealing with “International Conservation Charters” that refers to ‘special landscapes, settings, past or present social or spiritual practices’ etc.  Section 4.2 mentions the confluence of the Black and Liesbeek rivers but does not mention Mostert or Van Riebeek or the evictions or the total removal of Khoekhoen people from the area or the other natural characteristics of the area, particularly not taking into account that the rivers flooded and merged differently.

This open green field River Club land being at the confluence of these two important rivers as they merge into the Salt, is a unique segment of Metropolitan Open Space System, with Table Mountain linked to us via the Liesbeek River to the wonderful Kirstenbosch Gardens at the foot of the great Table Mountain National Park. These environmentally precious natural systems are essential to balance our lives as we tend to live contained within our highly dense urban built environment as is typically required in a modern efficient inner City. A healthy life, rich in social and cultural wellbeing, requires good quality parks, within close proximity, to function optimally. If we lose the, opportunity to make the River Club as part of T R U Park, not only would this be a major loss to the potential of a great metropolitan park, offering quality of life for all communities around the park but we also stand to lose some of the great ‘game changing’ potential to achieve major densification in the central areas where all new development would be stimulated by the enhanced quality of life that the park provides, similar to what Central park provides to Manhattan, New York.

The various Planning Policy Documents such as the Spatial Development Framework for the City, that apply to the site, The District Plan and various Local Plans including the founding principles of The Two Rivers Urban Park, all include The River Club land, as a vital and unique ‘green lung’ that these policy documents state needs to be rehabilitated and preserved as part of the park!

Page 68 of DSR, Section 6.1 states “The site’s unique character has been previously assessed by CCT and WCG, with ‘low development potential’ due to its value as an open area within TRUP.” If anything this is made stronger as densification increases and the presence of this park acts as a facilitator and driver of that development potential AROUND THE PARK.

It is a mistake to allow the park to be destroyed by building inside it in such a way that it loses its position within TRUP and overlooks the essential importance of adapting everything to the contextual natural, heritage, social and aesthetic factors that will enhance the park. The cultural significance needs to be reinforced and its recreational function makes TRUP stimulate good quality development throughout the area, particularly in underutilised brown field land around the park and particularly in locations where public transport is most accessible, near or giving easy access work opportunities! It is highly problematic to suggest that new engineering technology makes development in green field floodplains acceptable. We do not support this flawed outlook as it’s ‘NO-GO for development’, even if it were possible.

There is no justification to change policy to permit an ‘illegitimate expectation’ project that is not scoring adequately, and should be compared to more desirable, more compliant alternative options for the site.

The River Club is zoned as “Open Space 3”. The policy guidelines for the area do not permit development of the kind proposed in the Scoping Report. There can be no justification to undermine the green field site and destroy the T R U Park which like Kirstenbosch, should in principle not be built on (other than providing the facilities needed to make the park function at an optimal level). We all recognise that a great metropolitan park needs to attract tourists and cater to local needs. It must be managed with integrity, take care of nature conservation and provide good quality tourist facilities. The upgrade requires variety of appropriate forms of recreation that are compatible with the nature of the park, its historical, heritage and natural features that should all be respected as set out in policy documents that apply to the site and area.

The Scoping Report should be looking to achieve this aim, of assessing what is best for the site and for the city and test whether what is being proposed matches up to its potential and identifying the needs of the site. We do not see sufficient criteria that follow existing policy, including methods for testing the broader impact on the remainder of the park and the impact on development potential of the area? If change as proposed were to be permitted, what would be the impact on the environment? What is the long term impact on quality of life in the city? The test is not only what is viable from an economic point of view, for the developer and the City to make good income in the short term.

We suggest economic benefit is not simplistically assessed only by what comes into city coffers in the next ten years. It is rather the broad long term complex ramifications, (like should have been assessed when the decision was made to OCA AH Response to the Revised Draft Scoping Report on The River Club Site 10 February 2017 rev 1b., Observatory C.T 10 Feb 2017 Rev 1 b. support Green Point World Cup Stadium!) Can we have answers to what it’s the long term impact on the quality of environment, preservation of the enhanced heritage of the park and the long term tourism potential of the city that should also inform values that are entrenched in policy guidelines for the park, the rivers, the flood plain and more guidelines that should be strictly adhered to.

What is its long term impact on quality of life and the development potential throughout the area? The Scoping report seems flawed in recording so many ‘facts’ regarding the character of the site, the context, the natural environment, the heritage, the history, the statutory framework, the nature of the proposed development without really interrogating a range of options or scenarios that should compare the scores against guidelines set in established policy. We would like to see the scoping report look at various alternative possible options for this unique site and not be bound by preconceived lines and edges that just happen to be as it is. It should be looking at what is best for our city and test how any development alternatives will impact on our people. What will achieve the best score on a range of issues?

We do not accept the notion that there is a “new vision, attributed to NM & Associates that includes much higher density development within TRUP”. Our consultation processes and workshops with Stakeholders regarding T R U Park have all supported the idea of minimising of development in the ‘green field’ open spaces and recommended that the park be preserved as a park while high density development is restricted to around the open park space not inside it! We want to retain open areas for public recreation and retain the island character of the site and agree that no negative development impact the SAAO. Development should be contextual to associated TRUP precincts.

We think it would be a mistake to demolish the existing historic building because it defines the space and the scale is good. Access on the west side can be improved by removing poor quality buildings that have been added next to river. There is certainly good reason to enhance biodiversity and the first thing would be to clean up the site which should be treated as ‘sacred space.’ ‘SARCC or Transnet or Propnet or PRASA’ should be forced to clean up their dumping. The site and rivers should be cleaned up and protected. This confluence of two important rivers is the last open green space before entering the highly saturated grime of the city lacking greening space in Salt River to CBD.

The aim should be to provide a broader range of recreational activities rather than the dominance of golf facilities. For a start it could be made more compact giving space for rehabilitated natural vegetation and bird sanctuary space on the east areas where rivers meet, and connect this to the Raapenberg Bird Sanctuary, making the site more sustainable.

It would be a good idea to improve not only the river banks but everything about the way the rivers functions. This proposed upgrade needs to be seen as something that is achieved across a broad area by many players.

A primary focus of the endorsed “Scenario C” design for the TRUP area is to improve access round and through the different precincts, linking them all up and also linking all the surrounding suburbs so all can access the park. This includes NMT and links to public transport while also facilitating high density development around the outside of the park. We look forward to sharing many of these ideas in the HIA Phase of the process to make sure that TRUP succeeds. Looking at the ‘Heritage Design Indicator Diagram’ Figure 75 on pg 68 of DSR, we note emphasises ‘RETAIL/COMMERCIAL’ AND ‘RESIDENTIAL’, spread wide over the entire site with a token ‘Environmental/Heritage CENTRE” and very little left over ‘park’ space so it appears that much of the values about the site being part of the park, above, is lost in translation.

In the Peer Review section, called Annexure 4 by Nicolas Baumann, item 3 (Conclusions), it says: “The issue then becomes how ‘this bulk (137000m2) is to be distributed across the site”? We do not accept this imposed bulk onto such a site and consider it arbitrarily imposed, without appropriately recognising that the site is zoned open space with community facilities; It has unique site heritage that has always been designated as part of the TRUP Park.

Mr Baumann says “The heritage design indicators should guide future development of the site” and that “The island character of the site should be retained”, yet the images show dense development where it is supposed to be open space. He then suggests something very pertinent: “An alternative conceptualisation would be to integrate the site into the surrounding context where possible, largely by responding to the opportunities and constraints established by existing development on the periphery, most notably PRASA and the Liesbeek River Office Park development.”

In addition to these ideas he refers to connecting the open space to the Raapenberg Bird Sanctuary, and suggests “a balance between natural environment and the built form where the built form should be under 15% of the site area.” (Is it correct to understand this to mean that the natural undeveloped space should be 85%? This seems to be contradicted in the examples we are shown!) We need to know what the existing coverage is and what is considered appropriate. The proposal shows large subdivided erven and large buildings are shown spread out over the site. OCA AH Response to the Revised Draft Scoping Report on The River Club Site 10 February 2017 rev 1b., Observatory C.T 10 Feb 2017 Rev 1 b.

Very little remains left as open space that could be in any honesty called an Urban Park that contributes to TRUP!. He also speaks strongly against “an isolated office Park in favour of an urban village”. This may be a clear improvement on the image one sees on pg 28 Figure 3-1 which has development on close to 40% of the site and close to 20% in roads and parking leaving only just over 40% as green passage between river and large blocks of buildings.

It is all very nice to talk about “factoring environmental and heritage values into the integrated vision of the future role of the site” and quite another to admit that what is being proposed is totally off track.

There is a need to take a new honest look at this project and admit that it is not appropriate and needs a fundamental fresh start to respect its part of TRUP and the constraints building in the flood plain and to preserve open space!

1. The design should be derived out of the updated revised local and district plan that will arise out of the T R U Park vision process and the broad vision for development in the area as guided by policy. 2. It seems unreasonable that development guidelines should be formulated by pressure from developers rather than following the guidelines of the policy and considering small adaptions where this may lead to improvements that are in the spirit of the policy, not totally contrary to it. 3. It seems unthinkable that Densification Policy could be mentioned as a justification for proposing building in green field flood plain land that is zoned as open space and is set aside to be for recreation and part of the Two Rivers Urban Park. 4. It is unthinkable that the developers are seriously proposing bringing on close to 250 000 m3 of fill to raise the flood plain up to 3 meters so they can build an office park and large inappropriate buildings in a unique heritage site at the confluence of these two rivers seems lacking in respect for nature and forcing something that is not appropriate.

5. The site remains very important as open space developed as a Urban Park so the increasing population moving into this central area will enjoy the facilities while it also develops into a special tourist orientated park together with rest of TRUP. 6. Why do we not see comment on the SDF 2002 and TRUP 2012, where The River Club main building is noted as an historic structure and the entry precinct as having contextual significance”? See pg 14 Section 2.2.3.2. 7. Mention is made of being an ‘island’, a ‘village-like quality’ with a system of public, semi-public and private open spaces’. And that the existing building provides a strong sense of order and heights of any new buildings should relate to this two storey height. Here in the report the existing building that was so lauded is simply proposed to be demolished and we reject that! These reports refer to the significant pattern of social, architectural and political history spanning the pre- colonial, the colonial and apartheid history yet all this rich tapestry is forgotten and removed quietly to be replaced by a another banal office park instead of a TRUPark that can provide context to this early frontier farm that had the first grain crop after first year long war to remove the first people off their sacred ancestral space and setting the pattern for apartheid methods of political problem solving. 8. We are now seeing a strong push supressing planning policy principles shaping appropriate built environment, social, ecological and natural environment, so developers can push ahead to build an office park and apartment buildings by filling in the flood plain against policy. It is quite outrageous, in its extremism not to respond to the contextual factors.

 The fact that PRASA Rail Yards has a very negative impact on the site is very worth noting but is not dealt with satisfactorily since it is made even worse by the road which is simply accepted to be crossing the site. We reject this and suggest solutions for both. I note errors on the captions for photos Fig. 58 & 59.

 The River Club is said to be the place where the combined rivers are able to flood and the community do not believe there is justification to fill in this land, particularly not to the extent proposed if anything at all, and particularly not for unjustified reasons that have nothing to do with enabling the T R U Park to function better.  There are two 8 storey (not 10 storeys) office blocks in office park across Liesbeek Parkway. The Premier food silos, is a lot more than this. It is worth noting how badly these 8 storey blocks impact on the feel of the River Club site and from the SAAO where they impact on what is otherwise a stunning skyline!

Comment on private sites/non-access to public in TRUP is an issue that TRUP Association is very concerned about. The high security nature of a limited number of local areas noted, we are calling for removing or withdrawing fences to open precincts to be more accessible to the public as part of T R U Park. It is somewhat misleading to refer to the upgraded of Valkenberg hospital plans as “denser development” since it is very luxurious in its spacious, mostly single storey pattern.

Angles on pg. 62, Figure 74, appear to have slid to incorrect positions or labelling has been confused? Development seems to be accepted as a forgone conclusion: Also on pg 62: “Set buildings within the open space and riverine landscape” said by the heritage specialist who is supposed to protect the open space and the unique river landscape! Do the owners even have a right to develop on this land that is not zoned for this kind of development? OCA AH Response to the Revised Draft Scoping Report on The River Club Site 10 February 2017 rev 1b., Observatory C.T 10 Feb 2017 Rev 1 b.

The Observatory and TRUP communities have shown interest in an alternative suggestion for ‘development of the River Club site as included in the “Scenario C” Preserved Park proposal. The difference starts by reconsidering proposed Malta to Berkley Road routes. This alternative was presented in general terms in “Scenario C” that scored 90% on its scored categories with the broad group of TRUP stakeholders. This alternative viewpoint rejects the current proposed location of the road, as reflected in the Scoping Report and rather sets its proposed position on the north side of the Liesbeek River, where it flows from west to east.

This alternative route is instead of as proposed to cross the entire River Club site from west to east near the north of the site and cutting off the Liesbeek River and the confluence with the Black River as they become the Salt River, isolating it from River Club and TRUP! We think this proposed intrusion of heavy traffic across the site and the wasteful cutting of the site in two parts is a serious negative impact and this does not even seem to be questioned in the Scoping Report! The River Club owners seem to think it is good for them but it is terrible for the site and for TRUP! It will destroy the character of the land, so we have proposed a totally different idea and it has been well received by interested parties.

“Game Changer?” To achieve this substantially improved ‘game changing’ option, one will need high level intervention and we are fortunate to have the Province and the City involved in the T R U Park ‘co-design’ process that is looking at the broad area around T R U Park and part of this was presented in the’ Scenario C’ proposal that had the following to say about The River Club:

1.”River edges to be cleaned and planted appropriately. New Green learning Centre, Gym, extra parking and multi-sports field on the south side of the site”. 2. “Existing River Club sports facilities with restaurants, sports bars, conference facilities”. 3. “State of the art Tourist Hotel & self-catering accommodation, (appropriately scaled) and screened on east from wind. Bird Sanctuary and preserved heritage site on east”. 4. “The River Club Flood Plain kept as open green space as heritage ‘frontier dream space’ with no road or development cutting it up.” 5. “New Malta–Berkley Road link to be located on north of widened navigable river. New circular south to east rail line system” set in new position further north away from river front. (See drawing). 6. “Spiral Memorial sacred site to visit at confluence of the two rivers, recognising life origins and indigenous Khoi people”.

In addition to the above that was part of the “Scenario ‘C’: Preserved Park”, an additional proposal was recently put forward where the location of the Liesbeek River, as it runs across the north and joins the Black, is also slightly shifted south to near the allocated road reserve, giving substantial space for good quality development on either side of the new Malta-Berkley Road, which means that neither the road nor the development need enter and destroy the park! The shifted river is on the inside of it, on the existing open space which is reduced slightly but its integrity and heritage quality as open park space is kept intact, uninterrupted by any inappropriate development.

There is still some potential to introduce a few sensitively designed small appropriate buildings with trees around the edge of the space, overlooking the river on the north and west, so this can help with screening it from traffic and as a containing positive filtering village feel with life and light on the edge of the space. It would also add an element of extra safety, while substantial buildings that exist or proposed on the other side of the river, on either side of the new Malta-Berkley Road would not intrude. There is ample underutilised brown field land that can be put to better use than PRASA use it at present. It would not impact negatively and will actually help to screen some of the negative determinants of the north.

This concept enables fairly substantial commercial/mixed use buildings to be built as per our TRUP guideline, not inside the green space but rather around the park. Typically it would be an outer ring of office buildings and an inner ring of residential mixed use buildings, overlooking the river and the park on the inside. The new road link would be above the 100 year flood line without causing an eyesore and also enable movement under it!

We support the principle of preserving the park and having well screened development outside and around the park. It is good to keep cars out and development is as close as possible to public transport. The minimal amount of development inside the park is to mainly to enhance the functioning of the park similar to the way Kirstenbosch Gardens are not full of apartments or office parks but do have ‘community facilities’ and even a few ‘shops’. TRUP would have its own mix with a slightly different focus including some existing institutions, conference facility and a few small hotels where appropriate.

We have also had good support for the concept of an alternative proposal regarding the siting of the new SKA building where a more appropriate site is preferable to the land that they own on the south of the River Club, at its constricted OCA AH Response to the Revised Draft Scoping Report on The River Club Site 10 February 2017 rev 1b., Observatory C.T 10 Feb 2017 Rev 1 b. entrance which we consider unsuitable, particularly for such a large building. It would block to the continuity of the park and the fact that this is green open space and in the flood plain makes it worse. We reject it.

We are very excited that there is a very much better site that has been suggested and this is another potential ‘game changer’ that needs high level negotiation by Province and the City to sort it out with Valkenberg Hospital, to make it happen, for the sake of the universe, the planet, the people who use the park and the Liesbeek Riverine good vibes!

The fact that some degradation has taken place in the past, both to the quality of the rivers, a number of substandard buildings, landscaping, disconnected road systems, inappropriate fences, lack of park facilities, the lack of clear planning vision, a poor attitude when it comes to development and the lack of consultation or open discussion about concepts to build shared values, hopes and dreams. We are here with drawn out processes of responding to Scoping Reports honestly and firmly so we can save our Metropolitan Two Rivers Urban Park and its rich heritage in the “Heart of our City”. The shortfall of the past only strengthens our resolve to insist that appropriate procedures are put in place, that proposed developments are viewed not as isolated islands but as having serious impact on the future of our planet, our City and this important park that will, if attended to appropriately, make a major impact on the broader development of our area.

We need to tighten controls that need to be enforced, to conserve these ecologically sensitive areas and historically significant sites in perpetuity. The existing policy documentation was developed in close consultation with the ever involved local community and our expressed will remains that environmental upgrades should be carried out to rehabilitate elements that have suffered degradation. As recorded, we call for the park to be maintained as an exemplary, “ecologically sound sustainable green open space.” Policy calls for it to be used for “a multiplicity of recreational and cultural activities that meets the needs of all existing communities” and there is great potential to attract visitors from far and wide to benefit from its qualities. The City will no doubt grow to full maturity around this achievement.

There is a need for broad inclusive administrative and institutional management systems where the Province, the City and all professional agents work together with stakeholders to direct funding and inclusive social partnership models based on cooperation so we can creatively make new planning strategies a reality so we can deliver.

We are hopeful that the current process under the joint leadership of Province and City and the consultation guided by Sun Development will continue contribute to a worthy vision of T R U Park in the context of the broader Central Area of Cape Town which we in Observatory usually refer to ‘The Heart of The City.”

Yours Truly

Marc Turok.

Appendix A

Edited Comments submitted to : Melanie Attwell and Assciates; Arcon Heritage and Design. Sun Development, NM & Associates Planners and Designers,

RE: Updated comments on M Attwell’s T R U-Park BASELINE HERITAGE STUDY.

* Clearly the Unique Historical and Heritage significance of the Two Rivers Urban Park is present within the report in impressive form. What is not as clear is to what degree this will be recognised and protected? What is also not clear is what degree of recognition there will be for the natural environment and how this will be enforced, since we regard the need to protect and reclaim the sensitive ecological balance of the park and the rivers in particular. It is an environmental concern that goes to the broader context to be effective and this needs urgent attention to end the pattern of degradation over many years. This is essential to T R U Park

* The preliminary statements about the Park have put TRUP under pressure. - Preconceived notions are put forward which refer to TRUP an “A Development Opportunity”. OCA AH Response to the Revised Draft Scoping Report on The River Club Site 10 February 2017 rev 1b., Observatory C.T 10 Feb 2017 Rev 1 b.

- Urgent ‘Pre-release’ proposals by developers to Province and City all appear to have been accepted into a priority consideration when none appear to have any merit or reasonable consideration in terms of current policy or spatial justice when considering the nature of the park and its intended and entrenched use in relation to ‘public good, the environment and significant heritage issues!

* Our ongoing interaction with the process of consultation about the T R U Park have criticised this preliminary ‘baseline’ statement since we all regard Two Rivers Urban Park as a park and accept that the park should be invested in and upgraded but that development opportunities should be explored with appropriate intensity around the outside of the park, in Ndabeni, Maitland, Kullenborg, Salt River, Observatory, Mowbray, Rondebosch, Athlone, Langa and Pinelands, all of whom will benefit from the park being preserved, particularly if previous limited access to T R U Park is substantially upgraded.

The basic facts, in brief are that T R U P is a declared park and is dedicated to preserving it. * There can be no justification to change or undermine T R U P’s significance of heritage, environment protection or for its recreation use and other factors as listed in the documents on the establishment in 2003 of TRUP Association. - This was following the formal adoption of the ‘Two Rivers Contextual Development Framework’ and Phase One Environmental Management Plan’ by the City of Cape Town for the area of TRUP (not including Ndabeni). - The essential task of TRUP Association is to promote and fulfil the Policy Contextual Framework, rehabilitating, protecting and enhancing the biotic & ecological, cultural-historic value of the park, maximising access for all and promoting environmental education and sustainable development within the park”. The park faces challenges to ensure the long term sustainable rehabilitated of the natural open space. - It has been under a range of threats that include encroaching threats of development, changes to recreation and institutional facilities, need for balance of environmental sustainability, heritage protection and other use.

* The consultation workshop events held during 2016 facilitated by “SUN Development’, saw strong consensus around values of not permitting intrusion of unwanted development in the park, preserving it as a park! - NO GO for development in green open spaces and particularly the river basins and flood plains. - The Precincts inside the park should be seen as sensitive zones where consultation may support minimal development in the interest of the park as may be the needs of the Precinct, in consultation with TRUPA. - Vision Planning needs to promote the quality and interconnectedness of the park as a whole. - Alexandra Road is seen as an ‘activity street’ with row development on either side and acts as a transition zone or screening buffer between what is seen as the park (inside) and what is seen as a fair development opportunity space,(outside) like in Ndabeni.

* Ndabeni is viewed as underutilised land outside of T R U P that could provide development opportunities that link to T R U P from the outskirts of the park. - It is also strongly argued that improved connector routes from all surrounding areas of the park that would connect Maitland, Cullemberg, Salt River, Observatory, Mowbray, Rondebosch, Athlone, Langa and Pinelands to each other and T R U Park. - Improved connections around the site will also enable substantial increased development on well located brown field lands all around the park and provide a much more compliant model of development that would achieve the impressive goals of SPLUMA . The Development Principles of SPUMA should be part of the Baseline Heritage Study: 1. Spatial Justice (Preserving T R U P for all as a site open to all and that provides services to all while memorialising the early historical and strain across the space from Early ‘First Frontier’ to liberation from Apartheid and the threats of a ‘Final Frontier’ in defence of the environment, the planet and the people in the face of Development pressure for profit to feed their over-the-top self-interested feeding frenzy cravings. 2. Spatial sustainability (Preserving T R U P as an essential natural habitat that is fully rehabilitated as part of the interconnected wetland and green corridor that extends from coast to coast and mountain to Sea) 3. Efficiency (Minimising drastic change in use and protecting existing heritage buildings and environment, not raising the flood plain land or intruding with major roads and bridges, while having the major spinoff to stimulate intense development around the park in existing underutilised brown field land that needs OCA AH Response to the Revised Draft Scoping Report on The River Club Site 10 February 2017 rev 1b., Observatory C.T 10 Feb 2017 Rev 1 b. upgrading, has all the essential services and infrastructure and with the park upgraded as a world class park, with state of the art recreational, cultural, health and heritage facilities available to all new development around the park where substantial densities can be achieved utilising existing facilities and transport routes. 4.Spatial Resilience (Achieved through healed well located live-work- play mixed use development around the park with high density due to reliance on the park for open space and other outdoor space, minimising commuting by people living near to where they work and near to public transport, providing the capacity for people to find work and reduce overhead costs. With increased density come economies of scale and better economic opportunities as long as environmental quality is not reduced. The super park takes care of that.) 5. Good administration: (To achieve a superior outcome with substantial development opportunity in the ‘Heart of the City’ area, Local stakeholders will need to be well consulted and active in the transformation process as active participants in local visioning facilitated by planners who work for public good in consultation, partnership with the City and Province, and a broad participation of a wide range of professional specialists. - The planning/development team has capacity to break through limitations than normally limit transformative vison, required to transcend typical limitations as normally experienced where administration is operating in ‘silo departments’ that are unable to integrate their proposed plans, leading to protracted stagnation, bursting occasionally into crazy detached proposals, like positioning stadiums where they are not needed or accessible!

* The Baseline Heritage Study needs to take a much firmer position on what is clearly an unsatisfactory inherited neglect and accumulated negative impact of pre 1994 lack of respect for the heritage, the environment and total lack of consultation with affected community or specialists when planning or executing development activity. Some similar patterns are continuing unabated. - We witness claims of serious dumping by PRASA (or their previous name)in the flood plain of River Club Land and this needs to cleaned up by court order ASAP! - Roads and Transport department have indicated they seriously plan to proceed with a plan to build another major road through the middle our historic heritage protected park across the heritage protected Liesbeek River and past the Raapenberg Bird Sanctuary, over the flood plain and dividing this special open space park, reserved as a memorial space for the community with no consultation required. This needs to be stopped and better alternatives explored, like when the plan to drive road widening through Lower Main Road heritage activity street was stopped from the brink of destruction. - PRASA shunting and servicing yards which is a dilapidated and underutilised huge piece of land and where upgraded routes should be considered to provide substantially improved and efficient smooth running rail services that are well integrated with all other transport services, and should be upgraded with updated planning principles that add substantial modern transport interchange facilities and all the typical civic and convenience facilities in close easy access for a majority population who rely on good efficient public transport to sort typical tasks on the way home or near to work. - When transformative development opportunities are looked at with a public good and people centred values in line with SPLUMA Development Principles instead of simply as a reactive response to prodding pushy demands from major developers only, we have a chance to find good quality planning and environmental solutions to transform our City towards a brighter future with much broader development opportunities that are far more solid and desirable than the office park in the flood plain model of development where the people are robed of their park with most of its heritage reduced to a bench with plaque or the equivalent. . Options need to be enabled to clean-up the park, create new more practical access routes around the park and locate new areas of mixed use development, including office parks along those routes. - Additional development opportunities throughout the Heart of the City area would benefit hugely from T R U Park’s presence in the centre of all the new development. It needs to be directly linked to those routes rather than as in the River Club by Liesbeek Leisure which is justified as being near these routes but actually diverts these routes into the wetland flood plain of the high grade and unique heritage rich declared park!

* The park with its recognised heritage within the park also provides recreational and institutional qualities for communities all around the park, made more accessible by means of new additional NMT Linkages through the park, in carefully planned in sensitive ways, around its edges, so it becomes more unified and accessible to all.

OCA AH Response to the Revised Draft Scoping Report on The River Club Site 10 February 2017 rev 1b., Observatory C.T 10 Feb 2017 Rev 1 b.

Scenario ‘C’ was a planning/ environmental design proposal put forward under the name ‘Preserved Park’ within the consultation workshop environment and in comparison with the two other ‘Scenario’s ‘A & B’ scored a very high score of 80 to90% in all the 10 categories as judged against the ‘manifesto’. This then stands as a record of our broad combined stakeholder/ IP consensus of a well- supported vision for T R U Park and is a work in progress in collaboration with TRUPA and all stakeholders.

Scenario ‘C’ addresses T R U Park in a broad context of ‘Planning and development opportunity throughout the Heart of the City area, from Langa to CBD and TMNP to the sea. It reflects an alternative approach rather than a top down client driven model and as an alternative to a master plan it opens up opportunity for a tapestry package of plans quilt that makes opportunities to accommodate visions of local precinct vision to the top down “development opportunity” approach to TRUP with Ndabeni added and with River Club plus road reserve removed! Scenario A and B were a variation of alternative responses to the brief to the Design team appointed by Province and City. ‘A + B’ scored badly in the assessment of the wide inclusive stakeholder plenary. ‘C’ was very well supported as it was strongly in line with the strongly supported “Large development should not be permitted inside the preserved park” position and other set manifesto values.

Scenario ‘C’ is not at all anti-development and is very strongly supportive of major increases of development on the outside of the park in areas similar to Ndabeni. It is not supportive of intrusion into ‘green field’ natural areas or heavy intrusion into heritage protected areas. This principle needs to be seen to be in line with existing planning policy, in support of opening up substantial development opportunity on well located public transport routes more strategically located than T R U P.

* The Baseline Heritage Study should make clear statements that would not permit desecration and negative impact on heritage and environmental aspects of the park. - The concern is if not firmly stated in the report the sound principles proposed may too easily be disregarded when stated in too soft a manner and with too much flexibility? If clear boundaries are set, the design team could consult when needing to depart slightly with valid reason but not without consulting? - The advantage of having firmer, resolved principles is that they may be able to assist the Design Team to stand firm, not to be pushed further and further in a direction that a developer and City officials may insist on. The obligation to serve can be hard to hold if battle lines of defence are not bolstered to stand the test of time.

This response to the ‘BHS’ report is intended to emphasise our concern that Two Rivers Urban Park should be preserved and upgraded for the benefit of our City and all potential future users. People will visit it like they visit Kirstenbosch and those who live and work in the area or drive through it will greatly benefit.

* Two Rivers Urban Park should be recognised fully for its significant informative and rich historical heritage. - T R U P tells the storey what happened here in the Cape as an open theatre where reality can be observed. - It is detached enough to look up at the stars and ponder the universe or examine and be taught about pre- colonial history or recent social history. - Having been a divide between early conflicting interests and culture we can contemplate what caused it to be like it is. It is also the place designated for reflection and healing for those not too well adjusted to live a ‘normal’ existence within society. The mental institution gives opportunity to be healed and better adjusted.

* From earliest time the fascinating geological and mountain formations around TRUP must have stimulated wonder and awe of the heavens and the nature of the universe. Its significance is also as a place of healing and mental health. It is suited also to preventative, refreshing spiritual relief and this unique site is very accessible to ordinary people, enhanced by the easy proximity of public transport and NMT accessibility can be enhanced.

* This rare rural open space within an urban place so close to the City Centre remains relatively intact with its park potential as a promise waiting to be fulfilled. The thousands of years of pre-colonial history to present day it has is remained open to be shared and with tourism growing in importance it can be shared with the world. OCA AH Response to the Revised Draft Scoping Report on The River Club Site 10 February 2017 rev 1b., Observatory C.T 10 Feb 2017 Rev 1 b.

- The concept of an Urban Park was intensely consulted for many years and set out carefully in Planning Policy. - It has been in place and achieved much even although hardly any funding followed broken commitments.

* T R U P has great potential to become a significant world class metropolitan urban park. What is missing is the creative follow through process to realise this potential with a fresh but realistic planning policy and this is what we are now doing. It needs a fresh shift of perspective to view the investment into the park as a multiplier for development around this area, not as a cost that needs to have an equivalent return within the park.

* The central treasure of preserved green space is the stimulus and catalyst that will facilitate and enable the entire central ‘Heart of the City’ area to be fully developed and efficiently planned. - While the open ecology of the park is not at present in a pristine condition, it is well within our capacity to reclaim its ecological balance and upgrade the park to what it should be as a world class park! * The T R U Park stands as a living symbol of potential, like our country’s national flag with its two rivers merging into one with increasing flow and vitality. Since earliest time this symbolism made it a sacred place for wedding ceremonies when two families join together through matrimony. Our nation, divided in our past is now united around the constitution and the flag. Previously divided communities in the central Heart of the City will soon more than before share this wonderful park that enhances the rich heritage and challenged by environmental sustainability goals that stake holders have committed as seen in SUN Dev ‘manifesto’ 2016 ).

* The Liesbeek River on the west of the park and the Black on its east, flow through the green open space, and merge in the flood plain that has had a special place in history since first people first inhabited the Cape. - The three earliest farms were sited in close proximity to the crossing point through T R U Park to where Malta Road meets Liesbeek River. This was the early route to access the peninsula via the site called ‘Varsche Drift’. - Control of cattle was a major pastime and Varsche Drift was an early gate keeping attempt to control access. - Jan Reyniers & Hendrik Boom were granted sites by Van Riebeeck in 1657, as was Wouter Cornelis Mostert’s farm, that extended east of the Liesbeek and included the current River Club and part of Valkenberg Hill.

* The intrusion of these farms into land that for centuries was sacred to Khoi was a combination of desecration and displacement. Its common property on the banks of this life saving Liesbeek River was treasured for keeping the herds alive through the dry summer months and when farmers used Oxen to plough it up, a chain of events culminated in the year long war of 1659, that took a huge toll on local people, who were largely decimated by this destructive injustice that happened exactly 360 years ago. The early farmers had achieved little other than hardship and loss. Van Riebeeck showed some ongoing determination and resilience, being better resourced and took over these ‘Den Uitwijk’ farms where he used slave labour to produce the first grain crop in the Cape, after which left the Cape in 1662, after ten years eventful years that built and destroyed so much. Much of this heritage of first people, first farms, first grain crop and the windmills is part of T R U P!

* The ‘centre piece’ of T R U P site is the central SAAO hill that has its exquisite vantage point towards the mystical Table Mountain with Wind/Devils Peak dominating the foreground, glowing in the morning light. - ‘Khoikoen’ First people had a sacred connection to the site. It now has a ‘Grade one’ Heritage status. It would be fair to suggest that many parts of T R U P that were their ancestral hunting and grazing land on either sides of the Liesbeek are part of this site and this is where the Royal Khoikoen kraal is thought to have been, to where they returned home during the summer and autumn months to fulfil their cyclical lifestyle. - As a linked significant area, it should be part of the Hill and its ‘grade one’ status, at least in terms of keeping the space interlinked and not heavily developed by buildings that do not add to the functioning of the park! - A ‘grade two’ Provincial status would be a minimum to recognise this as an integrated open space where the heritage features can be experienced, maintaining a connection to the early origins and through the ‘First Frontier’ period. It is clear from evidence that large herds of cattle were in these rivers and the estuaries.

* It is appreciated that the Baseline Heritage Study report noted, appropriately, that “T R U P has significant heritage quality over the entire Two Rivers Urban Park site”. This is reliable fact not to be doubted.

OCA AH Response to the Revised Draft Scoping Report on The River Club Site 10 February 2017 rev 1b., Observatory C.T 10 Feb 2017 Rev 1 b.

* The significance of the site is also aptly noted and named “The First Frontier” by ACO Associates, who give an excellent assessment of the Pre-Colonial and Proto-historical significance of T R U Park site. - It is fascinating to be informed and engrossed as we imagine that real life theatre that played out 360 years ago after thousands of years of use as a special site of the original Khoikoen ‘first people’. - The early Dutch settler farmers clearly had a change of plan, from setting up a halfway station to instead taking over ancestral grazing land when they settled on both sides of the Liesbeek River, causing a huge confrontation with local people. Attitudes and values were not understood. The Khoikoen held the Two Rivers Place as special significance, where the common property land was for grazing. Herds were their wealth.

The shock of the ancestral grazing lands being ploughed up is reported to be the main reason for attempts to capture the farmer’s cattle and the reaction of frontier of exclusion by farmers was to curtail this problem. This intrusion and conflict led quickly to the decimation of the first people and their life was never the same again.

* 360 years later, we are facing a threat of another serious intrusion into this same space and the intent of ‘Liesbeek Leisure is now to raise the level of the River Club flood plain land and request permission to totally transform the site into an office park plus residential development that has 5 hectare of high rise building and more large areas for roads, parking and other intrusion into this flood plain. This is a harsh threat that some in Observatory have come to refer to as “The Last Frontier” on a collision course with the future of the T R U Park.

* The feedback received regarding any potential land claims from first people or other indigenous groups is that there are none claiming in T R U P. None expect to be granted ownership of land, but all seemed to want right of access to sites required for specific use, such as celebrating or sharing cultural history/identity where special environments are created for that purpose. It seems preferable that rotation of use of different types of facilities may be an option to compare with separate facilities for different groups (or a combination of both?)

* The special significance of the site is not being argued as a proposal to ‘turn back the clock’ of history. It is to regain the lost dignity, to educate and share the rich heritage and celebrate identity. - The task of healing the past spans the full 360 years and degrees of support may be with the appropriate intent, to be able to memorialise the space, share culture, learn history, uncover and display heritage and the healing of dignity and acceptance of new identity may be experience as shared significant respectful transition. – Transformation may be to go with the flow of the river one is in, merging with relaxed intent, emerging from the unresolved painful past exclusion, to the joyous feeling of acceptance and total inclusion of being. - By dedicating some parts of the park to focus within early history of the Cape, experiencing something of what transpired in other early ‘Frontier sites.’ - Local insight about the history of the Cape could be extended in a meaningful way to ‘colonialism’ in general. - Early problematic patterns that became entrenched as repeat’ frontier mentality’ patterns could also assist to understand how this all culminated in the system of apartheid, with race based segregation and oppression / persecution that caused such hardship is essential for us to understand and overcome. - We and visitors from around the world should be able to enter the ‘space of origins’ and learn from the past. - We note that while we have been liberated from a system, we still need feel well adjusted as free people, enjoying ‘spatial justice’, ‘spatial sustainability’, ‘spatial resilience’ and ‘efficient, good administration’ healed of a divided and destabilised troubled place. - The City and its ability to preserve this T R U Park is going to go a long way to assist our people turn the pain of the past into inclusive experience with insight that builds joy for all in the future.

* We pass our heritage on to future generations and if instead of preserving T R U P’s heritage, in its original context, we permit unfortunate office park and other development inside the park, there will not be a ‘world class park that can achieve the potential sharing this essential Cape heritage environment, to pass on its insight

* The part of T R U Park that is in private ownership since it was sold to PRASA Retirement Fund and then on to ‘Liesbeek Leisure’ is an essential part of T R U P called ‘River Club.’ It is zoned: ‘Open Space’ which is defined most recently in SPLUMA 2013, pg 12 as “a land area set aside (or to be set aside) for use by the community as OCA AH Response to the Revised Draft Scoping Report on The River Club Site 10 February 2017 rev 1b., Observatory C.T 10 Feb 2017 Rev 1 b. a recreation area, irrespective of the ownership of such land”. In other words the fact that the land was sold should have no impact on its status as a land set aside for use by the community as part of the T R U Park.

* River Club is not zoned for private development! It should not be considered a site where the owners may be given permission to build a development that is not to benefit T R U P for community use, approved by TRUP A. - Such development would be accurately considered as ‘an illegitimate expectation’, on the part of the new owner and their developer team of enthusiasts who should know better. - The River Club land is essential heritage land that is part of the park and it is a flood plain, not suitable. - False science is used to justify raising it on fill when the impact will clearly increase the frequency of heavy flooding. Flood level max is at 100 year levels but disruption to community and railways will clearly increase!

There no doubt that T R U Park has a major role to play in that healing of our City but this can never be interpreted as intruding with office parks and residential buildings into the park that should be open to all.

* The statement contained in Item 10.1.2 ‘Character Area’: 1. Statement of Cultural significance is worthy of being repeated verbatim: “T R U P is an outstanding example of a historically evolved landscape extending from pre-colonial times, where the links to the riverine landscape have played a significant and multivalent role in its use”. This extends through into post-colonial history.

* The site as a whole as a whole has the potential for: “commemoration and explanation of the role and rights of the First Nation… their history and struggle.” The entire T R U P is not only of great symbolic value to the First Nation. It remains as the settler’s frontier, where exclusion and the lack understanding, the incapacity to overcome difference and violent aggression teach us to understand what needs to be healed and how much there is to learn about ourselves as we also start to learn about each other’s culture and values.

* The Early farming intrusion with a few steps too close to the river and into other people’s sacred space, was something all suffered and the road to reconcile can be very long. Many of the original first people paid the ultimate price.

* The important recognition of the ‘SAAO hill’ as a Grade one heritage site of national significance, and it would be reasonable to suggest that this should be extended to the entire riverine system within T R U Park because of its significance, historically and as context to the high grade central feature since it is the whole form of this system that is links the early time in the present into the future.

* The ‘Final Frontier’ is to do with defending the green open space that has the required timeless space to link past and future, as we struggle as a planet to protect the balance of nature. - This is given expression by preserve the wetland system within our urban environment, protecting the current significant natural environments as healing places that are interconnected with extended green corridors throughout the area. - The systems need to be enhanced to connect between TMNP, via Kirstenbosch gardens, through T R U Park into the sea. It also needs to upgrade connections via tributaries and wetland spaces, False Bay to Table Bay.

* T R U Park is of great significance as the last substantial open space before the corridor is breached by railways and industrial wastelands that have been built over the original estuary wetland lagoons that was reclaimed and turned into Industrial zones and totally built over as the Central City Business district finally gives way again to the historic heritage green space which remains of the original Gardens set up by the same early farmers who first settled in TRUP area of Observatory ( Boom, Reyniers etc).

* The essential task of TRUP Association is to preserve the park and its biodiversity protecting the park from destructive threats and to ensure the long term sustainable rehabilitated natural open space that has been under a range of threats that include encroaching threats of development, changes to recreation and institutional facilities needing to be balanced with environmental sustainability and heritage protection.

OCA AH Response to the Revised Draft Scoping Report on The River Club Site 10 February 2017 rev 1b., Observatory C.T 10 Feb 2017 Rev 1 b.

* The consultation workshop events held during 2016 saw a strong consensus around the values of not permitting intrusion of unwanted development in the park. - We summarised this by saying the green open spaces and particularly the river basins and flood plains are NO GO for development, the Precincts inside the park should be seen as sensitive zones where minimal development may be discussed according to the needs of the Precinct concerned an in consultation with TRUP Association who need to watch over the quality and interconnectedness of the park as a whole. - The Alexandra Road was seen as a transition ‘activity street’ between what is seen as park and what is seen as fair development opportunity space, in Ndabeni that is underutilised could provide to outskirts of the park.

* It is strongly argued that increased development on well located brown field lands around the park that will be enabled through a clean-up process of creating new access routes and combined new areas of mixed use development around the park which would benefit hugely from T R U Park’s presence in the centre of all the new development action. - The park’s heritage, recreational and institutional qualities could be made more accessible by means of new NMT Linkages through the park and around its edges. This would make it more unified and accessible to all.

* The catalyst impact of the park will also enable and stimulate substantial good quality affordable ‘live- work- play integrated, medium to high density, well located development opportunities around the park. This is from Langa to Athlone, Rosebank, Observatory, Salt River, Cullenberg, Brooklyn, Maitland and beyond.

* The qualities of the park need to extend outwards into the city so that the park is substantially enriched by this accessibility and increased quality of life is upgraded and various facilities can be.

* The previously segregated communities should also enabled to obtain easy access to each other and the park and to share the public open space for our mutual benefit and as a kind of transformative melting pot similar to what happened in the early ‘Waterfront’ days.

* It is essential to insist that the needed new transport routes be directed around the park rather through the park. The majority of paths through the park should be NMT only, with a few minimal exceptions similar to the existing successful pattern of park like development at Kirstenbosch and Green Point Urban Park. T R U P ark needs to have areas restored to pristine quality with no artificially landscaped or hard surfaces.

* It needs to be recognised and accepted as a basic principle that the existing planning policy that protects the green open spaces and the river basins, floodplains etc. These should not be undermined by poorly conceived notions of development inside the park and the existing precincts need to be assisted to link up well so that individual local perceived ‘requirements’ are not permitted to undermine the integrated nature of the park.”

We wait for a properly constituted EIA process on the River Club that clearly needs appropriate alternatives to compare it with. The revised report as submitted by the River Club applicants needs to be objectively assessed by independent professionals and the pro’s and con’s scored in a way that compares it to alternatives that are much less destructive!

It should then be roundly rejected in its current form as a negative impact illegitimate expectation.

We trust that an appropriate balanced proposal will find the light and that what is currently being proposed by the applicant will be clearly rejected as unsatisfactory and full of negative impact.

Kind regards, Yours truly

Marc Turok

For Architectural & Heritage sub-group of Observatory Civic Association.

SCIENTIFIC SERVICES

postal Private Bag X5014 Stellenbosch 7599 physical Assegaaibosch Nature Reserve Jonkershoek website www.capenature.co.za enquiries Rhett Smart telephone +27 21 866 8017 fax +27 21 866 1523

email [email protected]

reference SSD14/2/6/1/4/2/151832etc_mixed use_Observatory

date 14 February 2017

SRK Consulting Postnet Suite 206 Private Bag X18 Rondebosch 7701

Attention: Amy Hill By email: [email protected]

Dear Amy

Revised Scoping Report for the Proposed Redevelopment of the River Club, Observatory, Cape Town (DEA&DP ref. no.: 16/3/3/6/7/2/A7/17/3104/16)

CapeNature would like to thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed development and would like to make the following comments. Please note that our comments only pertain to the biodiversity related impacts and not to the overall desirability of the proposed development.

CapeNature supported the Plan of Study for EIA as included in the Draft Scoping Report, including undertaking the proposed specialist studies, of which the freshwater ecology relates directly to biodiversity and the surface water hydrology indirectly. We did however recommend that an additional specialist study is undertaken to assess the impact on herpetofauna, more specifically the Endangered Western Leopard Toad (Sclerophrys pantherina).

The Plan of Study for EIA has been amended to include a faunal comment, botanical comment and hydrogeological comment to inform the freshwater ecological impact assessment report, which is supported by CapeNature.

Of relevance to the application is the Two Rivers Urban Park (TRUP) development framework. While the TRUP focuses primarily on publicly owned land it does include private land such as the River Club within the framework. It should be ensured that there is consultation in order to align the development proposals as well as the relevant specialist studies. Some of the proposals for the TRUP development framework will impact (mostly positively) on the biodiversity on the River Club property, in particular those aimed at improving the ecological condition of the Black and Liesbeeck Rivers and associated wetlands. Where considered appropriate, the same specialist studies can be utilized for both projects, provided this is accepted by all of the relevant parties.

Terms of reference have been provided for the additional inputs into the freshwater ecology impact assessment. For the faunal input, we would query the terms of reference requiring fieldwork consisting of netting and funnel trapping for tadpoles and using a series of trapping arrays, as this is not considered necessary. While the development proposal may impact on other small mammals, amphibians and reptiles, it is considered highly unlikely that any The Western Cape Nature Conservation Board trading as CapeNature Board Members: Ms Merle McOmbring-Hodges (Chairperson), Dr Colin Johnson (Vice Chairperson), Mr Mervyn Burton, Prof Denver Hendricks, Dr Bruce McKenzie, Adv Mandla Mdludlu, Mr Danie Nel, Prof Aubrey Redlinghuis, Mr Paul Slack, Prof Kamilla Swart-Arries

Species of Conservation Concern within these groups will be affected other than the Western Leopard Toad. Therefore the proposal from CapeNature’s herpetology technician (Atherton de Villiers) is we that this should be changed to estimating abundance using advertisement calls during the breeding season (July – October) at night, as undertaken by an appropriately qualified specialist. Desktop information should suffice for the other species.

In addition to the fieldwork, the specialist undertaking the faunal input should consult with the Western Leopard Toad Conservation Committee in order to obtain all existing data regarding the abundance and distribution of the Western Leopard Toad on the site and surrounding areas. The faunal input should assess the development proposal in relation to the habitat requirements of the species throughout all seasons and provide recommendations. Reference should be made to the draft Biodiversity Management Plan for the species, which includes recommendations for designing developments to be compatible with Western Leopard Toads.

In terms of the botanical comment, CapeNature would be satisfied if the specialist botanical and ecological Scoping Phase input for the TRUP development framework were utilized (given consent), however we would also support undertaking a new study should this option be selected.

A freshwater screening study was undertaken before the initiation of the process and has been included in the Revised Scoping Report. CapeNature supports the contents and findings of the report and we will comment further on the freshwater ecology impact assessment. The freshwater screening study also included an avifaunal study. CapeNature supports the findings of the report and must be used to inform the freshwater ecology impact assessment and the development proposal.

A flood line determination report has also been included in the Revised Scoping Report. CapeNature is aware that there is a difference in the findings of the River Club flood line determination study and the TRUP flood line determination study. CapeNature does not have the expertise to assess the methodology and findings of the flood line determination studies, however the delineation of the flood lines does have an impact on biodiversity. Therefore CapeNature recommends that this must be resolved, and if necessary, a review of the flood line determination study must be undertaken.

The development proposal is more detailed in the Revised Scoping Report compared to the Draft Scoping Report and has included several layout alternatives. It is stated that these are considered the only feasible alternatives. The motivation provided should be assessed by those with relevant expertise. The specialist studies should compare the various alternatives and provide recommendations in the EIA Phase.

In conclusion, CapeNature supports the proposed way forward. We will comment in more detail in the EIA Phase once the freshwater specialist study and associated appendices have been completed. One existing concern however is the flood line determination, which must be resolved prior to the release of the Draft EIA Report and should be used to inform the freshwater ecological impact assessment.

CapeNature reserves the right to revise initial comments and request further information based on any additional information that may be received.

Yours sincerely

Rhett Smart For: Manager (Scientific Services) cc. Atherton de Villiers, CapeNature Keaghan-Leigh Adriaanse, Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning

The Western Cape Nature Conservation Board trading as CapeNature Board Members: Ms Merle McOmbring-Hodges (Chairperson), Dr Colin Johnson (Vice Chairperson), Mr Mervyn Burton, Prof Denver Hendricks, Dr Bruce McKenzie, Adv Mandla Mdludlu, Mr Danie Nel, Prof Aubrey Redlinghuis, Mr Paul Slack, Prof Kamilla Swart-Arries

Hill, Amy

From: [email protected] on behalf of John Measey Sent: 12 January 2017 08:02 AM To: Hill, Amy Subject: Stakeholder Comment Period: Revised Draft Scoping Report for the Proposed Redevelopment of the River Club in Observatory, Cape Town

Dear Amy,

I write with reference to your recent email requesting stakeholders' comments; specifically in relation to my previous comments on the Western Leopard Toad (WLT).

"4.1.10 Terrestrial Ecology The site itself has been completely transformed, and the only ecological function currently provided by terrestrial areas is the provision of corridors for the migration of aquatic species, such as the Western Leopard Toad." I note that you state: "This section has been informed by initial input by a freshwater ecologist." This person appears to be remarkably ill-informed in thinking that the WLT is an "aquatic species". Toads are very terrestrial animals and only return to water to breed.

In my letter to you (1 September 2016), I stressed that these (and other) toads require large areas in order to maintain metapopulations. The importance of this is to stress connectivity between breeding sites. My recommendations were therefore skewed toward discovering whether the Observatory population, which you are proposing to disturb, is in fact isolated.

Your proposed response: "Assess tadpole prevalence by means of netting and funnel-trapping before they metamorphose and leave surrounding wetlands; Deploy a series of trapping arrays (including pitfall and Sherman traps) for small mammals, amphibians and reptiles;"

This simply won't answer the question related to the importance of this population.

Your first suggestion: "assess tadpole prevalence" is simply a waste of time. These toads produce tens of thousands of eggs, but survival of tadpoles is naturally minimal. Thus any assessment of "tadpole prevalence" is quite irrelevant to the key questions surrounding this population.

Your next suggestion: "deploy a series of trapping arrays" is similarly inane. To what purpose are you deploying such arrays? Without any stated purpose, all you can ascertain is presence/absence, to which we already know that the answer is presence.

I seriously question the basis on which your "freshwater ecologist" has made the suggestions which you have produced in your report. None of the suggestions will answer the major questions which I outlined for you, so I bring these to your attention once again:

1. What is the population size of adult Observatory Western Leopard Toads?

2. How many breeding ponds are Observatory Western Leopard Toads using?

3. How much of the proposed development land, and that which would be blocked, is routinely used or traversed by Observatory Western Leopard Toads?

1 4. Is the population of Observatory Western Leopard Toads truly isolated from the rest of the Cape Flats populations?

The answer to each of these questions will rely on directed research, but this is the only way in which to objectively assess the importance, resilience and sustainability of the Observatory population of Western Leopard Toads.

With best wishes,

John Measey

Regional Chair, Southern Africa IUCN SSC Amphibian Specialist Group

John Measey PhD Senior Researcher DST-NRF Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology. email: [email protected] ISI ResearcherID: F-2028-2010 http://john.measey.com Twitter: @AfriHerp

Centre for Invasion Biology, Department of Botany & Zoology, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa

Editor-in-Chief: African Journal of Herpetology http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ther Academic Editor: PeerJ https://peerj.com Associate Editor: Salamandra http://www.salamandra-journal.com/ Associate Editor: BioInvasions Records www.reabic.net/journals/bir/

2 Hill, Amy

From: Richard Andrew Sent: 31 January 2017 12:14 PM To: Olivia Andrews; Hill, Amy Subject: Re: RESPONSE TO RIVER CLUB DEVELOPMENT SCOPING REPORT

Dear Ms Amy Hill

RESPONSE TO RIVER CLUB DEVELOPMENT SCOPING REPORT

· I object to the current development proposal. · The land uses proposed are not appropriate for this site. · The site should be preserved as open space for public use. · I support the Liesbeek Canal to be rehabilitated to mimic a natural watercourse · It is vital that the natural environment is preserved as a matter of priority · There should be minimal paving of natural areas – as this constricts flow of rainwater into the ground which in our time of drought should be a consideration. · The proposal MUST include social housing A mix of residential units should include low cost and subsidised housing. The provision of affordable/social housing is a moral and legal obligation. Only socially progressive densification is justifiable in this part of Cape Town. · The use of grey water at the site for irrigation MUST BE CONSIDERED and implemented (your document says “may”) · On site solar generation MUST BE CONSIDEREDand implemented · The impact on aquatic ecology must be investigated · The impacts be on the Raapenberg Bird Sanctuary Nature Reserve must be investigated · The impact on the Western Leopard Toad must be investigated · The impact on adjacent freshwater and botanical resources must be investigated · The impact of increased traffic in the surrounding area must be investigated.

regards

Richard

Contact Details: Richard Andrew 16 Nuttall Road, Observatory [email protected] (preferred method of communication) 071 870 4073 I am a concerned local resident.

1 Hill, Amy

From: Olivia Andrews Sent: 31 January 2017 09:50 AM To: Hill, Amy Subject: RESPONSE TO RIVER CLUB DEVELOPMENT SCOPING REPORT

Dear Ms Amy Hill

RESPONSE TO RIVER CLUB DEVELOPMENT SCOPING REPORT

Contact Details: Olivia Andrews 16 Nuttall Road, Observatory [email protected] (preferred method of communication) 0837410074 I am a concerned local resident.

1 Hill, Amy

From: Julie Kenney Sent: 01 February 2017 07:21 AM To: Hill, Amy Subject: River club development scoping report

Dear Ms Amy Hill

RESPONSE TO RIVER CLUB DEVELOPMENT SCOPING REPORT

Thanks very much Julie

Contact Details: Julie kenney 6 crown street, Observatory [email protected] (preferred method of communication) 072 370 8285 I am a concerned local resident.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.

1 Hill, Amy

From: Janine Loubser Sent: 31 January 2017 03:28 PM To: Hill, Amy Cc: Waldi dt Subject: Comments on River Club Development EIA and specialist studies

Dear Amy / SRK,

I am a city and regional planner currently working for GAPP Architects ad Urban Designers. Barbara Southworth from GAPP (previously City Think Space) and our team were continuously involved in the conceptualisation and refinement process of the TRUP development framework. We are utterly shocked by the way in which all has been disregarded for the benefits of elitist developers.

We understand that the original frameworks are now being replaced by a LSDF of the CoCT but strongly feel that SRK and the LLPT should have displayed better professional morality through respecting the principles that were put in place for the area after years of research and public participation.

Apart from the complete dismissal of urban development principles embedded in the original documents and proposals for a integrated, accessible TO ALL and locally responsive development, the specialist studies for the EIA also fail to build a proper argument for the flooding precautions and general "loss of sense of place" that will happen once tall buildings will scrape the sky wrapped in freeways. Below my general comments on some statements contained within the BAR Annexures:

· PG 12 of Visual Impact Study states: "The area does not necessarily have an immediately recognisable sense of place. The sense of place is influenced by the rivers, and an “island” of open space in a highly developed urban environment. The Observatory complex and the River Club building, cultural/historical features and visual resources, are distinguishable landmarks on the landscape." The statement is contradictory and not true. Anyone who live or work in this area will be able to describe the "sense of place" in relation to the historical buildings, green open spaces and the community gathering place that the River Club has become. The observed "lack of sense of place" by the consultant does not argue for a development which does not take into consideration the character of the area. High rise buildings and high end developments on this site will not be suitable and will only escalate the sense of "island' that the river can create if not open to the public through a connected broader public open space system. · Page 50 of the Economic Desirability Report states: "Our census data analyses revealed that there is a substantial number of people living within 5 km of the site (over 162 000) who are predominantly young and non-white. This is noteworthy as these people would at least partially underpin the demand for residential and other space on the River Club site." This assumption is very vague and also contradictory as the proposals will certainly NOT include sufficient amounts of affordable housing for this market. Therefore new residential development in the style as the LLPT is known for will only attract middle to upper income categories and will further exacerbate exclusivity and spatial separation in an area of the city currently very sensitive to gentrification.

In General I am not against development on the River Club site but feel very strongly about the fact that development here should not be intrusive of the prominent flooding risks, the sensitive natural habitat, wetland species, surrounding bird sanctuary, the institutional observatory house, valkenburg site and the distinct local neighbourhood character - which is exactly the opposite of what is currently proposed.

I would appreciate it if these comments are not only considered as part of the BAR process but also as general comments to the LLPT group for future use.

1 Regards, Janine

2 Hill, Amy

From: Andrew Massyn Sent: 09 February 2017 09:07 AM To: Hill, Amy Subject: Redevelopment of the River Club Attachments: Suri et al 2016 LUP - Liesbeek catchment birds.pdf

Dear Sirs

Regarding the Revised Draft Scoping report, I wish the following to be noted.

1. The scoping report is not clear on the height of the proposed buildings and where they are to be positioned. At page 53 of the report it mentions buildings of ( 6-10 stories; 4-6 stories and 3-5 stories) However on page 55 it mentions buildings of (2-11 floors; 7 - 8 floors and 2 - 8 floors) Which is it?

2. The Flat sizes are estimated to be between 47 - 77 square meters. (see p.56 of the report) and are estimated to sell at a starting price of R1.5million. This is significantly lower than the average prices of properties in the area. I suggest that the minimum size of any flats be increased to 60 square meters and upwards from there. The pricing could be factored accordingly. This would be more in keeping with the values of properties in the area.

3.It is envisaged that convenience food retailers would be present. Clarity please. McDonalds or Woolworths?

4.Environmental concerns. 4.1.The Liesbeek River is host to approximately 50% of all bird species found in Cape Town. See Suri et al. atached. The environmental study is not comprehensive in this respect. 4.2.Western Leopard Toads. This is the last significant refuge of the Northern Population of the Western Leopard Toad. It is mentioned in the report but there is no comment on how to mitigate the impact of Traffic. We do not want squashed toads. I suggest that the Road engineers are asked to factor in a toad- safety design in particularly the proposed Berkley Rd Extension.

5.Road Traffic: 5.1Appendix B6 and does not take into account that the Berkley Rd Extension will be one of the few crossings of the Black River, linking the Western portion of the City with the Eastern portion. This will significantly increase traffic and should be factored in. 5.2 Toad friendly roads - see above 5.3 Observatory Rd has already been degraded as a result of infrastructure development. The road should be rehabilitated once the Berkley Rd extension is in place.

6 Safety. The building operations are expected to continue for several years. I am advised that during building operations a security camera system will be installed on the premises. I request that the camera system be extended to incorporate the residential areas nearby, in particular, on Ossian Rd, Station Rd, Lower Trill and Cambridge Rds, as these are the routes closest to the Observatory station.

7. Management of the complex on a long term basis. P 74 of the scoping report states that the management of the buildings will devolve to the owners once all the units have been sold. As the development is one area, it would make sense for the developers to create an overarchingl management plan to be put in place which contains minimum standards that all units within the entire complex must adhere to. 1 Sincerely

Andrew Massyn.

Andrew Massyn Attorneys Attorneys and Administrators of Estates Tel: (021) 689 2194 1A Grotto Mews Fax: (021) 689 7455 Grotto Road Rondebosch 7455 DX 6 Rondebosch

2 Hill, Amy

From: Liz Wheeler Sent: 09 February 2017 03:05 PM To: Hill, Amy Subject: FW: River Club Development - revised draft scoping report - comments

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

From: Liz Wheeler [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 08 February 2017 12:42 To: '[email protected]' Subject: River Club Development - revised draft scoping report - comments

From: Mrs E Wheeler If you have any queries please contact me on telephone number: 021-671-4553

Comments on the River Club Development – revised draft scoping report

I fully support the following: A full specialist study be done by an expert herpetologist to be included in the EIA process and that Dr John Measey’s questions are addressed to his satisfaction. SANBI (the South African National Botanical Institute) is to be consulted before any movement of or alteration whatsoever of riparian soil. SANBI is to be informed of the source of any infill prior to its use on the site. Another detailed and up to date freshwater ecology study be done.

Questions: Who identified the River Club as the “gateway site to TRUP”? Was the TRUP association consulted? Will people living in a known flood prone area be covered by insurance? If construction and development go ahead what guarantee will there be that the public will still have access to the rivers and their banks? Have the Khoisan nation been consulted as to what they envisage for the site?

Comments: Detailed plans and diagrams by a reputed expert in the field of rehabilitation of watercourses need to be included in the EIA / Planning Documents and must include a timeline and an agreement to finance the contractors must be signed by the developers.

Systematic urban drainage systems need to be included in any development.

The River Club land is a floodplain and the planned development is grossly overbulked and is certainly not suited to an Urban Park. The proposed development is incompatible with the sense of place and the ecological sensitivity of the area. Refer to Marc Turok’s plan for Scenario C – an alternative proposal.

The term “disturbed area” is misleading. In spite of the mismanagement or lack of management over the years it is of ecological value. It serves as a green corridor and lung for several species. With proper rehabilitation and proper management it would thrive.

1 Raising the land above the 100year foodline needs far more studies. The entire Liesbeek and Greater Salt River catchments must be included. Densification and further building on open land on the Cape Flats will influence the flow patterns. The climate change studies also need to be further considered.

The current main building should not be demolished unless the entire area is to be left open as a floodplain. The building is part of the history of the area.

The Raapenberg Bird Sanctuary is a declared Nature Reserve and must not be disturbed by lighting, noise, pollution or any other disturbance.

If any artefacts are found on site all work around and on the site must cease immediately and the relevant authorities informed. The staff need to be informed about this matter in advance and heavy fines must be enforced if there is any infringement of any kind.

Appendix B1 (yellow page) or E9 (white pages) Issues and Responses Summary 1 Need & Desirability / Land Use (1)What guarentees does the public have that rehabilitation will take place? Enhanced access needs to be defined. It is not possible to enter the Raapenberg Bird Sanctuary (a declared Nature Reserve) from the River Club site. It should only be used by birdwatchers. We need more suitable safe cycle tracks and walkways and reliable public transport not more link roads. Have the first nation people been consulted about about an education centre etc? (1 & 2) The open space serves as an ecological corridor and should not be further compromised. (3) The freshwater habitats still support life. Who identified the River Club as the Gateway to TRUP? Was the TRUP Association consulted? The entire Greater Salt River Catchment needs to be considered. How stable is the land for development when it was used as a dump?

3 Project Description (57) The phrase “publicly accessible” does not imply “access into and use of”.

6 Stormwater (126) Systematic urban drainage systems (SUDS) must be incorporated. A departure for larger storms will surely increase flooding downstream. Who will carry the insurance burden? (129) What is meant by “as far as possible?” If you do not comply surely you will be breaking the law?

12 Traffic & Transport Infrastructure (164) What TRUP are you referring to when you state “view the extension as an important infrastructure project”? The extension of Station Road will have dire results for the recreational users of the park and will effectively cut the area into two. (168) Dualling of the portion of Liesbeek Parkway between Station and Berkley Roads will not improve road traffic flow.

13 Surface Water Hydrology The entire Greater Salt River Catchment needs to be studied and considered. The Elsieskraal and Vygekraal Rivers join the Black which then is joined by the Liesbeek. Development particularly on the Cape Flats could cause flooding and heavy rain over the Tygerberg with high Spring tides could aggrevate the matter.

14 Ecology (218) Neither Raapenberg or the Observatory must be affected by more lighting. More thorough, accurate and up to date reports are needed for the EIA Report.

15 Socio-Economic

2 (266) Loss of open space will certainly impact on society as far as recreation and health are concerned. Only a relatively few will really benefit economically.

16 Heritage (272) The River Club Building is part of the heritage fabric and should be maintained for public use.

22 General / Other (401) The issue of the building of berms without authorisation must be settled before any development proposals are considered. (417) Buffers alongside river corridors should not be in private ownership. (421) Any buildings, big or small, erected in any Urban Park should have green star rating.

Unless your staff intend to work over weekends on projects such as this one please would you consider setting deadlines for 12 midnight on Sundays or 7am on Mondays.

I am a member of the Friends of the Liesbeek, the Wildlife Society of SA, the Western Cape Wetlands Forum, the Historical Society of Cape Town etc

The frog does not drink up the pond in which it lives. Chinese proverb

3 Hill, Amy

From: Jean Ramsay Sent: 09 February 2017 05:01 PM To: Hill, Amy Subject: Stakeholder comment on The Revised Draft Scoping Report for the River Club Development Attachments: Response to The Revised Draft Scoping Report - Riverclub.docx; Observatory Living Area and Breeding Ponds.jpg; Toad_roadkill1.jpg; Toad_roadkill2.jpg

SRK Project Reference 478320 Number:

Stakeholder comment

Please find the attached comments on the endangered Western Leopard toads that inhabit and breed on the River Club land.

Regards

Jean Ramsay

Resident of the South African Astronomical Observatory,

Committee member of TRUP and the Western Leopard Toad Committee please contact via email - [email protected]

1 Hill, Amy

From: Jean Ramsay Sent: 09 February 2017 04:28 PM To: Hill, Amy Subject: Stakeholder comment on The Revised Draft Scoping Report for the RiverClub Development

SRK Project 478320 Reference Number:

Stakeholder comment on The Revised Draft Scoping Report

It is hoped that the public’s input to this development will be taken seriously, as thus far the public participation exercises have been tick-boxing exercises, with the public’s opinions completely ignored. The current public participation exercise being undertaken for the larger TRUP and Ndabeni development should have it's scope increased to include this River Club development, as the proposed developments all affect the same area.

To this end the current processes need to be slowed down, both for a more comprehensive assessment of all development to be done and for the research required to adequately complete the environmental impact assessment to be completed. Once the environmental impact assessment has been written, time needs to be allocated for public comment, all before the various applications for development and rezoning are submitted.

There also still needs to be a more adequate assessment and explanation of the flooding risk, in particular how raising the level of the river club is going to have no effect on the surrounding properties, a conclusion which leaves those of us who live next to the floodplain completely unconvinced as it directly contradicts all other studies that have been done.

Regards

Jean Ramsay resident of the South African Astronomical Observatory, committee member of TRUP and the Western Leopard Toad Committee please contact via email - [email protected]

1 Hill, Amy

From: Biddy Greene Sent: 09 February 2017 05:08 PM To: Hill, Amy Subject: Fw: River Club comments Attachments: DAG River Club Development REVISED DRAFT.docx

Importance: High

SRK Project Reference Number 478320 and the Department of Environmental Affairs references as follows: DEA&DP Reference Number: 16/3/3/6/7/2/A7/17/3104/16; HWC Case Number: 15112504WD1217E; DWS Reference Number: 16/2/7/G22/A/11

Dear Ms Hill

I would like to add my voice to those objecting to the proposed development at the River Club in Observatory.

I know that you will have received numerous detailed objections – with headings such as these: Public Participation Process EIA and the alternatives The Economic Desirability Study Inclusivity Public Open Space Flooding and SPLUMA.

These objections all seem to me to be valid – and in need of almost immediate addressing.

To my mind there’s one (double) reason that’s so strong that it’s a no-brainer: Why build on attractive common land (which also happens to be a flood plain) when all around it is an area (already built on) that is highly suitable for accommodation – and in need of an upgrade?

How does the City answer that?

Yours sincerely Biddy Greene. 1 Perth Road, Observatory, 7925

Disclaimer - University of Cape Town This e-mail is subject to UCT policies and e-mail disclaimer published on our website at http://www.uct.ac.za/about/policies/emaildisclaimer/ or obtainable from +27 21 650 9111. If this e-mail is not related to the business of UCT, it is sent by the sender in an individual capacity. Please report security incidents or abuse via [email protected]

2 1

2017.02.10

SRK Consulting

Attention : Amy Hill [email protected]

Re: PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT OF THE RIVER CLUB, OBSERVATORY (Comment on Draft Scoping Report)

We note with concern the proposed redevelopment of the River Club site, and comment below:

1. We question the process by which this property came into private ownership and would have anticipated some form of public consultation process relating to the transfer of parastatal land being required. 2. Premature process 2.i.We question the timing of this draft Scoping Process in that it is dealing with one of the most critical components of the TRUP area ahead of the City-Provincial TRUP-P(ark) process currently being undertaken. This is of particular concern as, only two weeks ago, we commented on the draft baseline heritage study for the area which ideally should have informed and guided the River Club Heritage Report. A copy of our comment is attached (as Annexure 3) and its content is directly applicable to this comment on the River Club site. 2.ii.It was noted,by a statement made at the presentation on the 1st February, that the proponent has the right to run this process (which we assume is correct) but it puts the authorities in a position where this process can be taken no further without pre-empting their very own process which is aimed at providing the guidelines for the constituent parts of TRUP. . 2.iii.To quote from the peer review report to the HIA study : ‘It is understood that a working group comprising City and WCG officials, and the professional team have agreed on a figure of approximately 137000m2 for the River Club site. The issue then becomes how this bulk could be distributed across the site.’ We find this statement (which was confirmed at the above presentation) to be cause for much concern as the entire TRUP-P process has yet to run a public participation course. 3. Current usage 3i. The proposed site is currently zoned open space 3, and forms a substantial part of the green corridor running the length of the Liesbeek River Valley from Kirstenbosch Gardens to the confluence with the Black River - it’s current use as a golf course does not make a particularly positive contribution to that open space corridor, except visually, but this is seen as a temporary use which does not preclude it from doing so in the future. The current use is not entirely appropriate, but at least does not detract from a visual understanding of the site as a river valley floodplain and marshland (which it historically was). The proposed development will prevent the site from playing this role, and reduce the green corridor to simply the narrow river banks.

4. Inappropriate development Proposal 4i. The development-oriented sections of the Draft Scoping Report endorse the fact that the proponent bought the site (seemingly with encouragement from the relevant City departments) and is intent on pursuing the scale of development proposed on the grounds that at least 140 000m² of leasable bulk would be required for the development to be financially viable. 4ii. No alternative options have been considered as they would ‘not be viable given the need to raise the level of the site out of the 100-year floodline’ and the No-Go option will only be looked at during the EIA stage – and then only in accordance with requirements. 4iii. We consider this non-conciliatory approach to be unhelpfulin attempting to reach an acceptable solution for the site – particularly given that it has very limited development rights in terms of its Special Open Space zoning. Also, to quote from the Good Hope District SDP, ‘New development within the 1:100 year flood line should be subject to formal acknowledgement by the owner of flood risk, and is only permissible where there are existing rights.’ 5. Guideline documents 5.i. A huge amount of effort and time has been put into this project by highly qualified professionals and the product can hardly be faulted in terms of its comprehensiveness. However, while much attention was rightfully paid to quoting extracts from the Provincial and City guideline documents – particularly the SDF and the District SDP – the use of such content was (understandably) very much geared to the support of the development being currently proposed. 5.ii. There are underlying principles and policies in the City’s guideline documents that deal with the basic values of what is and what is not desirable. It is these issues which we feel are being negated by the proposals being put forward. (Attached, as Annexure 1, are a selection of these extracts which we consider ought to be informing investigations into the future usage of the site. Time has not allowed for a more comprehensive list) 6. Heritage 6.i. The lower Liesbeek valley still retains traces of its historic use as a patchwork of farms and farmland. The River Club abuts the old Royal Observatory (now SA Astronomical Observatory), the oldest (Western) scientific institution in the southern hemisphere: recognised as a Grade 1 site of outstanding international significance. The adjacent Valkenberg Hospital also includes important heritage buildings. 6.ii. This is a distinctive cultural landscape which the development as proposed will substantially destroy 6.iii. Notwithstanding the fact that the site was filled in some ninety years ago and the current building has existed on the site since 1939, this manipulation was undertaken In the middle of (not just a riverine corridor) but part of the corridor associated with themid 17th century zone of conflict between colonial establishment and the indigenous herders of the area. (This is referred to extensively in both the TRUP Baseline Heritage Study and in the Heritage section of the current report) 6.iv. Despite its manipulation, the riverine corridor on the site remains a fundamental part of the cultural landscape of the Liesbeek River. We consider the proposal to place the scale of development envisaged right in its path to be contrary to responsible planning, environmental, heritage and urban design practice.

6.v. We have a concern about the fact that the heritage study seems to have taken the development of the site as a given without the guidance that should be derived from the Baseline Heritage Study having run its course. 6.vi. Attached as Annexure 2, is an extract from the heritage study which identified the significant metropolitan-scale heritage resource issues. These informants – particularly those relating to the heritage importance of the cultural landscape and the role of the riverine corridor - have clearly not been carried through to the conclusion that the site should be positively assessed for potential development.

7. Flooding

7.i. It is noted that the flooding study findings that there would be no adverse effect on surrounding areas caused by the lifting of the site level to above the 1:100 year floodline have yet to be subject to peer review. However, this is such a fundamental issue that we can only remain sceptical of its feasibility. 7.ii. With regard to its desirability, we consider this to be a hugely retrogressive step. While multi- disciplinary investigations should be undertaken into the desirability of possibly lifting portions of the site (or berming) to accommodate some uses which would be compatible with the area, the emphasis should lie with attempting to reverse the mistakes of the past and to restoring the site (or the major portion of it) to its intrinsic riverine and wetland role.

8.Urban qualities

We do not feel there is any value in commenting on the form/s of development being proposed other than to re-iterate that we consider both the form and scale of development to be hugelyinappropriate to the site and its context from a visual point of view.

9.Conclusion

9.i. We are left with the strong conviction that what is being proposed is totally out of character for the site and its context. We strongly recommend that the proponent reconsiders the form and scale of development being proposed and, instead, investigate the more appropriate usage of the site. 9.ii. We further recommend that this current process be put on hold pending the guidelines emanating from the TRUP-P(ark) process.

Kind Regards,

Simon Birch

Chairperson, Rosebank & Mowbray Planning and Aesthetics Committee (RAMPAC)

Duly authorised Subcommittee of the Rosebank and Mowbray Civic Association (RMCA)

1 Warwick Street, Gardens, Cape Town 8001. Tel 021 423 3241 [email protected]

Annexure 1 : Extracts from Guiding Documents

City of Cape Town Spatial Development Framework - approved by both the Provincial Minister (of Local Government, Environmental Affairs and Development Planning) and the City Council in 2012.

The public good should prevail over private interests

Cultural landscape (definition) : Sites and landscapes of historical significance, areas of scenic beauty and places of spiritual and/or cultural importance.

It is important that all forward planning initiatives recognize that Cape Town’s natural environment and the uniqueness and amenity that it offers are critical components of the city’s competitive advantage and its service sector-based economy. The protection of the city’s natural environment is therefore not purely a conservation effort, but also a way of ensuring continued investment in the city.

New urban development should be directed towards locations where its impact on critical biodiversity area, water bodies … will be minimised. The value of maintaining well-functioning ecological systems must be recognised.

The City must … promote densification in appropriate locations.

Recognise that an effective Metropolitan Open Space System (MOSS) is essential for the protection of biodiversity … and for ensuring access to recreational opportunities for all

Maximise the benefits of environmental assets while minimizing environmental costs.

Recognise the rich cultural history of Cape Town.

Include cultural values, sites and landscapes of historic significance, area of scenic beauty and places of spiritual importance in planning and decision-making

Table Bay District Spatial Development Plan – also approved in 2012 :

Protect the key resources of environmental and economic value by effectively managing and guiding development towards appropriate areas.

Cape Town’s natural assets and biological diversity are part of what makes Cape Town a unique and desirable place in which to live, work and play.

The recreational functionality and functional integrity and connectivity of ecosystems must be improved, and an interlinking network of linear parks with foot paths and cycle paths should be established to facilitate easy movement of fauna and flora.

Protection of all river systems and associated flood plains and environmental buffers/setbacks.

Promoting the formalisation of the Two Rivers Urban Park as a component of a coast-to-coast green system.

Improve riverine systems : Key water features within the district include the Liesbeek River and Black River as part of the Salt River system …. These form important ‘green corridors’ between the mountains and coastline as well as providing habitats for a rich diversity of terrestrial and aquatic life.

Referring to TRUP : Conserve and enhance ecologically sensitive areas and historically significant sites. Upgrade and rehabilitate degraded open space and ecological systems. Create a high-quality , multifunctional recreational area that forms (part of an ecological system stretching from Table Bay to False Bay.

Annexure 2 : Extracts from River Club HIA (Sections 4.3 and 6.1)

4.3 Site’s heritage resource significance : Metropolitan scale

The site is a significant component of the cultural landscape of Cape Townin terms of the following: •Location adjacent to the Liesbeek and Black Rivers and the role of this area as seasonal grazing land for indigenous herders during pre-colonial period. •Location along Liesbeek River and the role of this fertile and well watered setting in the establishment of the first private land grants and a pattern of agriculture use and permanent settlement •Location between the Liesbeek and Black Rivers where the frontier to the early colonial settlement and a zone of conflict between colonial establishment and the indigenous herders during the mid 17th century. •Location on an island between two river systems adjacent to two major historical ….? (Sites?) •Presence of Institutions of high standing, namely the South African Astronomical Observatory (SAAO) and Valkenberg Hospital; •Landmark quality of the site and the contribution it makes to the vegetated setting of the SAAO. The landmark character provides a visual focus from different parts of the city and major routes (N2, Liesbeek Parkway and M5) towards the site and its adjacent TRUP sites; •The role of the site within the context of Two Rivers Urban Park and as part of a larger green public open network of the city. •Place where the Liesbeek River is permitted to flood

6.1 CONCLUSION The site’s unique character is a combination of the expanse of open landscapes, river frontages, and amenity values., The site has previously been assessed by the CCT and WCG with low development

potential due to its value as an open area within TRUP. However, with engineering works to stop the frequent site floods, development is possible. In addition the current TRUP studies by NM and Associates may potentially offer a new vision , which may include more development on the site and within TRUP.

In terms of heritage design indicators, the site is positively assessed for potential development that addresses its position within TRUP and addresses the historic, aesthetic and social significances. Future development is required to incorporate the site’s landscape qualities that contribute to the immediate and broader context setting. The site’s social, historic and aesthetic values need to be enhanced within a new vision of the site. The HIA Phase One is developed to recommend appropriate heritage design indicators that respond to the site’s significances and characters. Inappropriate development on the site will diminish the cultural significances of the site and TRUP.

Annexure 3 : Comments on TRUP Baseline Heritage Study

2017.01.31

SUN Development

Attention : Sabina Favaro [email protected]

Re: TRUP Draft Baseline Heritage Study

While the study has been extremely well researched and forms an important record of the historical significance of the TRUP area, we have major concerns with regard to the content relating to the River Club site.

From the outset of the study, the physical topography is identified as being of fundamental importance to the historic pattern of usage in the TRUP area. To quote : ‘2.6 Site context : Heritage : The cultural heritage and natural landscapes of the TRUP are closely linked with the cultural landscape and have evolved from the constraints and opportunities presented by the topography and the riverine systems.’

Throughout the study there is consistent reference to the topographic importance of the riverine corridors and the need to respect their importance in terms of the heritage landscape. (To substantiate this, the relevant sections are quoted in the attached Annexure.)

Notwithstanding the above, strongly contradictory statements are made or implied when dealing with the River Club site where there is a clear presumption of future development on the site. In this regard, it should be stressed that the purpose of this Baseline Heritage Study is to inform the future of the various precincts within TRUP. Given that this is still in its draft form, it is considered that the current Draft Scoping Report (and HIA) for the River Club site are premature and should rightfully be held over and properly informed by the finalisation of this Baseline Study.

There is, consequently, serious concern with the following content in the study :

10.8.1 The River Club : Character statement :

To quote …’The hill (Astronomical Observatory) is of exceptional historical and landmark historical significance and is potential(ly) highly sensitive to large scale adjacent developments.’ A more acceptable statement could have read …. highly sensitive to any form of inappropriate land usage.

Referring to the River Club complex, it should have been pointed out that it is subject to repeated flooding which attests to the fact that its location was at odds with the historic pattern of development and its inappropriate response to the topography of the area.

10.10.1 The River Club : Heritage Related Design Informants :

The following design informants are considered to be out of keeping with the views expressed at the outset and further elaborated on in the Annexure. The explicit reference to future development is both premature (in terms of the status of the Draft Scoping Report for the site and the fact that a ‘No Development’ option has not been discounted) and potentially damaging.

‘Development proposals to allow for the retention of open recreational spaces. ‘ ‘Strong emphasis on height and bulk restrictions insofar as they may impact on the Observatory Hill.’‘Height limit of 5 floors above existing (including parking) to be considered as an acceptable height limit.’ ‘Potential for development opportunities to the north of the site ….’

On the basis of the above, we object to the wording and the omissions as referred to and recommend that the Draft Report be revised accordingly.

Kind Regards,

Simon Birch

Chairperson, Rosebank & Mowbray Planning and Aesthetics Committee (RAMPAC)

Duly authorised Subcommittee of the Rosebank and Mowbray Civic Association (RMCA)

1 Warwick Street, Gardens, Cape Town 8001. Tel 021 423 3241 [email protected]

Annexure to RAMPAC comment on TRUP Baseline Heritage Study (January 2017)

In support of our views, we include the following quoted extracts from the report :

6.1.4 : The 2003 TRUP Contextual Framework’s vision …”to rehabilitate, secure and enhance the intrinsic ecological qualities of the area, to conserve the unique cultural landscape … to promote sustainable development.

6.2.1 : City of Cape Town : the IMEP Cultural Heritage Statement : Cultural landscapes : The City will ensure that the cultural landscape is protected and managed as an integral part of development and environmental planning.

10.1.1 : Character statement : The TRUP exists as a topographically unique area defined and surrounded by development, forming part of the “Coast to Coast Greenway”

….. It is a riverine landscape with a dominant topographical quality of shallow hills and crests, extending towards the river corridors and wetlands. The presence of the riverine system, with its strong linear spatial qualities and the openness and visual accessibility of parts of the site, provides a strong sense of visual relief in an urbanised landscape. Its dominant character of hilly crests and valley systems extending towards the lower slopes of Devils Peak, contributes to a strong sense of place.

… Historical development responded to the constraints and opportunities within the river corridors.

…. Consequently, uses and responses to the River corridors have created a cultural landscape …

… In summary, the full site comprises heritage related landscape features as follows : Topography of hills, summits and riverine landscapes set within the riverine basins of the Black and Liesbeek Rivers and against the foothills of the lower mountain slopes. …

11.1 : Heritage Related Design Informants (HRDI) … intention to guide the Development Framework from a heritage perspective.

The purpose of the HRDI is to :

… Retain where possible the open “rural qualities” of the TRUP and direct compact development strategically to less heritage sensitive areas.

… Retain … green corridors where they add to the cultural landscape significance of the site

… To encourage the retention of dominant landmark qualities of heritage sites and cultural landscapes within the TRUP

13.3.5.1 (should be 11.3.5.1) : HRDI’s affecting the River Corridors : (It is noted that no mention is made of the topography needing to be respected.)

Hill, Amy

From: Jonny Gevisser Sent: 09 February 2017 05:27 PM To: Hill, Amy Cc: 'Leslie London'; marcturok Subject: RE: Stakeholder Comment : Revised Draft Scoping Report for the Proposed Redevelopment of the River Club in Observatory, Cape Town

Importance: High

Dear Amy

RE: RK Project Reference Number 478320 and the Department of Environmental Affairs references:- DEA&DP Reference Number: 16/3/3/6/7/2/A7/17/3104/16; HWC Case Number: 15112504WD1217E; DWS Reference Number: 16/2/7/G22/A/11

I am a long-time (over 26 years) resident, home- and business- owner in Observatory. Please receive my responses to the proposed development, above, based on the River Club site being an integral part of our community and thus needing to be accessible, usable, and developed for the benefit of all.

There are at least seven major areas at issue:

1. Public Participation Process

Flaws in the Public Participation process include:

- Failure to advertise consultations properly - Consultation on the 1st Feb was a misnomer: it was poorly facilitated, did not answer residents’ questions, and consultants occupied/misused valuable time merely to repeat what residents knew - Treatment of the River Club in isolation from the TRUP consultations - Misrepresenting the TRUP process so as to appear that there are already decisions made on TRUP which determine how the River Club should be considered - Consultants involved in both TRUP and the River Club coming to their own conclusions about what is good for the developments

2. EIA and the alternatives

- Lack of presentation of meaningful alternatives - Reliance on a flawed property market study to assume that alternatives are not ‘feasible’ - Failure to adhere to DEAT guidelines to ensure alternatives are considered, and that reasons for and against such consideration of alternatives are clearly documented and substantiated – the consultants had accepted the developers’ proposals, hook, line and sinker, and that what was most profitable for them, the proponents, was the only development feasible and, concomitantly, that there was no feasible alternative to consider, despite this being required by law - Failure of the EIA consultants to ensure alternatives were on the table

3. The Economic Desirability Study

1 An Economic Desirability Study was presented that dismissed alternatives and justified their claim ‘by default’. This is disingenous, unethical, and unprofessional as the study is not an economic study at all but rather a study of property investment opportunities - It should consider economic desirability for all the stakeholders not just the developer - It should take account of externalities and of opportunity costs for lost recreation, adverse consequences of the development on local community fabric, and impact on indigenous cultural capital, symbols and traditions 4. Inclusivity

- It is superficial in responding to the need for inclusivity. It dismissed inclusion of social housing as not viable without considering the broader needs of Cape Town nor key development policies - Observatory, as a suburb, has long been a multi-cultural ‘bastion’ and prides itself on its history of inclusivity – culturally, racially, income-wise – and we would like to see this expressed in the River Club precinct too - In order to achieve the rates of returns expected, the target market is going to have to exclude people who cannot afford high purchase prices or rentals 5. Public Open Space

Currently, the River Club site is zoned Public Open Space. Consideration must surely be given to the site’s role in the larger open space and river systems and the need for quality future open spaces, especially given the expected increase in the area’s population. AS OCA has said:

“The proposed site forms a significant part of the open space system within the metropole and is highly accessible. The various spatial policy documents acknoweldge the value and role this property can play with regards to open air recreation and activities. The consideration of the TRUP must therefore be incoroporated into the need and desirablity of the proposed development”

6. Flooding

The in-filling required of the area to avoid the development being flooded will increase flood levels elsewhere in the catchment. Specialists acknowledge this will be between 2 to 4 cm higher than is the case now. The consultants dismissed this as trivial but I believe insufficient consideration has been made about the extensive impacts this is likely to have

7. SPLUMA

The Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act (SPLUMA) of 2013 lists key principles which should guide all development, including spatial justice, spatial sustainability, efficiency and spatial resilience. I believes that the Revised Scoping Report has failed miserably to locate the EIA within these principles.

- by turning land zoned for public use into private property onto which the public may only enter under limited conditions, it fails to address questions of spatial justice - given the uncertainty of the flooding involved, it also fails to address questions of spatial sustainability and resilience.

Please confirm:

1. receipt of this submission 2. that my objections will be registered, investigated, and responded to.

With thanks

2 Jonathan

------Jonathan Gevisser 33 Milton Rd Observatory Cape Town 7925 T: +27-21- 447 5255 Private e: [email protected] Work e: [email protected]

From: Hill, Amy [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 11 January 2017 10:14 AM To: Undisclosed recipients: Subject: Stakeholder Comment Period: Revised Draft Scoping Report for the Proposed Redevelopment of the River Club in Observatory, Cape Town

Dear Registered Stakeholder

Please find attached letter regarding the release of the Revised Draft Scoping Report for the proposed redevelopment of the River Club in Observatory, Cape Town.

Kind regards

Amy Hill BSC (Hons)(Biodiversity and Ecology) Environmental Consultant

SRK Consulting (South Africa) Pty Ltd.

The Administrative Building, Albion Spring, 183 Main Road, Rondebosch, 7700 Post Net Suite #206, Private Bag X18, Rondebosch, 7701

Tel: +27-21-659-3060 ; Fax: +27-21-685-7105 Direct: +27 (0)21 659 3063 Email: [email protected] www.srk.co.za

3 14 Neath Rd Observatory 7925 9th February 2017 Amy Hill SRK Consulting Cape Town

References: SRK Project Reference Number 478320 DEA&DP Reference Number: 16/3/3/6/7/2/A7/17/3104/16 HWC Case Number: 15112504WD1217E DWS Reference Number: 16/2/7/G22/A/11

Dear Ms Hill

Comments on Revised Scoping Report for the River Club

Please find below my comments on the Revised Scoping Report for the River Club.

1. Process: I wish to draw attention to the following concerns I have about the process through which the public participation process has been run. a. I submitted detailed comments on the first version of the Draft Scoping Document on 4th September 2016. My letter was included in the file of comments received (Appendix E 10). However, ONLY ONE of my 11 comments appear to have been addressed in the listing of comments contained in the Analysis of Need and Desirability (Appendix_D). What exactly is the point of submitting comments about how the EIA should be structured if the comments are simply ignored? The consultants might want to disagree with the comments but it is only appropriate (and expected in terms of NEMA) that the comments be documented and responded to. I therefore reiterate the comments contained in my submission of 4th September: i. There is no effort to address alternatives meaningfully in the Scoping Report. This is not only legally mandated but has been raised by numerous residents in their comments to the first draft. Is it inappropriate to ignore such comments. ii. The Draft Report provides a misleading comment implying that the bulk of space in the proposed development will be available for recreational use or retained as open space, when in fact, some of the balance of space will be used for service infrastructure (e.g. roads, parking, stormwater detention etc.).” This gives the impression that recreational use will form a major part of the redevelopment, which is incorrect. The Revised report makes no correction to this statement and continues to pretend that the bulk of the space will be for recreational use or retained as open space when this is not true. iii. The Draft Report relied heavily on an “Economic Desirability report” but did not provide that report for public scrutiny. I raised this as a serious flaw. The report has subsequently been included in the Revised Scoping Report but as I point out below, it is not what it is claimed to be. However, the Analysis of Need and Desirability makes no mention of the fact that the Draft Scoping report relied on this document without making it publicly available. This means that the record of public participation is not correctly reflected – a key document was only made available after the public brought it to the attention of the consultants. The Analysis of Need and Desirability should reflect this correctly. iv. I made a comment that the Draft Scoping report failed to address the need for Social Housing and that ‘More work needs to be done to demonstrate that, in fact, the River Club redevelopment will be “attractive to a wide array of people” not just those in higher socio- economic classes.”’ This comment was totally ignored in the Analysis of Need and Desirability and the revised report is still seriously defective on this issue (see below). v. I made a comment that the Draft Scoping report failed to recognise the threat posed by increased likelihood and extent of flooding affecting the contaminated PRASA site adjacent to the River Club. This comment was totally ignored in the Analysis of Need and Desirability and the revised report is still seriously defective on this issue (see below). vi. I pointed out that the Draft Scoping Report relied on documents that were not in the public domain – for example, the document of the Planning Partners, 2016, titled “The River Club: Planning Policy Report.” This document has not been made available nor is this point noted in the Analysis of Need and Desirability. A linked point is that I noted that multiple statements presenting opinion as fact were made in the Draft Scoping Report that appear to compromise the independence of this report. This is not noted as an issue under the Analysis of Need and Desirability. Note as well that this propensity to present the opinions of consultants as fact was repeated at the consultation held at the River Club on 1st Feb (see below). vii. I pointed out that the hydrology study dealing with flooding was conducted by a consultancy with no experience in modelling flood lines in urban environments and whose main experience related to giving the mining industry advice on how to cope with Acid Mine Drainage, which was not relevant to expertise related to flooding in dense urban environments. It would seem that the consultants did respond to this criticism by appointing a new hydrologist consultant to the team to redo the flood modelling – who then presented new modelling at the meeting of Feb 1st. However, the record in the file of the Analysis of Need and Desirability does not mention this or acknowledge that there were flaws in the original hydrology report. For the record, the process needs to be fairly and accurately recorded if public participation is to mean anything. viii. I raised questions around the likely migration of taxi routes to service the River Club development rather than pedestrians walking up the Main Rd. This has implications for traffic flow. This was not noted in the Analysis of Need and Desirability at all nor addressed in the revision. ix. I raised the problem of misleading the reader with regard to the extent of open and recreational space. The comment in the Draft Scoping Report that “The River Club will be a mixed use precinct within TRUP and will include residential, commercial and retail uses, as well as an abundance of open space” is misleading, since Table 3.1 in the original report is clear that the bulk of development is for buildings or infrastructure support. The Revised Scoping Report provides slightly different figures for the development footprint but none that are materially different to that presented in the Draft Report. x. I pointed out that the Draft report completely ignored the historical role of the TRUP Association and the development plan for the area adopted in 2003. The Analysis of Need and Desirability makes no mention of this background nor acknowledge the community contribution to the TRUP Association. The revised report does not respond to this comment. Indeed, it appeared from the consultative meeting on the 1st February that this was a deliberate attempt to confuse the issue and obliterate previous community-supported work around a development plan for the area officially recognised by the City. xi. The ONLY comment which is recognised in the Analysis of Need and Desirability is my criticism of the lack of attention to heritage. This means that of the 11 substantive comments made, 10 have been ignored in the record. Of these 10 comments, I can discern in the Revised report that revisions have attempted to respond to two of these comments (incompletely); However, that means that the revisions have totally ignored 8 out of the 11 comments made – both by failing to note them in the record and by providing no substantive changes in the revision.

I believe this is a serious flaw in the process of participation and seriously questions the validity of any claims to a fair public participation process under NEMA. b. I was present at the ‘consultative’ meeting held at the River Club on 1st February. I asked at the meeting that the Chair ensure that we do not waste time hearing presentations of material that had already been circulated in the documents so as to leave sufficient time for questions from the community. This was not adhered to by the facilitator who allowed too many consultants to speak for too long. As a result, community members did not have sufficient opportunity to raise question or debate issues of concern.

Moreover, it was clear from the presentations and the way the presentations were made that the consultants had already made up their minds collectively about what was best for both TRUP and the River Club, no matter what the community might say. How is it possible that a consultant, who openly admits to being partial in favour of the proponent’s proposal, can be allowed to get away with turning an opinion into a statement of fact (the ‘TRUP team’ had agreed …), when there is supposed to be an ongoing public participation process unfolding for TRUP? Clearly, it implies this public participation process is just token if the River Club consultants and the “TRUP team” can get together in a private room somewhere, and come to a decision about what bulk is appropriate for the TRUP development and hence for the River Club as well.

This is a travesty of the constitutional right to participation and the principles contained in NEMA which mandate meaningful (not tickbox) participation.

c. I am a member of the Observatory Civic Association committee. The OCA was not notified about the 1st February meeting but only got informed because of other stakeholders who were notified. I see that the list of stakeholders does not include the current Chair of the OCA but rather lists a former chair who is no longer in Observatory and who was chair more than three years ago. I have to ask, what kind of participatory process is SRK running if it is unable to identify who is the current chair of the local Civic Association? Surely an organisation with the resources of SRK can spend a bit of time to do its homework and find out who exactly should be notified in the local civic rather than rely on any outdated list. This is quite simply a sop to the requirement to identify stakeholders if you make no effort to verify from local community informants who is the OCA chair.

In summary, I share the very strong sentiment in the Observatory community, derived from the way consultations have been handled and from the failure to response to earlier inputs, that the participation process has been tokenist and design for regulatory compliance rather than affording community members any meaningful input.

2. Zoning as Open Space for Community Use: The River Club land is currently zoned for Community Use as Open Space. It should be developed within the parameters of that zoning. There are permitted uses possible with consent. The fact that a private entity owns the property does not give it any entitlement to develop the property. It can only be developed should the overall benefit (not private benefit) compensate for any adverse impacts. The Revised Draft Report fails to make this statement of fact clear.

3. Alternatives: Most importantly, the revised draft scoping report trivialises alternatives. The report simply states that “No other activity alternatives (other than the No Go alternative) are considered feasible to the proponent.” This not how an EIA is conducted. The EIA must consider other alternatives, not just what is suitable for the proponent.

The criteria for determining alternatives in any EIA process are well-spelled out in the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism guideline (DEAT, 2004: Criteria for determining Alternatives in EIA, Integrated Environmental Management, Information Series 11, Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT), Pretoria.). These specify criteria to be used in considering alternatives in EIAs. [bold text is my emphasis]

The Role of Various Stakeholders in the Identification and Evaluation of Alternatives is also clearly spelled out in the guideline:

“In order to ensure full disclosure of alternative activities, it is important that various role players contribute to their identification and evaluation.

The role of the public is to assist in the identification of alternatives, particularly where local knowledge is required, be open to the consideration of all reasonable alternatives; and recognise that there is rarely one favoured alternative that suits all stakeholders and that alternatives will be evaluated across a broad range of criteria, including environmental, social and economic aspects.”

It would appear that the Draft Scoping Report does not meet these criteria: No justification is provided in the report for not considering alternatives, let alone rationale for why such alternatives are not “considered feasible to the proponent.”

What did emerge at the Feb 1st meeting is that the driving factor for not considering alternatives is a simple economic argument based on a so-called ‘Economic Desirability’ Report. However, this report is deeply flawed and could not be further from an Economic analysis. It simply claims that the most profitable developmental footprint is the largest developmental footprint without taking into account any externalities or benefits/costs to society or other parties for the proposed development or any alternative. (See below for comment on the Economic Desirability report.)

It would seem that that the environmental practitioner did nothing to encourage the proponent to consider all feasible alternatives – it was simply taken at face value that alternatives are not feasible and are not to be considered.

For example, in my submission, I suggested that “one might have expected a consideration of an alternative to the configuration proposed in which there is greater allocation to recreational opportunities and open space than is proposed by the developers. For example, rather than having a ratio of 5.24 ha for built development and only 1.66 ha for recreational features, a greater allocation to recreational features would materially improve the quality of a proposal and constitute a real alternative that might meet more of the City’s strategic development objectives…” This was simply ignored – both in the revised draft and in the narrative of comments and responses. A number of other submissions also proposed alternatives.

In the narrative of comments and responses, the consultants state that “The respective impacts and benefits of the various feasible [my emphasis] development alternatives (including the No-Go Alternative) will be comparatively assessed during the EIA Phase …” This gives the impression that alternatives will be considered when in fact they are not going to be substantive alternatives, but rather alternative ways to deliver the same development.

4. Economic Desirability Study: The Economic Desirability Study is not an economic study at all. It is a study of opportunities for investment from a property perspective. It is titled “An analysis of the potential of the property market” and authored by a valuator. A study that wanted to make conclusions about economic desirability study would need to take a whole-of-society perspective rather than a property market perspective. The opportunity costs of lost recreation and of adverse consequences of the development on local community fabric are nowhere to be seen in the report. The impact on indigenous cultural symbols and traditions are completely absent in this analysis because they mean nothing to property markets. An Economic Desirability Study should be properly done taking the full costs to society into account, rather than limiting itself to the cost-benefits for the proponent.

The intent of calling the study an Economic Desirability Study appears to be to create a spurious scientific legitimacy for the study based on it being a form of recognised scientific inquiry. However, I struggled to find any evidence that this is an accepted scientific approach. Of the first 10 URL hits of a cursory Google search using the question “what is a Economic Desirability Study”, all of these were URLs are about the River Club development. If the term “Economic Desirability Study” was an established and recognised methodology in the research field, one would have expected some hits other that the River Club. The fact that all were River Club related URLs suggests that it is the consultants who have coined this term. This is further supported by a Google Scholar search on the term “Economic Desirability Study,” which yielded exactly ZERO hits. In other words, there is no such methodology in Economic Costing science as an “Economic Desirability Study.” I believe that it is misleading to use the term and certainly unscientific to base one’s entire assessment of feasibility or non-feasibility of alternatives on such a shaky, unscientific and, likely, partisan methodology.

An Economic Study, whether it is called a “Desirability” study or not, should be properly done taking the full costs to society into account, rather than limiting itself to the cost- benefits for the proponent. It is unacceptable that this highly fraught method, which relies 100% on the perspective of the client, is used to underpin an illegal decision not to consider any substantive alternative to one put forward that maximises the area of the development footprint.

5. Social Housing: The way in which the revised Scoping Report deals with inclusivity and social housing is very superficial. For example, in responding to various policy directives, the Scoping Report, in relation to the need to “promote sustainable, integrated and inclusive housing in the formal and informal markets,” simply dismisses social housing as not viable, because “this is a private development initiative” and “…the cost of servicing the site with water, sewage electricity, road access etc. for social housing would be too high for a private developer.” We are tired of hearing this mantra. If a private developer is going to achieve a windfall, why should the state not regulate a certain proportion of housing units for social housing? This policy has been implemented in other countries without developers finding they are unable to make profits. If, as the draft report states, the development continues by targeting it residential component to households earning more than R15 000 per month, this will not make a dent on the problems facing the most excluded of Cape Town’s residents and will increase inequality and exclusion. The fact that “the developer has undertaken to include a build-to-let tenure option in addition to a build-to-sell option” is unlikely to “open opportunities to a wider sector of the market” in the absence of a social housing commitment, since the rentals will necessarily be too high to allow owners to recoup the costs of their investments.

6. SPLUMA Principles: We believe the Revised Scoping Report has failed to locate the EIA within the principles outlined by SPLUMA. It fails to address questions of spatial justice – by turning land zoned for public use into private property onto which the public may only enter under limited conditions. It ignores the need for social housing. It also fails to address questions of spatial sustainability and resilience given the uncertainty of the flooding involved. Lastly, it most certainly does not address the questions of good administration, as the public meeting illustrated on the 1st February, where an attempt was made to present the TRUP team’s views as final.

7. Toxic contamination: The contamination of the PRASA site across the Liesbeeck remains unaddressed in the Revised report. This is despite OCA member brining to the attention of the consultants in the first round of reports the presence of such contamination. The Open meeting on Feb 1st confirmed that the water level during flooding was likely to be up to 4 cm higher due to the infill required for development at the River Club. This is not an insubstantial difference, even though the geohydrology consultant at the Feb 1st meeting seemed to think so. It may be the levels needed in order to mobilise a range of toxic substances from the top soil at PRASA and, as the water recedes or rises further, resdistributes the toxic material to new sites, thus potentially posing unanticipated health risks to new populations. The Scoping Report must note this risk and examine it carefully in the EIA.

I would like to see the Draft Scoping Report revised before any further steps are taken in the EIA process as it clear this first phase has failed to address my comments nor the majority of other comments made by other stakeholders after the release of the first draft of the Scoping Report. Unless the Draft Scoping Report is based on meaningful participation, the EIA process risks exposing itself to litigatory challenge. I would strongly urge SRK to go back to the drawing board and ensure that a Scoping document is developed that takes seriously community concerns and inputs, rather than one which appears to be shaped to suit the consultants’ interests and views.

Yours sincerely

Leslie London Signed as Observatory Resident and as member of the Large Development Group subcommittee of the Observatory Civic Association Hill, Amy

From: Nina Foley Sent: 10 February 2017 07:43 AM To: Carol Clark; Hill, Amy Subject: Comments on Proposed River Club development Attachments: Untitled 2.pdf

Amy Hill SRK Consulting

Name Nina Foley cell 0765635500 Contact via this email address I have no business connection or any other connection with this project

I am against any building developments on the Two Rivers flood plain:

1) The loss of habitat for water loving birds, many of which are already threatened species. 2) Loss of wetlands for migrating birds which has a global impact on their numbers. 2) The loss of habitat for land animals and animals which use the area as their (now only) corridor 3) Canalisation and raising of building levels destroys river banks where aquatic and semi- aquatic creatures build nests and move from one place to another 4) This area is practically the only 'green space' left in Cape Town. Capetonians are desperately short of spaces for getting out into nature and I believe this area should be improved with this view in mind - to make a natural area where people can breath and take a gentle walk. Not everybody is able for hikes up the steep slopes of the mountain, Kirstenbosch is always unpleasantly packed at weekends: we need more open space to walk in, sit in and enjoy. I know I do! 5) Flood plains are there for a reason - building on a flood plain totally disrupts the balance of nature. 6) Building on flood plains always results in damage to property and with the threat of global warming and rising sea levels, this sort of development is inappropriate. 7) Cape Town should be looking at redeveloping areas and improving building stock not destroying the precious remnants of nature that are left to us.There is so much tatty, poorly maintained, cheap, low density building in Cape Town - places that are an eye-sore to look at and unpleasant to live or work in - these are the places that should be redeveloped.

We humans, and the animals living here, will never get a green lung like the space between the Two Rivers back again.

Nina Foley

-- http://www.fastmail.com - The professional email service

1 Hill, Amy

From: Greenwood Tony Sent: 10 February 2017 09:09 AM To: Hill, Amy Subject: RE: SRK project 478320 - Redevelopment of River Club, Observatory, Cape Town

Good day

In response to the following references: SRK Project Reference Number: 478320 Department of Environmental Affairs References: · DEA&DP Reference Number: 16/3/3/6/7/2/A7/17/3104/16 · HWC Case Number: 15112504WD1217E · DWS Reference Number: 16/2/7/G22/A/11

Below is listed concerns and input based on my layman’s reading as much as I could of the mounds of documentation provided.

· Floodplain - how can displacing all that water not affect the surrounding area? Archimedes would say that the water displaced by the quarter of a million cubic metres of earth that will be brought in and deposited on the site will have to go somewhere - and when the tide is in, the water will have to spread out. · Raising the ground level to above the 100 year flood plain - how will this not affect the surroundings? · Traffic - proposed 500 - 750 extra vehicles for residents + 1700 bays for hotels, offices and conference centre in Phase 1 accessing Liesbeek Parkway and the M5 will create extra pressure on 2 already highly congested roads. Next phases will add even more congestion (evidenced over 3000 parking bays). · Traffic counts cannot possibly be as low as indicated unless these were only for vehicles travelling on Observatory Road and did not include Station Road. As a resident of Observatory, I have seen the traffic jams that occur during peak hours. · Peak time traffic in the conclusion does not match to the number of parking bays required. · No detail in appendix A (traffic count data). · There is no mention of expanding Liesbeek Parkway. I would think this may alleviate a small percentage of the proposed traffic / congestion, should permission to go ahead be granted. · There is no mention of 4 years of heavy construction vehicles accessing the site, with their effect on the road surface and general traffic patterns. A quarter of a million tons of landfill being moved thru Liesbeek Parkway and Observatory Road in the initial stage of the development will not only have an adverse effect on traffic, but also the road surfaces. That road has just been repaired which took months of work. · There is no mention of plans to include the COCT's transport mechanisms (BRT, rail, other?). · Increased municipal income will be partially from my pocket (value increase = rates increase). Increased house value will result in increased rates and will only realised when I sell. · Gateway to TRUP - it is part of TRUP. The only gateway in this development is to allow literally thousands of vehicles in and out of this small piece of land. · Privately owned - if it is part of a CoCT ‘designated open space’, how can this be? Surely this should be public land?

1 · There are references to “potential”, “intends” & “as far as possible” – it would appear that plans are not yet clear or finalised and that changes & deviations could be done to the plan at any point. · There are references to “community interest” – If the community was interested in this development, why are there so many concerns raised by the community? Does anyone in the community care about improved access to the River Club precinct? Will the proposed rehabilitation actually happen? · "Acknowledgement" of inconsistencies is all well and good. What are you going to resolve them? · TRUP - There's too much "urban" and not enough "park" in all the scenarios sketched here. · The proponent - does the proponent want to be known as the person who finally ruined Observatory, even though they were just the last straw? There has been so much development in the area over the last 5 years that it is changing its world renowned reputation as a bohemian student village to a high rise behemoth. · Thank you for the blizzard of documentation. I presume the common man in the Observatory street is meant to be overwhelmed & take your word for it that everything is in order and that all scenarios have been thought through. · Alternatives – o Lower the density of residential and commercial buildings - maybe then there may be less resistance and there would definitely be less traffic. o Move this proposal to the abandoned abattoir part of TRUP - I'm sure the only person who would be against developing that area would be whoever speculatively 'bought' the River Club. It would also redevelop a now defunct area and leave the River Club as part of the Open Space.

Regards

Tony Greenwood | Senior Developer

Team : OMEM CST Solution Delivery Old Mutual Life Assurance Company (SA) Limited Licensed Financial Services Provider

+27 (0) 21 504 9047 (telephone) | +27 (0) 21 504 6194 (fax) Mutualpark, 3D [email protected] (email) www.facebook.com/OldMutualSA | www.twitter.com/OldMutualSA

www.oldmutual.co.za

From: Hill, Amy [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 05 September 2016 07:48 AM To: Greenwood Tony Subject: RE: SRK project 478320 - Redevelopment of River Club, Observatory, Cape Town

Good day

Thank you for your email. I have added you to our stakeholder database for this project which means that you will receive any information regarding the EIA process moving forward.

We have noted your comments below which will be included in the comments and responses report. 2

Kind regards

Amy Hill BSC (Hons)(Biodiversity and Ecology) Environmental Consultant

SRK Consulting (South Africa) Pty Ltd.

The Administrative Building, Albion Spring, 183 Main Road, Rondebosch, 7700 Post Net Suite #206, Private Bag X18, Rondebosch, 7701

Tel: +27-21-659-3060 ; Fax: +27-21-685-7105 Direct: +27 (0)21 659 3063 Email: [email protected] www.srk.co.za

From: Greenwood Tony [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 03 September 2016 12:04 PM To: Hill, Amy Subject: SRK project 478320 - Redevelopment of River Club, Observatory, Cape Town

To whom it may concern I have received detail regarding the proposed redevelopment of the River Club and would like to register as an interested party. As a longtime resident of Observatory and a concerned citizen in general, I have concerns about what has been put forward. These concerns are (but not limited to):

1. Flooding of Lower Observatory as a result of infilling of the development area. I do not believe that the draft proposal paints a realistic picture of the situation having seen first hand what actually happens during heavy rains.

2. The effect of the development on wildlife in the area specific to:

1. Encroaching on the territory of the Leopard toad

2. Destruction of the area used by migratory birds

3. Increase in traffic flow through the Liesbeek Parkway / Station Rd / Observatory Rd intersection.

4. The fact that this area is officially designated as a public open space and is part of a recognised urban park should indicate that the use of the area is 'public' and 'open'. The proposal puts forward private use.

Should issues of densification be considered as part of a development of this precinct, there are far better places within it to apply this. There are areas within Ndabeni that could be considered that do not have such a drastic impact on the environment. Please confirm receipt of this email and that I have been added to the list of interested parties. I can be contacted on this email address or via mobile on 082 334 9177. Regards

Tony Greenwood

3 Senior Developer Emerging Markets IT Old Mutual Life Assurance Company (SA) Limited Licenced Financial Service Provider Office :+27 (0) 21 504 9047 Fax :+27 (0) 21 504 6153 Location: Mutualpark, 3L Email : [email protected] Website : www.oldmutual.co.za Old Mutual (South Africa) Limited is a proudly Level 2 empowerment contributor company in terms of the Financial Sector Code. Please access the link below to view our company’s 2014 BBBEE rating certificate. http://www.oldmutual.co.za/about-us/transformation/black-empowerment/bee-certificates.aspx Please click on the following link to read the Old Mutual legal notice: http://www.oldmutual.co.za/about- us/governance/email-policy.aspx

4 Hill, Amy

From: Tamsen de Beer Sent: 10 February 2017 09:51 AM To: Hill, Amy Subject: Interested and affected party: River Club development comment

Referring to the recent proposed adjustments to the RiverClub development.

I am a resident of Lower Observatory, and want to raise additional concerns around the proposed development of the River Club to those raised in my previous letter to SRK.

1. Traffic congestion I work in Salt River and travel daily to Greenpoint where my child goes to school. The morning journey via Ossian Road, Station road, Lower Main Road, Bowden up to Anzio is a relatively simple albeit indirect path. Currently on Bowden, there is a new block of apartments going up, with its underground parking bay feeding directly out of the building and onto Bowden. Additional apartment blocks are proposed elsewhere in Observatory that will all bring additional vehicles onto Bowden to access Anzio. When we look at what a single development will do to an area, we are limiting our understanding of the real impact. Currently in Observatory, there is a development trend. Why are we looking at each individual development - when we should be looking at the much larger problem created by multiple new developments in a small and historical area. Is development being considered in a cumulative manner? It is not useful to look at the River Club development in isolation - as the cumulative burden on current (historical, narrow, residential) roads is not being considered - but all who live in Observatory will feel it in a very real way.

In the time that I have lived in Observatory (3 years), the traffic congestion travelling out of the city has increased by about 20% - so much so that it is impossible to travel at this time. When I travel home from work in nearby Salt River - a mere 7 minute drive to work in the morning - it takes me 35 to 40 minutes to arrive at my front door. This is because the residential access roads into Observatory - down Milton, along Lower Main, down Station - have become the ‘shortcut’ taken by people living in Rondebosch, Newlands, or wanting to get onto the M5.

People looking to buy at the RiverClub development will not know this. They will discover just how bad the traffic is only when they move in, and have to find their own way through Observatory’s narrow residential roads. Traffic in the area is a massive issue and I have not heard how any of the new developers intends to support the city in alleviating this problem. A financial fee towards co-developing traffic solutions alongside the City should be leveraged. A new development becomes everybody’s problem - except the developers.

2. The obligations of the City: Densification coupled with practical traffic relief I support the city’s densification plans as a means to enable more Cape Townians easier access to their places of work. But if there is densification without practical solutions to the traffic congestion, the only people who benefit are the developers of these new complexes - because the humans remain stuck in traffic, irritable, frustrated, and increasingly exposed to road rage and related road accidents.

Where densification is a city mandate, there must be an obligation to the city for traffic relief to compensate - improved public transport to the southern and northern suburbs, with car parks near access points to the M5 and the N1 should be how we develop areas like Ndabeni / the Foreshore - practical solutions that reduce the requirement for people to sit in their cars bumper to bumper on the highways - or worse, take shortcuts through residential areas, as I experience daily on my “should be short” route home. The land that could be used to relieve traffic, is used for industry and private development. The city needs to look at densification and congestion as two sides of the same coin.

1 The proximity of my house to my place of work was specifically chosen by me as a reason to live in Observatory. If the city does not live up to its end of the bargain, then my quality of life is not commensurate with the rates that I pay - and my rates are only going up as more humans arrive in the Observatory area and require more services - all equally unaware when they purchase their new apartments at the River Club that it’s almost impossible to get in or out of the area at peak traffic times.

There is a train that runs past my house daily and during rush hour, it is crammed full of humans - hanging out of doors, standing on the areas between carriages. Surely there should be more frequent trains? Surely the security along the train line should be upgraded by PRASA? Does PRASA intend to improve the railway service so that the burden of traffic on the roads can be eased? There does not seem to be any indication that this is the case - in fact, as trains are burned and infrastructure stolen, it seems that our public transport services are not matching in any way the city’s stated requirement for densification.

Until the city sees new developments as a reason to put in better services, then developments like the proposed River Club development will only amplify the current problems that existing - and the new - residents experience.

2. Private versus public property It seems to me that a development that could be similar to Greenpoint Park (a combination of public shared space and privately owned space) is instead going to be walled off and made accessible only to those who live there - or go there to spend their money by shopping or eating at restaurants or paying a gym membership fee. This benefits the developers very well, and just a small percentage of Obz residents who will live there. Green point Park is free. And I understand that the River Club and surrounding areas was originally zoned for public access. Why do cities bother to zone areas for public access? Because there is evidence that humans need open space, free recreational areas, escape from their stresses and worries - and that this is a fundamental right of being human and living on a planet that provides all of these things free of charge. This development must be a better combination of public / private space. This is for the greater - and longer lasting - good.

3. Heritage and views The old houses and flood plains of this part of Cape Town are both historical and ecologically valuable - to the city as a whole and to the residents in particular. I understand that significant portions of the wide flood plains created by the confluence of 3 rivers - and a space filled with water when these rivers flood - will now be filed in as part of the development. Does this not signal the end of the wetland? It seems like the choice to develop a private residential area will have implications on the broader community in ways that are not being taken seriously enough. Flooding, environmental destruction, and damage caused to protected species may not have a Rand value to the city. But accessible greenbelt areas play a significant role for humans towards a very precious sense of wellbeing. The consumer culture attitude of walling in public space, limiting access to greenbelts and destroying sensitive areas like a wetland is a classic short-term gain approach. It is essentially short-sighted and benefits far fewer humans than will be practically affected on a day to day basis by compromised access to a recreational area. Of course it poses zero benefit to the birds, bees, insects, frogs, trees or rivers - none of which can write letters of objection.

I see blocks going up along the Bantry Bay, Greenpoint, Seapoint coastline and wonder: what huge fees did those developers have to pay to rob the thousands of people living behind them of their ocean views. And then I realise: why, none at all! The city simply requested densification and hey presto, the value to a human psyche of an ocean view over another’s right to develop a piece of property was overrided. Our mountain view on this side of the mountain is our ocean view. Views matter - they are what makes your home a home. Often, they are the reason you buy one piece of property over another. Short-sighted development for quick gain - when sensitive development is possible - is irreversible and permanently damaging to both buildings and the vistas that give humans a feeling of what life is about , where they have come from, where they are in the world. These feelings contribute to humans’ sense of wellbeing. A peaceful view can change your mental state. We should be developing properties that share the view rather than stealing it.

2 Regards,

Tamsen de Beer

……………………………………………...

TAMSEN DE BEER | CONTENT HEAD PRAEKELT.ORG M: + 27 (0) 72 203 0386 S: tamsendebeer

3 Hill, Amy

From: Rol Hunter Sent: 10 February 2017 10:17 AM To: Hill, Amy Subject: re: SRK ref# 478320 - Comments on revised EIA scoping report, River Club Development

Att: Amy Hill & SRK Consulting,

I write to you to submit my comments on the revised scoping report for the EIA undertaken for the proposed development at the River Club, Observatory (per the below-listed reference numbers):

SRK Project Reference Number 478320

Department of Environmental Affairs references:

DEA&DP Reference Number: 16/3/3/6/7/2/A7/17/3104/16

HWC Case Number: 15112504WD1217E

DWS Reference Number: 16/2/7/G22/A/11

The objections to the abovementioned development are well summarised in the submission that has been produced by the Observatory Community Association (OCA), and I fully support the comments and objections raised by this group. Further to the general submission by the OCA, my own particular concerns that have not been adequately addressed by the EIA nor the process for public participation include inter alia:

- Inadequate and unsatisfactory responses to resident’s questions and objections raised at the community meeting held on 1st February;

- Inadequate and poorly promoted efforts to engage public in a participatory, consultative process (for example, through advertising of consultations);

- Lack of consideration of meaningful alternative options to proposed developments, particularly in the context of the need to respond to the Spatial Land Use and Management Act which requires that new developments adhere to principles of spatial justice, sustainability, efficiency and resilience;

- Superficial consideration and under-estimation of the cultural, recreational and ecological value of the River Club vicinity and the larger Two Rivers Urban Park Area – particularly in the context of visible increases in recreational use of the river area for joggers, dog walkers, cyclists, bird watchers, fishermen, families with young children as a result of recent aesthetic and infrastructural upgrades along Liesbeek Parkway;

- Superficial and unconvincing consideration of the likely impacts of proposed development on frequency and severity of flooding, water erosion, subsidence of roads and pavements, and potential contamination of surface and ground waters as a result of development. This latter point is particularly urgent in the context of low-lying Observatory area, where the higher-lying areas from the train line uphill

1 to Main Road are currently undergoing extensive development and densification – at present, the City of Cape Town has no official estimates or means of tracking the number of additional housing units that are to be added to the Observatory area, and therefore no effective means of forecasting or modelling the likely impact on storm water and sewerage removal systems. The future impact of ongoing densification has not been meaningfully considered in the EIA scoping process.

Kindly consider my comments in addition to those detailed objections raised by the Observatory Community Association, which I endorse and support. Please consider me an Interested Party in matters relating to the proposed development and include me in future communications related to the public participation process.

Many thanks, regards,

Roland Hunter

Norwich Avenue, Observatory

0724370921

2 Hill, Amy

From: pam britt Sent: 10 February 2017 10:49 AM To: Hill, Amy Subject: Stakeholder Comment: Revised Draft Scoping Report for the Redevelopment of the River Club, Observatory, Cape Town

Importance: High

To Whom it May Concern:

RE: COMMENTS ON THE REVISED DRAFT SCOPING REPORT FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE RIVER CLUB, OBSERVATORY, CAPE TOWN

DEA&DP Reference Number: 16/3/3/6/7/2/A7/17/3104/16

HWC Case Number: 15112504WD1217E

DWS Reference Number: 16/2/7/G22/A/11

SRK Project Reference Number 478320

Project Title Redevelopment of the River Club, Observatory, Cape Town

Name Pam Britt Contact Details 12 St Michael's Road, Observatory, 7925 Mobile 076 775 9419 Email [email protected] Preferred method of communication email Interest interested as a resident of Observatory

I submit comments from the perspective of a long time resident of Observatory who is well aware of how the proper management and clearing of the Liesbeeck River has uplifted the area socially and environmentally, notably protecting the habitat of endangered species of plant and animal life. In my opinion, TRUP is an irreplaceable asset to the suburb and to the City, and its current Public Open Space zoning deserves protection from inappropriate development.

My major concerns regarding the proposed development are the following:

· a lack of rigour generally in the planning process including questions about the conduct of the public participation process, the EIA , and the economic study. · issues regarding the socio-economic bias implicit in the design that is not consonant with how Observatorians see themselves and their suburb's character. · the rigidity of positioning the proposal as either/or: the only alternative the developers continue to present is 'no go'. · it cannot be stressed enough that the City is going to need more not less quality public open space as it continues to enact a policy of densification. One need only visit the Green Point Park to understand the role that vibrant public open space plays in the life of a city. TRUP in addition has a unique riverine ecosystem, historical sites, supports a rare plant population, is the habitat of the endangered leopard toad, and is linked to other wetland systems. 1 · anyone who has experienced a flood, whether domestic or natural, will have doubts about the effectiveness of preventing future flooding of the Liesbeeck River by infilling. Infilling will not prevent the river from coming down in flood and all that water will need somewhere to go. · the City's road infrastructure is completely inadequate to cope with existing vehicular traffic and public transport cannot be relied upon (in Observatory that means rail). Any large scale development such as this will put further pressure on a failing system and, in addition, contribute to rising levels of atmospheric pollution.

Please confirm receipt of this email.

Sincerely Pam Britt

12 St Michael's Road Observatory 7925

10 February 2017

RIVER CLUB DEVELOPMENT

OBJECTIONS TO THE REVISED SCOPING REPORT/PRESENTATION AT THE RIVER CLUB on

1 FEBRUARY 2017

The PRRA object to:

1. 3m infilling of the land to reduce the flooding on the property 2. “Initial low intensity plans were not viable” – comment by Jeff Underwood. This is all related to how much profit LLPT and Zenprop want to make. 3. Lack of alternate proposals 4. Proposed 4- 12 storeys when TRUP has recommended only 5 storeys. The retail, office, and residential bulk should be decreased 5. Proposed bulk of 130 000m2 - to make it “financially viable” for the developers. The figures presented are only for the first year that shows a 6:14%. Thereafter the profit would be hugely increased – so it does not necessitate such a vast development. The fact that it costs over R530 million to provide services on the property before development costs – is the owners consequence of purchasing the property for development – and dos not justify developing the property to this huge inappropriate extent. 6. Comment by one of presenters to the effect “that the views don’t count as they are ”are only seen by vehicle” 7. Destruction of such a large open space by such a big footprint. Of the total area, the presenter said a park would be created that is “1/3 size of the Company gardens.” A larger percentage of green open space should be maintained 8. Claim that this size of development is warranted as ”support for TRUP and extra R40 Million of rates it will generate” 9. Huge development close to bird sanctuary, Raapenberg Wetland and in the “green lung” – and to the banks of the river. 10. Destruction of terrestrial and breeding are of the Western Leopard Toad 11. Berkley Road extension to be positioned so close to bird sanctuary. The traffic Engineers can come up with another more suitable position with all the modern design options at their disposal 12. Increased public access to river and bird sanctuary – sometime these places need to be left alone and quieter for the fauna to be left in peace free from continual public interference. 13. All vegetation supports fauna of various kind - not just the “large established trees” that may be retained.

At the presentation and info on the slides – a very strong impression was left that the River Club developers are ignoring and minimising the TRUP guidelines that “don’t suite them” in the quest to develop as much as possible in order to make as much profit as possible.

Findings presented said the land was: ”Degraded but high potential rehab potential; can increase habitat quality, that terrestrial vegetation was important”.

An “appropriate” development is required with a smaller footprint, decreased bulk, maximum 5 storeys as per TRUP guidelines, that preserves more green opens space and gives back to the area in helping to upgrade its rehabilitation potential, increase habitat quality and preserves more of this rare green open lung, leaves the integrity of the river edges without trying to develop them and develops more than 10 m away from the river edges.

River Club developers need to bring their proposal in line with the TRUP public participation process guildeline

A ”walk- about/site visit” should be arranged for all Interest and Affected Parties” to view on the ground where this proposed development will take place.

Carol Clark

On behalf on Pinelands Ratepayers and Residents Association

Hill, Amy

From: trevor lea Sent: 10 February 2017 12:42 PM To: Hill, Amy Cc: Leslie London; [email protected] Subject: Proposed River Club Objection.

I refer to the following proposed development:

SRK Project Reference Number 478320

Department of Environmental Affairs references as follows: DEA&DP Reference Number: 16/3/3/6/7/2/A7/17/3104/16; HWC Case Number: 15112504WD1217E; DWS Reference Number: 16/2/7/G22/A/11

As the owner of 2 properties in Ash street Observatory, and resident since 2000 I believe the proposed development will negatively impact the whole of the Lower Observatory.

Winter downpours frequently result in flooding and in 2013 the River Club experienced severe flooding.

I refer to the report Krige W. G. 2015. Flood Line Determination for the Salt and Liesbeek Rivers at the River Club, Cape Town, Western Cape Province, RSA. Report no. AED0313/2015, Revision 02, African Environmental Development.

This report does not take into account (Phase3 still to be commissioned) the effect of the raising the floodplain by infilling on the the lower residential part of Observatory and access to this region.

For residents living In Lower Observatory the access is limited via Liesbeeck Parkway up into Station road and then into Ossian street and from the South Strubens.

Flooding in the Liesbeeck Parkway and Ossian will restrict access during downpours.

Fir street also floods as storm water forces up out of manhole covers. Fir street and Link road provides the only access from Black River Business Park.

Ossian road is very likely to now be flooded if the River club is raised as flood water backs up due to the damming effect of the Raillway bridge.

There is also the question of liability.

If this report states it will not negatively impact surrounding areas, and it turns out that this is false statement who is liable for the increase risk of flooding, damage to property, increase in insurance risk and the negative impact on property values outside of the proposed development?

I include some photographs demonstrating the effect of a short downpour in 2016-08-21 taken in Fir street, Station Road and Ossian which clearly demonstrate the issues I have outlined.

Regards Trevor Lea

1 17 Ash street Observatory

Fir

Preview attachment WP_20160821_12_13_27_Pro.jpg

The linked image can not be displayed. The file may have been mov ed, ren amed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location.

WP_20160821_12_13_27_Pro.jpg 1.5 MB

Ossian Preview attachment WP_20160821_12_17_14_Pro.jpg

The linked image can not be displayed. The file may have been mov ed, ren amed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location.

WP_20160821_12_17_14_Pro.jpg 1.6 MB

Station Preview attachment WP_20160821_12_19_08_Pro.jpg

The linked image can not be displayed. The file may have been mov ed, ren amed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location.

WP_20160821_12_19_08_Pro.jpg 1.4 MB

2 Hill, Amy

From: Thomas van Heerden Sent: 10 February 2017 01:16 PM To: Hill, Amy Cc: Anine Kriegler Subject: Comments on the Revised Scoping report for the Environmental Impact Assessment for the River Club Development

Dear Amy

I write regarding the River Club Development

SRK Project Reference Number 478320

Department of Environmental Affairs references as follows: DEA&DP Reference Number: 16/3/3/6/7/2/A7/17/3104/16; HWC Case Number: 15112504WD1217E; DWS Reference Number:16/2/7/G22/A/11

I have two concerns I would like to raise regarding Appendix B1, the Surface Water Hydrology report titled Flood Line Determination for the Salt and Liesbeek Rivers at the River Club.

1. The report indicated that global warning had been taken into account when considering the expected rainfall in the catchment areas for the Liesbeek and Salt Rivers. There is no indication that the effect of global warming on sea levels has been considered. Various forecast for the rise in the sea level suggests that an increase of up to 2 meters may occur by 2100, and the IPCC has recommended that planners assume a rise of 1 meter.

As is pointed out in the hydrology report, the Salt River Canal running from the north of the River Club has an elevation of only 1.5 meters above mean sea level (mamsl). Its limited capacity to discharge floodwaters into the Atlantic is going to be dramatically reduced over the coming years. The various figures in the report illustrating the 2-year flood level, the 5- year flood level and so on have been produced using current sea level. Although my home lies outside of the illustrated 100-year flood levels, it is in the partially flooded 4.8 - 6.6 mamsl band, and may well be flooded if the calculations are redone to include the effect of rising sea levels.

I note that there appear to be a large number of residential properties, and the commercial Black River Park, that may be effected in this way.

2. Much of the blame for the current situation is laid on the narrow original construction of the canal, and the bridges and levees in the PRASA railway yard to the north of the river club. It may be economically unfeasible for the canal, or those bridges and levees, to be altered, but they should certainly be maintained. The report notes as much, and also suggests that there is an appropriate bypass route through the PRASA marshalling yard that should be formalised as a system of pipes, canals etc.

What, exactly, are the details of the proposed maintenance and bypass schemes north of the club? I have no confidence in PRASA to perform even the routine maintenance of the trains and lines core to their business. I do not think they will have either the interest or capacity to maintain or install the suggested bypass systems.

The report further points out general neglect of the canal and bridges around the club, and 1 the lack of a coordinated maintenance scheme. Again, if there is development of the River Club I would like to know whether this development includes some plan for canal maintenance.

I look forward to SRK's response to my comments.

Regards, Thomas van Heerden

2 101 Lower Main Road, Observatory, 7925 Cape Town, South Africa

Telephone: +27(21) 448 7886 Facsimile: +27(21) 447 1987 Email: [email protected]

www.dag.org.za

Your Ref:

Our Ref: R Fester, J Horber, V Thomson

10 February 2017

ATT:

SRK CAPE TOWN

Postnet Suite #206

Private Bag X18

Rondebosch

7701

Email: [email protected] and [email protected]

Dear Madam and Sir

RE: SUBMISSION OF COMMENTS ON REVISED DRAFT SCOPING REPORT FOR REDEVELOPMENT OF THE RIVER CLUB, OBSERVATORY, CAPE TOWN / SRK PROJECT REF NO: 478320 DEADP Reference Number: 16/3/3/6/7/2/A7/17/3104/16 (pre-application) HWC Case Number:: 14/12/16/3/3/2/446 DWS Reference Number: 16/2/7/G22/A/11

Directors: R. Edwards / S. Kahanovitz / A. Kumar (Executive Director) / B. Lugulwana / T. Mashologu / T. Mohamed / Q. Nagdee / W. Trout / O. Henwood DAG is a Non-Profit Company without Members: Registration number 1993/006859/08. DAG is a Public Benefit Organisation with South African tax exemption: Registration number 930016961. DAG is also a registered Non-Profit Organisation: Registration number 006-194 NPO.

The following submission represents the view of the Development Action Group (DAG).

DAG was established in 1986, as a non-profit organisation (NPO), registered with the Department of Social Development (registration number: 0069-194 NPO) and incorporated as an association not for gain under Section 21 of the Companies Act 71 of 2008, (registration no: 1993/006859/08) operating in the housing and urban development sector in South Africa. It also operates globally via its membership in the UN-Habitat International Coalition (HIC) and other global networks. It is well-known to government, especially to the National Department of Human Settlements, Western Cape Department of Human Settlements and, Human Settlements Directorate in the City of Cape Town, as a key strategic partner and facilitator of affordable housing delivery and facilitation services in the housing sector. It is by now a well -known and respected non- profit organisation operating in the South African housing sector.

Our objective, as stated in our vision statement, is “the creation of sustainable human settlements through development processes which enable human rights, dignity and equity”. Its mission statement commits it “to create, implement and support community-centred settlement development and advocate for and foster a pro-poor policy environment which addresses economic, social and spatial imbalances.”

The comments in this submission to the REVISED DRAFT SCOPING REPORT (RDSR, Scoping report or “report”) for the proposed REDEVELOPMENT OF THE RIVER CLUB (proposed development or “the development”) are in alignment with the vision and mission statements of DAG.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Revised Draft Scoping Report (RDSR) raised several concerns for DAG in terms of the project’s compliance to and strategic alignment with, the Spatial Planning and Land Use Development Act No. 16 of 2013 (SPLUMA), the Western Cape Land Use Planning Act No. 3 of 2014 (LUPA), the Provincial Spatial Development Framework, 2014 (PSDF), the National Environmental Management Act No. 107 of 1998 (NEMA) and associated legislation.

The proposed redevelopment of the River Club (RC) site dismisses the provision of affordable housing as financially unfeasible for the proponent. This, despite no independent detailed affordable housing study being conducted for the project. By excluding affordable housing, the proposed development cannot be justified as "addressing the specific needs and interests of the community" particularly since population growth and socio-economic analyses presented in the RDSR, indicate that the biggest current and future demand for housing in the area would be for lower-income housing.

From an environmental and planning perspective, the numerous variables regarding future development in the upper reaches of the river catchments affecting the proposed development, as well as assumptions and uncertainties regarding flooding of the site, suggest that a strategic environmental hydrological assessment of the entire catchment region and not just of the Two Rivers Urban Park (TRUP) area, may need to be done to adequately speak to the river dynamics and flooding issues related to the RC site, as well as to future developments along the Liesbeek and Black Rivers. It should be noted that, using the precautionary principle, a 'worst case scenario' model should be used when assessing the cumulative flooding impact from potential future developments in the various feeder catchments.

Under NEMA and several associated pieces of legislation, the effect of the proposed development on endangered and near-endangered faunal species present in the area has not been comprehensively 2 addressed particularly in terms of migration routes and patterns.

The proposed development’s impact on the sense of place and associated historical and cultural significance, with specific reference to the view of the South African Astronomical Observatory to and from Signal Hill, has not been adequately addressed. The cumulative impact of obscuring this view on the tourism industry has also been omitted from the RDSR.

DAG categorically states that no redevelopment of the River Club site should be permitted as proposed in the Revised Draft Scoping Report. Sufficient evidence must be produced through future studies and the proposal of suitable, genuine mitigation measures which should ensuring that it is ecologically, socially and financially viable to redevelop the site.

It is non-negotiable that a proportion of any proposed redevelopment the River Club site be dedicated to affordable housing, in accordance with the guiding principles set out in the Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act 16 of 2013 (SPLUMA), and that holistic sustainable development principles be followed in any such development. In addition, any proposed development must be in accordance with the current Cape Town Spatial Development Framework of 2012 and the Provincial Spatial Development Framework of 2014.

INTRODUCTION

This submission will deal with the following key issues relating to the proposed River Club development:

 Hydrology and Flooding  Ecology  Heritage  The development proposal responses to approved policy  The proponent’s Project Motivation and details thereof

This will be followed by a concluding section where the Development Action Group position on the proposed development detailed in the Revised Draft Scoping Report will be laid out.

HYDROLOGY AND FLOODING

The flooding/inundation of surrounding sites and wetlands is not sufficiently addressed by the raising/infilling of the proposed development site, and the mitigation measures proposed in the report. In fact, more negative ecological issues may result from flooding/inundation of surrounding sites, depending on the duration and frequency.

In section 4.3.6.10 Ground Levels, the report states that “in order to prevent frequent flooding of the site, the proponent proposes to raise the ground level of the site to about the 1:100 year floodline” and that “careful consideration must be given to this aspect in order to retain the heritage value of the site and surrounding areas”. The report recommends indicators that include, to: “Restrict the terrace level to the minimum safe height for habitation above the 1:100 year floodline; • Respect and follow the natural topography of the Liesbeek and Black River valleys when determining terrace heights; • Manipulate ground levels in a series of levels / terraces; • Retain a portion of the site at natural ground level to allow seasonal floods in certain site precincts; and • Design buildings to relate to their site position and levels (e.g. by promoting active interfaces between buildings and open areas)”.

3 However, these indicators have not been discussed anywhere in the report, and the proposed design layout does not take them into account.

The flooding analysis report proposes raising ground levels above the 100-year flood elevation stating it would not impact on flood lines in other areas in the floodplain, contradicts itself since it also states that flood levels or flood lines in these other areas would be reached faster.

In section 3.3.2 Surrounding Land Use, point 1 (page 42) it is stated that the infilling of the site "… will not have any detrimental effects on neighbouring properties …". Will the SKA site be raised as well (since it is not on a crest, as is the SAAO)? The same hydrology report states that flood levels on neighbouring properties will be reached faster, which is a potentially detrimental effect e.g. during a severe storm event or flash flood, this could affect workers at, or visitors to, SKA or SAAO.

Specifically, in section 3.6.12 – Roads (page 65) it is suggested that "site egress during high order floods will be via the proposed Berkley Road Bridge to the west." While this statement seems to be an error, as the proposed Berkley Road Bridge will be to the north of the site, one must question the thinking behind this statement. Why will the egress be in this direction? What about SKA and SAAO during 'high order floods'? This statement seems be an admission that there will in fact be a greater chance of high order floods as a result of the proposed development.

The fill material that will be used to raise the site will be a continuation of the previous artificial degradation of the ecological capacity of the site - so this is a poor idea from an ecological perspective, which will potentially worsen flooding, than if the original floodplain was restored. The restoration of the original floodplain could be an important alternative use for the site, as it would restore the ecological service capacity of the site as a vital flood attention mechanism for the greater Liesbeek and Black River catchments.

In section 4.4.1 Topography (page 77), the report states that the " … low flow velocity of these two rivers (Liesbeek and Black) results in wide flood plains." This raises the question of what will happen to potential silt and material deposition during flood events if the flood plain is reduced by the proposed in-filled site area? Deposition in the river courses could change river ecology as well as that of surrounding wetland areas.

The report does not take sufficient account of climate change factors affecting the proposed development, particularly sea level rise, storm surges and flooding. While the report states that these effects will be dealt with in the EIA phase of the project, the potential for these issues to have an impact on the viability of the proposed development are great, and thus the assertion that raising the site to above the historical 1 in 100 year flood line will mitigate all future possible flooding issues is flawed. These climate change impacts (sea level rise, storm surges and flooding) should have been dealt with more carefully in the Scoping phase, and definitely need to be studied in depth and included in the Environmental Impact Assessment Report, to determine if the proposed development is at all viable and sustainable in its current form. The use of the word "unlikely" in regard to concurrent maximum storm surge and maximum rainfall events indicates that there is a still a possibility of this happening, and it would be prudent to plan for this possible eventuality. The cumulative impact of a rise in sea levels, storm surges and/or maximum rainfall events on surrounding properties (and hence on the CBA which falls within the broader site) have not been assessed.

It was stated in the Specialists Meeting at the River Club on 1 February 2017 that there was a difference in opinion between the recommended setbacks proposed by the freshwater ecologist (35-40m) and those in the proposed development layout ('approximately' 30m). Due to the many uncertainties

4 regarding future development in the upper reaches of the various catchments affecting the development site (which fall out of the TRUP area), as well as variables and uncertainties regarding flooding of the site, we request that the minimum setback distances (of 35-40m) as indicated in the freshwater specialist's report be strictly adhered to. Statements related to the restoration of natural water flow to the Liesbeek River and partial rehabilitation of the Liesbeek Canal are referred to as 'may' be done i.e. are non-committal when compared to setbacks to the interface which 'will' be provided for. We further request that before any approvals for this development are granted, a strategic assessment of cumulative flooding impact from potential future developments in the various catchments feeding into the proposed development site, be considered (applying the precautionary principle, a 'worst case scenario' model should be used).

In section 4.1.7 Hydrology (page 85), it is stated that “if a part of the floodplain upstream of the railway bridges is filled it will not change the flood elevation at that point, provided that the natural flood elevation (i.e. the flood level if the railway bridges did not exist) would not be raised to a point that would exceed the flood elevation at the railway bridges as a result of the infilling (AED, 2015).” In addition the report states here that “the (hydrology) study (conducted by AED) concluded that: • Raising of the River Club to above the current 1:100 year floodline would not increase natural flood levels above those experienced at the railway bridges; • Provided that the PRASA flood “escape route” is maintained, raising of the River Club to above the 1:100 year floodline would not increase flood levels in surrounding areas; and • Flood levels in areas surrounding the site would be reached at a slightly quicker (i.e. no more than 25.6 minutes for a 2-year flood, to 16.9 minutes for a 100-year flood) (AED, 2015).”

The first statement is a problematic assertion as the logic of this argument does not follow, and the assertions made by AED need to be independently verified. This independent verification is now being carried out by Aurecon in a new hydrological study, however the undertaking of this new study was only announced at the Specialists Meeting at the River Club on 1 February 2017 (only 9 days before the deadline for the submission of comments to the RDSR, it must be noted), and it was further admitted at this meeting by the newly appointed Hydrology specialist from Aurecon, that the previous Hydrology report produced by AED contained a number of methodological flaws and inconsistencies in the conclusions it drew. The decision to undertake this new study had not been made known to the public prior to the Specialists Meeting on 1 February 2017, and as such this has resulted in a perception that lip-service is being paid to public disclosure and participation.

In regard to the maintenance of the PRASA flood “escape route”, the land use and future development decisions made by PRASA for this land cannot be predicted. Thus the proviso that this land can act as a future spillway to alleviate increased flooding as a result of the raising of the River Club site, cannot be guaranteed. This is a significant flaw in the proposal. The flood level modeling is probably based on current flood patterns and future predictions. However, climate change scientists have acknowledged that it is becoming increasingly difficult to predict future flood patterns and levels (EPA, 2016).

The report states in section 4.1.7 that "…railway bridges limit the cross-sectional surface area through which floodwaters can flow in the reach of the Salt River canal immediately downstream of the River Club. Floodwaters therefore back-up into the River Club and surrounding areas.” No design plans for the proposed Berkley Road bridges have been offered. If these bridges have supporting structures located in the Black and Liesbeek Rivers, it will further impede water flow by limiting the cross sectional area through which floodwaters can flow. The same principle applies to the proposed new northern and western access bridges to the site, which cross the Liesbeek River at two points. When this issue was raised with the newly appointed hydrologist from Aurecon, that presented the updated Hydrology report at the Specialists Meeting at the River Club on 1 February 2017, he stated that the “intention of the these bridges is to span the rivers completely, with no support piers situated in the rivers that would create an obstruction”. Not only has this design intention not been presented anywhere in the Revised 5 Draft Scoping Report or Specialists Reports, but the potential effect of these bridges in terms of flood modeling has not been stated in the RDSR and the most recent hydrological study released for public consideration (the AED study). In addition, while the Aurecon hydrologist spoke to the issue of piers situated in the rivers, he failed to address the height of these proposed bridges above the predicted future flood levels resulting from the infilling of the River Club site, and what effect the cross sectional openings under these bridges would have on the flooding of the River Club site and surround properties, as well as upstream of the proposed development.

The cumulative impacts of the Berkley Road extension that crosses the Black and Liesbeek Rivers, as well as these two new access bridges, must be determined. It is unclear from the report as to which party is responsible for construction of the whole road/bridge extension, and which party will bear the final legal liability should future flooding occur affecting properties in the greater TRUP area, or if failure of bridges occurs.

In the same section the report goes on to state that " …railway line bridges dictate flood elevations approximately 1.3km upstream …". It appears that the possibility of increased flooding of neighbouring properties such as the SAAO and Raapenberg Bird Sanctuary (which fall within this distance), will be exacerbated by the proposed development, as the low railway line bridges will remain and further impedance of water flow in the area could result from the proposed Berkley Road bridges, northern and western site access bridges together with elevation of the River Club site itself. "Flood levels … would be reached slightly quicker …" and thus increases in flooding rates could be significant in public places such as parking lots where flash flooding may occur. Due to the development of the site and the increase in hard landscaped areas, run-off will increase. This does not appear to have been factored into the flood modeling calculations presented in the report.

The newly appointed hydrologist from Aurecon, that presented the updated Hydrology report at the Specialists Meeting at the River Club on 1 February 2017, could not address the issue of how upstream impacts in the catchments of rivers feeding into the TRUP and River Club area, will affect the proposed development. When challenged directly, the hydrologist stated that "that's for the City of Cape Town to manage". This implies that a strategic environmental assessment (SEA) of the entire catchment region and not just of the TRUP area, may need to be done to adequately speak to the hydrological issues related to the River Club site ...as well as future developments along the Liesbeek and Black Rivers.

ECOLOGY

Selective quoting of the Freshwater ecologist report gives the impression that the River Club site is purely a highly disturbed environment and has an extremely low sensitivity from an ecological perspective. This contradicts page 10 of the same report which mentions near-threatened and endangered fauna, under the heading "important fauna and/or flora", as occurring the within the borders of the broader River Club site.

Use of the phrase "no natural vegetation exists" or similar statements throughout the report are misleading and directly contradict statements made later in the report with reference to indigenous pondweed (Potamogeton pectinatus) and common reed (Phragmites australis). There is natural vegetation nearby in the form of the remaining piece of renosterveld at the North end of the Observatory, which abuts the site boundary and falls within the broader erf (TRUP SDF 2003). This is protected under National Environmental Management Act, No. 107 of 1998 (NEMA). The Table Bay District Plan 2012 (TBDP) also lists the area at the northern end of the site as being natural vegetation The report does acknowledge later on page 90, that "this vegetation type occurs at the SAAO, but no remnants are known to occur at the site (to be confirmed by specialist assessment)." 6

In section 4.1.10 - Terrestrial Ecology, it is stated that the site provides migration corridors for fauna such as the Western Leopard Toad. What migration routes do these animals follow and what will happen to migration patterns during construction and after development? These specifics need to be investigated, as they may certainly have a material impact on the form of future development, if any, that takes place on the site. In section 4.1.12.1 Aquatic Fauna, it is stated that “during most of the year, these animals (Western Leopard Toads) would be vulnerable to activities / developments in terrestrial areas that could affect their safety, health or ability to forage, while during breeding and migratory periods, they would be sensitive to increased traffic in the area between their “nests” and breeding areas, particularly on rainy evenings.” This section clearly indicates that all construction work on the site, as well as the proposed layout of the development, would have a significant negative impact on the endangered Western Leopard Toad. This is a significant negative externality of the development, and furthermore a ground for its current form to be reconsidered.

In addition, the duration and frequency of flooding as a result of the infilling of the site for the proposed development, could severely impact the breeding patterns of this endangered toad. These animals are vulnerable to development in terrestrial areas, as admitted to in the report.

The report does not suggest mitigation measures to protect the sensitive avifaunal habitats or the near- threatened, rare and special species of birds that occur in and around the site, as detailed in section 4.1.12.2 (page 93). The various forms of legislated protection listed in section 4.1.12.2 of the report should preclude the form of development proposed for the site. The importance of these areas is mostly downplayed in the scoping report.

HERITAGE

The project site lies at the confluence of the Liesbeek and Black Rivers but no mention is made in the report of the fact that this area is a Provincial Heritage Site (SAHRA/HWC: 9/2/018/0002/01). The treatment of heritage in the report in general has been glib. Apart from the South African Astronomical Observatory (SAAO), another provincial heritage site relevant to the project area that was also not specifically named or mentioned in the report (with its SAHRA/HWC identifier in parentheses) is the site identified as “Conservation Areas, Observatory, Cape Town” (9/2/018/0243/4) by the South African Heritage Resources Agency (SAHRA).

According to the Two Rivers Urban Park Contextual Framework and Phase 1 Environmental Management Plan - TRUPCF (2003:10), a baseline heritage study was undertaken in TRUP in order to provide guidance for the nature and scale of future development, and that heritage resources "which in their entirety should be retained and enhanced as far as possible" included "the main building of the River Club, and the visual corridor and axial approach from the entrance of the River Club to the building". In addition, the study also assigned this designation to the "Observatory and surrounding historical buildings within their landscape context, and the visual link between the Liesbeek River and Observatory Hill". The proposed development in its current form goes against these recommendations.

The existing River Club Building is heritage protected in terms of the National Heritage Resources Act 25 of 1999, as it was built in 1939 and is thus more than 60 years old. As such permission to demolish must be sought. Is this to be sought as a part of the development proposal? The report is unclear on this.

In reference to the proposed Heritage resource gradings in Cultural Resources Table 4-9 in s. 4.3.5 on p.115, why was the River Club Site not given a Historical heritage grading considering the First Nations and early confrontation heritage, and the importance of the site in this respect (alluded to on p112 and

7 113 (Section 4.3.1) of the report)? This currently intangible and invisible heritage must be made visible and celebrated. The importance of the River Club site for endangered Western Leopard Toads is also ignored as there is no Environmental heritage grading assigned to the site. As such the claim that "the site has been positively assessed by two heritage consultants for potential development which addresses its position within TRUP and addresses the historic, aesthetic and social significances" cannot be made.

The impact of the proposed development on the birdlife of the Raapenberg Bird Sanctuary, and thus the natural heritage of the broader site, has not been investigated or mentioned in this report. Roosting, breeding, foraging, migration and general movement patterns could be affected. This needs to be included in the Scoping report. The importance of the confluence site of the Liesbeek and Black Rivers as "one of the most significant informants of the history of this part of Cape Town" has barely been touched on in this report and certainly not made visible and celebrated to an appropriate degree in the proposed layout for the development.

The vistas through the site have only been accommodated via the open space provided in Layout Alternative 1. The views between the site and Valkenberg will not be maintained by the massing of the buildings in Layout Alternative 1 The view corridor to Devil's Peak does not in fact align with the Liesbeek Canal as stated in section 4.3.6.3 (the view corridor is to the south west of the site, while the canal is aligned to the south). Thus this view corridor is not celebrated and defined in the proposed layout. No celebration of the historic view connection between the SAAO and Signal Hill is evident in the development proposal. In fact the massing that is proposed completely ignores this view. View corridors to, from and through the site from the SAAO have not been respected in the proposed development. While currently only barely visible from Liesbeek Parkway, the SAAO will no longer be visible if the current proposed layout of the development is followed. The views of and across the Raapenberg Bird Sanctuary and the Black River will be mostly obscured by the proposed development, and this is an important visual quality of the site as outlined in section 4.4.2 Visual Quality on p122.

According to the proposal as it stands, very little if any heritage will be celebrated, and in fact, heritage value may be reduced in terms of sense of place and visual impacts on the SAAO with regards to its line of sight to and from Signal Hill in terms of the NHRA No. 25 of 1999 and NEMA No. 107 of 1998. None of the Layout plans account for the view of the SAAO from Signal Hill.

However, there exists a large opportunity for the First Nations and hidden heritage of the site to be revealed and celebrated. Providing affordable housing on the site will go some way to redressing the imbalances created via the conflicts of the past that this site embodies. While there is a passing mention in the report of a proposed “cultural, educational, environmental and heritage” and that “the proponents have engaged a “First Nations” specialist to assist in bringing this to fruition”, this is not a firm commitment, and firmer commitments to these communal facilities need to be made.

THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL RESPONSES TO APPROVED POLICY

Western Cape Provincial Spatial Development Framework (2014)

In terms of the Western Cape Provincial Spatial Development Framework (2014) Policy E3: “Revitalise and strengthen urban space-economies as the engine of growth”, the strategic location of the River Club site within the City needs to be taken full advantage of. As the report makes clear, “it is a highly accessible site located within close proximity to agglomerated places of work such as the CBD and Paarden Eiland, and is also within relatively close proximity to the metropolitan south-east. Moreover,

8 the site is strategically located in relation to existing development corridors (i.e. Voortrekker Road corridor, Main Road corridor and Koeberg Road corridor) and can play an important role in reinforcing and integrating these three mixed use corridors (Planning Partners, 2016).”

This strategic location is particularly relevant as the proposed new Berkley Road extension strengthens the argument that the site should be used for a more metropolitan-level strategic use (for example, affordable housing), than a purely private commercial development. The proposed development does not take full advantage of it's locational potential as a public resource, and a potential beacon of mixed- use and mixed-income housing and development. As a future 'destination place', the current proposed development does not harness the site's existing potential to the fullest extent.

The listed possible impacts of the proposed development are in direct contradiction to policy S1 “Protect, manage and enhance sense of place, cultural and scenic landscapes” and cause a decline and change in aspects mentioned; further it is mentioned that "residual cultural and visual impacts are therefore anticipated". Under policy S3: “Promote compact, mixed use and integrated settlements” it is mentioned that it is 'hoped' that as the TRUP is densified, public transport infrastructure in the area will be upgraded. If the CoCT did not affect the intended extension of Berkley Road, there is no guarantee that significant infrastructure upgrades of e.g. train stations will take place, and that urban design between the stations and the River Club will be given attention, both as claimed in the report in response to these policies. In addition, as stated under policy S3, land is becoming a scarce resource in Cape Town, so why build yet another privately owned high income development - which means accessibility can eventually be controlled - and not rather cater for the broader needs of the community, as well as attempt to respond to the housing crisis in Cape Town.

Cape Town Integrated Development Plan (2012 – 2017)

The CoCT IDP (2012-2017) is built on five key pillars: the opportunity city; the safe city; the caring city; the inclusive city; and the well-run city. The proposed development’s responses to these pillars are discussed below:

“The opportunity city: “...create the economically enabling environment in which investment can grow and jobs can be created.”

The report responds to this by stating that “the proposed development will attract investment into a strategically located site within the City (Planning Partners, 2016). Investment into the site at the scale proposed has potential to benefit both the local economy and the economy of Cape Town as a whole, including the creation of a substantial number of jobs.”

While the proposed development has the potential to attract investment into the site, the benefit to the local economy is overstated, with minimal potential impact on the Cape Town Metro economy as a whole. The potential number of jobs created outside of the construction phase will in all likelihood be minimal, and most of these will probably be low-income service jobs. As such the development will not be conducive to sustained creation of decent jobs in the local area.

The safe city: “Citizens need to be safe in their city.”

Contrary to the statement made in the report, the western edge of TRUP is in fact quite well utilized by cyclists and pedestrians, and while access to TRUP across Liesbeek Parkway is not as easy as could be wished, development of the River Club site would not necessarily improve access. This could be facilitated by a dedicated and traffic light-signaled pedestrian crossing at Station Road, or a lightweight pedestrian bridge that could be designed as a symbol of, and gateway to the site. The current access to 9 the River Club by pedestrians is not impermeable, and a pedestrian walkway along Observatory Road into the site could be built to improve current access. Also, the assertion that this "hostile edge" to TRUP is due to the "presence of two high security institutions, namely Valkenberg Hospital and the SAAO" is misplaced, as these institutions neither form the western edge to TRUP (the Liesbeek River and Liesbeek Parkway do this), nor do their high security levels preclude pedestrians from moving around them and through the site.

Inclusivity and Public Good

The "live, work and play" opportunities of the proposed development will, in reality, only be accessible to middle- and high-income earners, and thus the site will be exclusionary to most residents of Cape Town, contrary to the claims contained in the report. The report is also vague on what the "positive externalities for the rest of TRUP" will be, as the spending-power of the residents and visitors to the River Club cannot currently be harnessed sustainably for benefit of the rest of TRUP, and there is little indication that residents/visitors to the development will move on to visit the rest of the site.

The potential rates and tax income to the City of the proposed development should not cloud the social and cultural value and potential that the site and TRUP has to act as an integrative and re-distributive force in the city. Purely commercially-driven private development of such a strategic site should be mitigated in favour of a development alternative that has broader socio-economic public good and that can contribute to furthering the cause of spatial justice in the city. The business-as-usual approach of promoting purely commercial private development, and using these substantial revenues to fund social housing and infrastructure provision on the urban periphery leads only to further entrenchment of the current unjust spatial form of the city of Cape Town.

Cape Town Spatial Development Framework (2012)

Key Strategy 1: “The City will plan for employment and support economic growth by responding appropriately to the spatial needs and requirements of the economic sectors that are attracted to and function within Cape Town”

The claims made in the report as to the ability of the proposed development to cater to the spatial needs of "all" of the City's economic sub-sectors is greatly exaggerated, as e.g. large offices or warehousing will not be able to be accommodated on the small portion of the site allocated to these uses. Also, there is a contradiction as at this point in the report, the SAAO is stated as a cultural attraction, while previously in the report it was considered "hostile".

While the specialist report on the potential of the property market in relation to the River Club is appended to the Revised Draft Scoping Report, office space demand and vacancies have not been touched on in this section responding to the Cape Town SDF. The office space demand of the area surrounding the River Club has been overstated. As the specialist report acknowledges, there will be “a sideways trend in real office and industrial rentals over our six-year forecast period (2015-2020)”.

The specialist report discusses in detail the office space demand in the Pinelands node, however it makes no mention of the vacancy rate in the Black River Park and other more direct competitors for office space in the immediate surrounds of the River Club site. It also makes much mention of the well- performing Century City and Cape Town CBD office nodes, but does not discuss how these will affect the office demand in the proposed River Club development.

10 For these reasons, the viability of office space on the portion of the site on the northern boundary abutting the proposed Berkley Road extension that is currently identified for this use is put into question. Better use of this portion of the site could be made by a mix of housing options, including a substantial element of affordable housing.

Key Strategy 3: Furthermore, by intensifying development on the land and introducing a greater mix of land uses into the River Club precinct, more people will be drawn into the TRUP domain on a more regular basis (Planning Partners, 2016). The effect will be that TRUP will become more inclusive, better integrated and more vibrant (Planning Partners, 2016). Although the River Club will be welcoming of a wide variety of people, it is a commercial reality that the residential component will not be accessible to low income earners.

This is a fallacious argument as the minimal intensification and mix of land uses proposed, will not necessarily lead to drawing more people to TRUP regularly, and as the private, commercial, and higher income nature of the development will in fact lead to less inclusivity, integration and vibrancy than the site currently accommodates. Only social and communal facilities and a mix of incomes on the site will go towards creating better inclusivity, integration and vibrancy in TRUP. Further, the claim that the River Club will be "welcoming of a wide variety of people", is not borne out by the exclusionary reality of developments of a similar nature, an opinion put forward by a number of well-respected public figures. For a prime example of this phenomenon, see independent researcher Andrew Fleming quoted in the Mail & Guardian, Mandela Washington Fellow Andrew Ihsaan Gasnolar in the Daily Maverick, and Raymond Joseph in the Guardian UK – see details of these in the References section at the end of this submission). Social and affordable housing may be found to be economically feasible, given careful study, design and management, so it cannot be stated as fact that "it is a commercial reality that the residential component will not be accessible to low income earners."

Extract of Cape Town SDF (Map) – p19

The map that is labeled "Extract of Cape Town SDF" contains errors. There is in fact no landfill buffer zone around the Athlone Transfer Station, so this is an error of the report, but gives the impression that the Athlone Power Station site is off-limits to development as a part of a continuous green lung and socio-economic corridor that includes the River Club and TRUP site. Also, the River Club site itself is marked as "urban development" which is incorrect as the Cape Town SDF and Table Bay District Plan in fact designate the site as Open Space, Core 2 and Buffer 1, as the report itself alludes to later under the Table Bay District Plan section (p20-21). p20-21 2.2.4 Table Bay District Plan (2012) Sub-district 3: TRUP/ Salt River/ Observatory / Paarden Eiland

The River Club site does in fact not fall within any intensification zone listed in the Table Bay District Plan of 2012 (TBDP), or within a mixed-use zone indicated on the plan. Thus the proposed plans for development are not in alignment with the TBDP.

Plan for a class 2 cycle facility along the future Berkley Road extension.

This suggests that the City is intending this route to function as a public mobility route and hence any development along this route should be more publicly orientated and less private- and commercially- driven. As such the proposed development in its current form does not fulfill this possibility, and a more mixed-income development with publicly accessible spaces, commercial activities and facilities would better serve this potential.

11 As the TRUP Local Area Spatial Development Framework is currently in the process of being reviewed, it would be premature to allow any departures from the current land uses designated in the Table Bay District Plan (2012) until such time as the TRUP Local Area Spatial Development Framework has been finalised and approved, and its harmonisation with the District Plan has been ascertained.

The City of Cape Town Environmental Management Framework (2012)

The report states that according to the CEMF, the Raapenberg Wetland and the original course of the Liesbeek River are listed as conservation and Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBAs) areas, and that the River Club site is listed as a "Structuring Open Space which forms part of the Coast to Coast Greenway". It further states that "portions of the site, the PRASA site, the SAAO and Valkenberg are listed as “existing special areas” from a cultural perspective." However, the report offers few arguments or mitigation measures that would address these issues. Further, both the CEMF and the Cape Town SDF recognise the site as part of a larger structuring open space system for public amenity, and this fact is conveniently sidestepped by the report.

Two Rivers Urban Park Contextual Framework and Phase 1 Environmental Management Plan (2003)

The report acknowledges that "the current development proposal for the River Club is not consistent with a number of the principles and guidelines outlined in the TRUPCF and would be a departure from policy currently associated with the site (Planning Partners, 2016)". Thus it would be premature to approve the proposed development until the new TRUP Local Area Spatial Development Framework has been finalized and approved, as stated above.

Cape Town Densification Policy (2012)

The report states that "a range of employment opportunities exist within the local area,…industrial, commercial, retail and institutional" and that this "excludes the additional employment opportunities that will be provide within the River Club development, as well as the other ongoing projects within TRUP." However, at other points in the report, it is admitted that the target market for the residential component of the proposed development is not the affordable housing segment, and thus future residents will probably not be employed in the immediate TRUP area surrounding the site. The report also states that there are "various amenities in the local area, including numerous education, health and recreational facilities". In all likelihood however, a minimal number of jobs will be created by the proposed development, and most of these will be low-income service jobs.

p26: The Densification Policy suggests that densities surrounding activity routes should be in the range of 100-375 du/ha in buildings anywhere between 4 and 15 storeys (CoCT, 2012). The River Club development can help to contribute to the density thresholds required in order to make the activity routes function optimally.

The locational attributes of the River Club site, namely that it is close to economic opportunities, social amenities and future BRT routes, means that better use of the site can be made than that proposed in the development application. Affordable housing on the site would allow for better access to the employment opportunities and social amenities of the area for lower income residents. With the allowable densities on this site, the proposed density of 35 dwelling units/ha could be increased to closer to 70du/ha, which would not only contribute to greater feasibility for including affordable housing in the development, but also contribute to higher demand levels and improved financial viability for the 12 future BRT routes planned to run near the site. Minibus taxis would also respond to this increased demand, and would further improve the accessibility of the site, as well as improve surveillance and security of the site. As stated above, the provision of affordable housing on the site would further enhance the advantages of increased density, which would outweigh the current proposal's conservative density and middle-income focus.

Description of the Project Area (page 35)

Portion 2 of Erf 151833 Cape Town (5 349 m2). Owned by the National Research Foundation, this portion of land has been earmarked to accommodate the new SKA building Erf 26426 Cape Town (5 092 m2) and Erf 26427 Cape Town (509 m2) both owned by the City of Cape Town

Portion 2 of Erf 151833 Cape Town (5 349 m2) is not marked on the map on p36 For both Erf 26426 and Erf 26427 it is stated that "an application to lease / purchase this land will be submitted to the COCT's Property Management Department." Who will be making this application? It is hoped that the City will not continue to divest it's assets along riparian habitats making control and management of these regions more difficult for the State under whose trusteeship this water resource falls (NWA No. 36 of 1998)

PROPONENT’S PROJECT MOTIVATION AND DETAILS THEREOF

Quotes of sections in the Proponent’s Project Motivation section and the details concerned, with our response to each of these details, follows (quotes from the report in italics):

In the Proponent’s Project Motivation section of the report (p42), it is stated that ”..the River Club is considered a “Catalyst Project that is to be used to implement the SDF Concept Plan for the greater TRUP, together with the SKA HQ’s and the Cape Health Technology Park (CHTP)” (CoCT comment on Draft Scoping report). “

This is an erroneous claim as TRUP as a whole, and not the River Club itself, is identified as a Catalytic Urban Development Project in the City of Cape Town Built Environment Performance Plan (BEPP) 2015- 16, and certainly not in the current MSDF. As such an independent feasibility study is required to determine the degree to which the River Club site can function as a catalyst in the TRUP and the greater Metro. Also, as the TRUP LSDF review process is currently underway, it would be premature to consider the River Club site for development until this LSDF has been finalized and adopted.

Furthermore, the site is also privately owned (by the proponent) and is strategically located close to the CBD with good access to major road and rail transport routes. The proponent notes that few (if any) other opportunities exist this close to the CBD for a mixed-use development such as the one proposed.

This particularly makes the case for a more accessible and socially sustainable use of the site, including affordable housing, public facilities and spaces. Lower income residents of Cape Town are still spending up to 50% of their income on transport to places of employment, so this site offers an opportunity to provide better located housing close to the Cape Town city centre and places of employment in Salt River and Maitland. It is vital for a broader cross section of the community to be able to live, work and recreate on the site. The greater TRUP area has a history of public recreation, and if it is to be developed then it should have as public a component as possible.

13 In addition, the claim by the proponent that "few (if any) other opportunities exist this close to the CBD for a mixed-use development such as the one proposed" is erroneous as the City itself has identified Catalytic Urban Projects and Urban Restructuring zones in the current SDF and BEPP that are on sites ideally suited for mixed-use development and close to the City centre. These include sites in Woodstock and Salt River, District Six, the Foreshore and greater Culemborg area, as well as the old Conradie Hospital site that falls just outside the TRUP area.

As part of the Proponent’s Project Motivation (p42), it is claimed that “the LLPT plan to:.

Promote densification in a derelict, unattractive and unsafe part of the City;

This statement has not been backed up with evidence.

Reduce the consumption of non-renewable fuels by lessening car dependence over the medium to long term (through the creation of a live, work, play development in close proximity to communities that will gain utility from the development and seek employment at the development);

How can it be claimed that local communities will gain utility form the development? How can it be claimed there will be anything but a minimum of low-wage service level jobs created through the development?

Enhance the quality and value of ecological corridors;

How will the proposed rehabilitation guarantee this? Despite the fact corridors on the proposed site are considered degraded, they still provide open space for the endangered Western Leopard Toad who spend much of their non-breeding time moving and foraging in terrestrial areas out of the wetland environment. The freshwater ecologist report repeatedly highlights concerns of increased human disturbance on this endangered vertebrate as well as other important fauna and flora . How will the value of the ecological corridor be enhanced if the development reduces corridor/undeveloped open space to less than half of its current size and the planned open space that will be provided exposes this endangered vertebrate to the risk of human/vehicle interaction and thoroughfare? How will the proposed rehabilitation guarantee enhancement of the quality of the corridors since much of the rehabilitation success depends on upstream water use and quality management?

In regard to all of the above project motivations, how will the proponent be held to the promises made in this section (which are far reaching in their aims)?

With further regard to the proponent’s project motivation, the following is stated on page 43 of the report:

“The proponent motivates that in order to realise the development (i.e. raise the site above the 1:100 year floodline, build the Berkley Road extension over the Black River to the site, build internal roads and landscape, and service the site), at least 140 000 m2 of bulk leasable area is required for the development to be financially viable – that rentals are competitive in the market (see Appendix C). Furthermore, the more bulk that can be provided, the more affordable property at the development will be, and this will assist in promoting inclusivity (i.e. not only accessible to high income earners). The discontinuation of commercial activities and the conversion of the site for low intensity use, as has been suggested by a number of stakeholders, is also not financially viable to the proponent”

While it may be possible that at least 140 000 m2 of bulk leasable area is required for the development to be financially viable, this opinion is presented as fact, and the rentals can still be competitive in the 14 market, if affordable housing is cross-subsidized by the market-rate housing provided, thus improving the inclusivity of the development. The viability claims by the proponent must be backed up by evidence (calculations open to view and assessment by City of Cape Town planning officials), as per international precedent (cf. Section 106 of the London planning regulations, as quoted in Wainwright, 2015)

It is further claimed on page 43 that:

“The company (Indigo Properties) has always sought to involve local talent, businesses and communities and create urban space where people of all cultures come together. The LLPT aim to embrace this ethos by creating a diverse mixed use precinct that is an asset for the people of Cape Town. In this regard, the LLPT’s goal is to create a lasting legacy, create job opportunities, commercial enterprise and a space for people of all cultures to live and work, which is open to the community for safe recreational activities through the creation of a financially sustainable development.”

These claims are not borne out by the reality developments of a similar nature, an opinion put forward by a number of well-respected public figures, as mentioned earlier in this submission, as mainly local high-end art and craft businesses and creative media have been accommodated at these developments, and the original residents of areas surrounding these developments have been effectively excluded. These public figures claim that the access control enforced at these developments actively profiles visitors and denies a broad spectrum of the population access. The claimed goal of the proposed River Club development of “creating a lasting legacy” is not borne out by the predominantly commercial aspect of the proposed development: there will in all likelihood be limited low-level job creation, and as stated above, there will be little "space for people of all cultures to live and work" (the words of the proponent). The limits to the openness of the proposed development to the community are evident, and the use of the phrase "safe recreational activities" further compounds the impression that access control will result in similar exclusion at this proposed development as that opined to occur at developments of a similar nature in the Salt River and Woodstock areas. The development could also serve as a catalyst for gentrification of the greater TRUP area, with the exclusion and marginalization that this process has come to embody. p43 3.4.1 - "… through the creation of a financially sustainable development."

Sustainable development includes financial, social and environmental considerations and not just financial sustainability, and this emphasis in the report on financial sustainability is indicative of a private entity i.e. the proponent, pushing their own agenda to make a profit at all costs which is in direct violation of the City of Cape Town's constitutional responsibility viz. " ... to secure ecologically sustainable development and the use of natural resources while promoting justifiable economic and social development." [The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, No. 106 of 1997, s.24 (a) and (b)]

Project Alternatives

In section (3.5), its is stated:

“Note that by developing the site predominantly for residential, commercial and retail uses, other development alternatives will be foregone. However, as the site is privately owned, it is reasonable that the proponents only consider development alternatives that are financially viable (see Section 3.4 and Appendix C) - including the No Go Alternative – in this case the continued operation of the site as a golf and conference facility). In this sense, there are no “opportunities” for the development of alternatives that are not feasible to the proponent, and forgoing these alternatives cannot be seen as an opportunity cost to society. The opportunity costs of a) development alternatives (as compared to the No Go 15 Alternative), and b) the No Go Alternative (as compared to feasible development alternatives) will be assessed in the EIA Phase.”

The financial viability of project alternatives must be looked into with more detail before any can be excluded. Furthermore, the opportunity cost to society must considered more carefully in all alternatives (as well as feasibility), and it cannot be claimed that there are no “opportunities” for the development of alternatives that are not feasible to the proponent. p49 3.5.4.1 Layout Alternative 1 Although it is acknowledged by the proponent that more fragmentation of the southern precinct has been assessed to be desirable from a visual and heritage perspective, the proponent has advised that fragmented retail spaces have a far lower commercial potential; and that easily definable pathways to major tenants is desirable. The proponent further maintains that the retail and residential components of the development must be located in the southern precinct, away from what will in the future be the busy Berkley Road link between Maitland and Woodstock.

This Layout Alternative depends on a outdoor mall-type setting, however this development does not need to take this form, but can be a collection of shops that complement each other, without a major anchor tenant. Retail and residential can be accommodated on busy roads, and there are numerous local and international examples of this. Social housing and diverse small scale retail would be ideal on this northern edge. Layout 1 is the best alternative, with the addition of affordable housing on the northern Berkeley Road edge. It is the most nuanced, involves the most public space and involves the rehabilitation of the Liesbeek Canal What other form of development could the site take that will still link across and through it, but not as the current proposed form? None of the Layout plans account for the view of the SAAO from Signal Hill. p53 3.5.5 "…it is also assumed that the best practicable solution …"

It can often be the case in development proposals that many promises of sustainability are made or assumed which never come to fruition, to the detriment of underprivileged surrounding communities and the environment. It is requested that part of the detailed feasibility and design studies for this development include independent sustainability assessments that consider not just financial sustainability but also environmental and especially social/governance issues as well. In the long term this makes economic sense as many large companies are moving towards holistic sustainable development. Opportunities for buy-in to sustainable projects as part of the proposed River Club development will be an attraction to future leasees.

p56 "Only limited infrastructure (e.g. stormwater attenuation and …) …"

What type of stormwater attenuation methods will be installed? Where will the outfall/flow of the attenuated stormwater be? Should not be too close to the Bird Sanctuary or other neighbouring wetland areas, should also not be close to the interface between gabions and concrete canal since this could cause erosion.

p56. Retail: mix will be focused around a lifestyle/ health and sports theme anchored by convenience food retailers. The balance of the retail offering will consist of typical line shops as well restaurants, food and beverage outlets and a gym in keeping with the tenant mix focus.

Why is there a lifestyle/ health and sports theme, as the RC building is proposed to be demolished, so there will be no existing health and sports facility on the site. Why can the retail mix not be more accessible and have a broader range of retailers to cater to more mixed income customers? No overt theme or focus is needed.

Associated Uses: Uses associated with the above are also possible such as community facilities and schools. In addition to the buildings listed above, a cultural, educational, environmental and heritage center is proposed. The proponents have engaged a “First Nations” specialist to assist in bringing this to fruition.

These are steps in the right direction, but firmer commitments to these communal facilities need to be made.

3.6.2 Parking

These parking ratios are only guidelines, and with detailed design, the parking provision can be minimized in favour of more GLA that would allow for more affordable housing on site and improved feasibility. page 57 point 3.6.2 - "Seepage water will be pumped into detention ponds and then discharged into adjacent water courses."

Provision must be made for oil traps/fuel spillage traps to prevent contamination of water courses. Discharge into adjacent water courses must also be managed in terms of discharge points, flow rate and volumes. page 64 point 3.6.9 - Stormwater Infrastructure

It should be noted that there will likely be increased runoff and less recharge of groundwater system due to developed areas. The proponent appears uncommitted to City of Cape Town and Provincial requirements, since words likes 'intends' and 'as far as possible' are used with regards to stormwater management practices. page 65 point 3.6.11 - Sewage "… proposed that a sewage pump station and retention facility be constructed …"

Where will this facility be located and will this increase the site footprint? No mention of odour as an air pollution or a potential nuisance factor has been made anywhere in the report. point 3.8.2 - Noise and Vibration

No mention is made of potential noise and vibration impacts on fauna in neighbouring areas particularly the wetlands. Construction should not be allowed to adversely impact breeding of various fauna. page 68 point 3.8.4 - Water Supply

The report gives the impression that clean municipal water will be used for dust suppression and compaction of fill material. It is a poor water management practice to use clean potable water for a dirty function, as such it is economically and environmentally unsound.

17 p70 3.9.1 Occupation of the Site Retail tenants will vary but preference will be given to the sports/health and lifestyle (active) sector. Other tenants may include: • A gymnasium; • A hotel group; and • Local community facilities such as places of education (crèches etc.). Open spaces and recreational facilities will be utilised by tenants of the site and their guests or customers. Public access to the development will also be permitted but subject to surveillance and management to ensure safety and security.

The proposed retail mix preference is not justified in the report. Why is such a narrow retail mix proposed on such a strategic site? The gymnasium and hotel will also not be as broadly accessible to the public as other possible land uses. Also the proposed local community facilities are vague and the exact nature of these needs to be addressed in more depth. Guarantees on the provision of these facilities need to be made by the developer to ensure that they are actually delivered. Part of the proponent's motivation for this development is improved public access to open spaces. Who, therefore, 'permits', 'surveys' and 'manages' access to the open spaces in the development? Does this not lend itself to exclusivity of the so-called 'public open spaces'? page 70 point 3.9.2 - Maintenance of the Site "… the LLPT seek authorisation for the ongoing maintenance of freshwater environments adjacent to the site."

The 'ongoing maintenance' must be clearly defined and strictly regulated by the City of Cape Town since this authorisation could lead to negative impacts on the ecology/water course health adjacent to, and downstream of, the site. page 73 point 3.8.1 - Greywater collection, treatment and storage

It is mentioned that "a greywater recycling system may be included …" This is non-committal. Due to the severe water shortage the Western Cape Province, and country, is currently undergoing and the future water scarcity expected, greywater recycling must be implemented.

3.11 Analysis of Need and Desirability of the Project Reinforce and integrate existing development corridors (i.e. Voortrekker Road corridor, Main Road corridor and Koeberg Road corridor);

This development is not located in proximity to the Koeberg Road corridor, and while it is near to the Main Road and Voortrekker Road corridors, it would rely on these for its viability and would only reinforce and integrate the corridors to a very limited degree. Also, the proposed development in its current form would have limited potential to integrate this strategically located site into the broader Metro environment. p75 It is important to note that projects which deviate from strategic plans spatially are not necessarily undesirable. The social, economic and environmental (including cultural) impacts of the deviation are more important than spatial planning, but “the burden of proof falls on the applicant to show why impacts...might be justifiable” (DEA, 2010b). The onus therefore lies on the applicant to 1) ensure that negative impacts of the development are sufficiently mitigated and that positive impacts of the development justify those impacts, and 2) justify the location of the development in a strategic context (i.e. indicate and motivate why the site is uniquely suited to a development such as is proposed). The proponents motivate that a paradigm shift in planning thinking is appropriate for the site (see Section 3.4), and that the benefits of the development may well justify residual impacts that are anticipated (most likely to be visual and cultural).

18 We are of the opinion that the case has not been successfully made that the negative impacts of the development will be sufficiently mitigated, and that the benefits of the development will justify the negative residual impacts.

" … project's justification … in terms of the specific needs and interests of the community .." and "…environmental resources must serve the public interest and the environment must be protected …"

By excluding affordable housing, this development cannot be justified as "addressing the specific needs and interests of the community" since informal housing in areas such as Oude Molen Village will likely increase due to the development as workers migrate towards job opportunities. This creates a potential problem for these already burdened communities and may raise concerns in the more affluent surrounding communities regarding perceptions of e.g. crime, effect on property values, health issues and service provision. p76 The proponent motivates that a certain minimum level of bulk leasable areas is required to realise the development (see Section 3.4), and therefore it is likely that ultimately there will need to be a trade- off between e.g. ecological rehabilitation and protection, cultural and visual impacts (e.g. a loss of open space as a visual resource and a decline in the cultural / historical value of the site) and economic viability; and that there will be residual impacts of the development that cannot be mitigated. The alternative that is feasible to the client and is assessed to have the lowest overall environmental (social / cultural / ecological) impact will ultimately be selected by the proponent for consideration by the competent authority.

The argument concerning the minimum level of bulk leasable area that the proponent states they require to realise the development has not been convincingly made. There has been no concrete evidence presented to support the proposed figure. The proponent's opinion is presented as fact. Also the difficult geology and hydrology of the site is used to justify the required bulk, due to the costs needed to develop the site. However, alternative development proposals and uses for the site have not been sufficiently investigated, and alternatives that would entail less or no infilling of the site could be viable if carefully considered. p83 4.1.6.3 Wetlands Berms created for flood protection along both channels of the Liesbeek River limit flooding in what would have been their natural floodplain. These floodplains have been largely infilled on the site itself and as a result no wetland ecosystems occur on site today. However, the River Club is bounded by several wetlands. Figure 4-5 shows the River Club and its freshwater environments.

How does the development affect the patches of small wetland areas that are highlighted in the Freshwater ecologist’s report as having "high functional importance"? An alternative scenario could be that the City develops a portion of the site as a public historical and environmental education resource, highlighting the First Nations history and ecological importance of the site. With the rest of the site being restored to its wetland state, this will allow the important ecosystem service of flood attenuation and urban water filtration to occur again on the site. This limited development on the site would need to be designed in a way that would at least partially subsidise the restoration of the wetland. Kirstenbosch could possibly serve as an example. point 4.1.9.1 - Water Quality

High E.coli counts for both the Black and Liesbeek Rivers negates the proposed use of the river for recreation such as paddle boating as made earlier in the scoping report.

19 p89 4.1.9.3 River/land interface The Liesbeek Canal Similarly, a berm separates the right hand side of the Liesbeek Canal from Raapenberg Sanctuary in which the Raapenberg Wetlands occur. These wetlands support a wide diversity of habitat types such as reed bed, open water pools and pans and shallow wading areas and are recognised as an important breeding site for many duck species. These habitats would be sensitive to elevations in flood height that would inundate wading and nesting areas.

This indicates that the raising of the site to allow for the proposed development would endanger the wading and nesting areas of the Raapenberg Wetlands, recognised as an important breeding site for many duck species. Public access to the bird hide could also be affected. In this section it is further stated that "these habitats would be sensitive to elevations in flood height which would inundate wading and nesting areas." This statement concurs with several concerns raised regarding flooding of properties surrounding the built up area of the proposed development, the Raapenberg Wetlands in particular. p103 4.2.3.1 Population The most populous suburbs in the study area include Woodstock and Pinelands. The highest population growth took place in Ndabeni, Oude Molen Village and Brooklyn, where property prices and rent are relatively lower (as evidenced by the lower household income in these suburbs – see Table 4-8). Lower and more stable population growth was experienced in the more affluent suburbs. ... It is likely that the study area population will continue grow at a pace faster than the City average with the implementation of CoCT policies for urban densification (especially in areas with good access to the CBD - (CoCT, 2012), and because of urban regeneration and development initiatives in the area such as the River Club Development and the TRUP.

This would indicate that the biggest current and future demand for housing in the area would be for lower-income housing. This goes against what the proposed development is catering for, and further underlines the need for an element of affordable housing on the site. New housing should cater for the existing and future numbers of lower-income residents of the greater TRUP area, and should not purely cater for higher-income individuals, thus leading to exclusion and possible gentrification in the area. p107 4.2.3.3 Socio-economic Analysis

This section highlights the lower income nature of suburbs in the study area, such as Maitland, Maitland Garden Village, Oude Molen, Ndabeni, Salt River and Woodstock, and hence the need for affordable housing in the surrounding area. A rough calculation, based on the figures listed in Table 4-5 on page 105, seems to indicate that around half of the population of the study area live in socio-economically deprived areas, based on SES (Socioeconomic Status Index) scores and suburb populations.

In addition, Tables 4-7 and Table 4-8 on pages 107 and 108 indicate that Oude Molen Village and Maitland Garden Village have worse socio-economic conditions than the City average. Oude Molen Village in particular has the highest percentage of informal dwellings in the study area, indicating the need for provision of affordable housing in the greater TRUP area. Development of the River Club site will also likely create the possibility of more in-migration to the area, without the capacity to formally house migrants. In addition, the proposed development has the potential to push up property values in the surrounding areas, and as an example, for the already socio-economically marginalized residents of Maitland Garden Village; this will result in an increase in their property rates, increasing the existing financial burdens of these residents.

20 p113 4.3.3 Open Space System At a conceptual level (i.e. as in Figure 4.2 of the Cape Town Spatial Development Framework) the site forms part of an extensive open space system that stretches from Table Bay to False Bay (north to south) and Devil’s Peak to Stellenbosch Farms (west to east). In reality, however, the site forms part of an open space system that is much more localised, extending from the River Club, at the most northern point, southwards, where it terminates at the King David Mowbray Golf Course (Planning Partners, 2016). Regardless of the extent of the open space system which it forms part of, it is acknowledged that the site does form part of an open space system of sub-metropolitan significance. This open space system plays an important role as: • A structuring element of the City (whereby it acts as a recreational hub for golfers); and • A floodplain of the Black River and Liesbeek River. Terrestrial areas at the site have only have limited biodiversity significance as an open space (faunal movement corridor).

The report passes the opinion of Planning Partners off as fact by stating that "in reality, however, the site forms part of an open space system that is much more localised". However in the previous sentence in this paragraph, the report acknowledges that the Cape Town SDF (which is the binding framework in this regard), recognises the site as part of a larger open space system. The strategic importance of the River Club and the TRUP site in fact extends further past the King David Mowbray Golf Course to include the Athlone Power Station site and thus the importance and linkage of these sites needs to be considered as part of a broader Black River corridor.

Even the more localised open space system proposed by Planning Partners currently functions as more than a "recreational hub for golfers" and the important function of the open space as a floodplain of the Black and Liesbeek Rivers should not be understated. Lastly, the biodiversity significance of the site is underplayed. It is in fact acknowledged on page 90 of the report, that the endangered Western Leopard Toads "move extensively in terrestrial areas throughout most of the year" and that "during most of the year, these animals would be vulnerable to activities / developments in terrestrial areas that could affect their safety, health or ability to forage, while during breeding and migratory periods, they would be sensitive to increased traffic in the area between their “nests” and breeding areas, particularly on rainy evenings”. The site also borders the wading and nesting areas of the Raapenberg Wetlands, recognised as an important breeding site for many duck species. As such, the great biodiversity significance of the site must be acknowledged, and any development proposal should be highly sensitive to this biodiversity, which this proposal is not. p114 4.3.4 TRUP A separate study is currently underway to revise spatial proposals for the TRUP (Local Area SDF and Phase 1 Management Plan). In this regard, the River Club project team met with members of the TRUP project team on 20 October 2016, where The River Club’s role within TRUP was debated. Following this meeting the TRUP project team presented the results of baseline specialist reports to the public on 3 and 10 November 2016. From these meetings it is apparent that while there are differences relating to certain aspects of the TRUP and River Club proposals the current development proposal at the River Club is largely congruent with what the TRUP project team envisage for the site. This will be further investigated and confirmed during the EIA Phase. Furthermore, investigations are currently underway to determine: • How the River Club will link into TRUP; • How various parcels of open space in TRUP will be connected; • How the development would link into surrounding areas such as Observatory and Maitland; and • How the site can be a link between railway stations and TRUP and Main Road and / or Voortrekker Road corridors.

As mentioned earlier, it is premature to allow this development proposal in its current form, until such time as the revised TRUP Local area SDF has been finalised and adopted. The minutes of the meeting between the River Club and TRUP project teams have not been included in this report and thus it is

21 difficult to establish the veracity of the claims that the development proposal is "largely congruent with what the TRUP project team envisage for the site." (section 4.3.4. page 115)

4.3.6.5 Public Realms Promote public access to the site by providing (for example): Paths and walkways; Bird watching facilities; Restaurants; Community facilities; Sport facilities and events; Publicly accessible open areas and river banks; and Other recreational activities;

Many of these indicators for enhancing the site’s public accessibility have not been provided for in the proposal.

4.3.6.6 Land Use Indicators for the future use of the site are as follows: • Promote and physically integrate a mix of uses at the site (private and public) to complement the variety of existing land uses in surrounding areas; • Include residential properties to promote a variety of site use and to ensure permanent occupancy; and • Include recreational land use; • Include institutional land use; and • Incorporate an open landscaped area for public use.

These indicators have not been sufficiently provided for in the proposal.

p121 4.3.6.12 Roads Access and Parking Encourage linkages to the PRASA owned land north of the site to ensure that this area (including the convergence of the rivers) remains integrated into the site and TRUP;

This indicator has not been addressed in the proposal at all. p122 4.4.3 Sense of Place The area does not necessarily have an immediately recognisable sense of place. The sense of place is influenced by the rivers, and an “island” of open space in a highly developed urban environment. The Observatory complex and the River Club building, cultural/historical features and visual resources, are distinguishable landmarks on the landscape. The views of Devils Peak and the dominant east-facing ridgeline also add to the sense of place of the area.

The sense of place of the site, at the confluence of the Liesbeek and Black Rivers, and as a physical island in an "island" of open space is not acknowledged or promoted by the proposed development. The River Club building, cultural/historical features and visual resources of the site are insufficiently catered for, and the views of Devil's Peak are also not celebrated in the current development proposal. page 122 point 4.4.3 - Sense of Place "Tourism can sometimes serve as an indicator of sense of place insofar as it is often the uniqueness (and accessibility) of a space/place which attracts tourists."

The view from Signal Hill towards the Observatory complex is pointed out during tours of Signal Hill. The accessibility of this view creates a sense of place.

4.4.4 Visual Receptors 4.4.5 Viewing Distance and Visibility 4.4.6 Visual Resources

The visual impact of the development on the surrounding areas, as highlighted by the visual assessments in this section, is high. This is even more significant when compared to the current open space of the site. As such, there is very little consideration given to the visual impact in the layout and design of the proposed development.

22 p129 5.3 Stakeholder Comments were received from 104 stakeholders (see Appendix E10). The following main issues were raised during consultation on the Draft Scoping Report: • The Need and Desirability and appropriateness of the proposed land use for the site; • The opportunity cost of not developing the site for alternative low intensity land uses; • The need for integration with the TRUP planning process and the impact of the development on TRUP; • The efficiency / inefficiency of the urban form that will be created if the development is authorised; • Flooding of adjacent properties; • The impact on the Western Leopard Toad; • The impact on adjacent freshwater and botanical resources; • The loss of the site as part of an open space resource; • A change to the sense of place of the area; • A decline in the cultural and historic value of the site, and adjacent sites of cultural and historical significance (and in particular, the view from the SAAO to Signal Hill); • The exclusivity of the development proposal; and • Increased private vehicles on the local road network.

None of these main issues have been sufficiently addressed or sufficient mitigation measures proposed, in the revised Draft Scoping Report. The possibility of and viability investigations into building affordable and social housing on the site have not been addressed at all. p130 6 Potential Environmental and Social Impacts 6.1 Key Environmental Issues • Surface water hydrology • Freshwater ecology • Terrestrial Ecology • Heritage and visual • Socio-economic – The redevelopment will boost local investment, create employment opportunities and increase income during the construction and operations phase. The development may improve access to economic opportunities (particularly by connecting Berkley Road and Liesbeek Parkway) and generate thresholds to support retail uses within TRUP, and the nearby Main Road and Voortrekker Road Corridors. The development would also boost municipal income significantly through the generation of rates and taxes (estimated to be more than R40 000 000 annually. The project may also change the use and non-use values of the site and surrounding areas (although it is anticipated that public access to the site will be enhanced, there may be a socio- economic impact of a loss of private open space as a visual amenity), impact property prices in surrounding areas and lead to gentrification. • Planning – The project may impact on local and municipal spatial planning initiatives (in particular, TRUP). • Traffic

These issues, and in particular the socio-economic and planning issues, have not been sufficiently addressed in the proposed development. p131 6.2 Key Environmental Management Table 6-1: Possible environmental management to address impacts identified

• Retain ecological corridor(s) at the site. • Provide residential units for a range of housing markets, including the affordable housing markets. • Enhance the (public) amenity value of the site. These Possible Mitigation and / or Management measures have not been sufficiently addressed in the proposed development.

Table 6-1 Socio-economic: Provide residential units for a range of housing markets, including the affordable housing markets.

The provision of affordable housing in the proposed development has been dismissed by the developer as unfeasible, despite no independent detailed affordable housing study being conducted for the site. Thus the developer's claim of lack of feasibility is unfounded. p134 7.3 Specialist Studies

23 Why has no specialist study been conducted into developing social and affordable housing on the site, e.g. in consultation with the National Association of Social Housing Organisations (NASHO)?

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, it is useful to look at the Western Cape Government Department of Transport and Public Works vision (2016) for the broader TRUP area, of which the River Club is inextricably a part, and which is also know informally as the ‘TRUP manifesto principles’:

“Where possible, role-players will preserve and enhance the heritage of the site and consider options for memorialisation given the powerful history associated with the site. A World Design Capital 2014 project, TRUP aims to meet ten objectives:

 The park will be designed as an open space to trigger social inclusion, a new metropolitan tourism destination and to enhance ecological awareness.  The project will focus on restoring and preserving the ecological integrity of the site.  We will develop the precinct so that the natural qualities of the site are protected and the Earth’s resources are protected.  The use of sustainable modes of transport like walking, cycling and public transport will be promoted so that there will be less dependency on cars.  The live-work-play model will provide for medium density affordable housing.  The project will focus on mobilising new investments, creating jobs, and ensuring that most of the business premises are affordable for small and micro-enterprises.  Through this project, we also aim to bring government and public services closer to the people.  TRUP will be developed as an integrative space that responds to culture, heritage and memory of the site, which will assist in undoing apartheid spatial planning.  Through this project, the City and Department of Transport and Public Works will establish a social partnership that can address past inequalities and priorities public interest amongst others.  To develop resource efficient sustainable technologies where possible.”

If one considers the proposed River Club development, in its current form, in light of this vision, they are significantly incongruent. While not legally binding, this vision, developed through a series of consultative public workshops during the course of 2016, highlights the will of the stakeholders and more importantly, the broader public. As the only truly participatory process that currently has direct bearing on the trajectory of future development in the TRUP area, the incongruency of the proposed development with this vision is significant. The will of the people should not be ignored in the rush to promote private development, amid short-termist decision making on the part of the City of Cape Town. The importance of the strategically located River Club site in the broader Black River corridor and metropolitan open space system, as an accessible public open space, fulfilling vital ecological functions of flood attenuation and biodiversity protection, and as a potential integrative lynchpin in undoing the unjust spatial form of Cape Town, should not be underestimated.

Based on the evidence presented in the Revised Draft Scoping Report, the contradictions in the specialist reports and the development proposal as a whole, as well as the gaps in knowledge that have been highlighted in this submission, the Development Action Group categorically states that no development of the River Club site should be permitted

If sufficient evidence is produced through future studies, and suitable and genuine mitigation measures are put forward, ensuring that it is ecologically, socially and financially viable to develop, then, in terms 24 of the five principles set out in the Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act 16 of 2013 (SPLUMA), namely:

 The principle of spatial justice  The principle of spatial sustainability  The principle of efficiency  The principle of spatial resilience  The principle of good administration,

…it must be non-negotiable that a proportion of any proposed development of the River Club site be dedicated to affordable housing, and that holistic sustainable development principles be followed in any such development. In addition, any proposed development must be in accordance with the current Cape Town Spatial Development Framework of 2012 and the Provincial Spatial Development Framework of 2014.

The Development Action Group trusts that any future development of the River Club site will give due regard to the constitutional rights and responsibilities of all parties involved “to secure ecologically sustainable development and the use of natural resources while promoting justifiable economic and social development.” (Section 24(b)(iii) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996)

Yours faithfully,

DEVELOPMENT ACTION GROUP

REFERENCES:

Botha, N. 2012. Woodstock: A work in progress? Mail & Guardian 19 March 2012. Available: http://mg.co.za/article/2012-03-19-woodstock-a-work-in-progress [2017, Feb 8]

EPA. 2016. Future of Climate Change. December 27, 2016. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Available: https://www.epa.gov/climate-change-science/future-climate-change [2017, Feb 8]

Gasnolar, A.I. 2016. False Narratives: Let’s take the kid gloves off and talk about the hard stuff. Daily Maverick. 6 November 2016. Available: https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/opinionista/2016-11-06- false-narratives-lets-take-the-kid-gloves-off-and-talk-about-the-hard-stuff/ [2017, Jan 24]

Joseph, R. 2014. The gentrification of Woodstock: from rundown suburb to hipster heaven. 12 August 2014. . Available: https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2014/aug/12/gentrification-woodstock- cape-town-suburb-hipster-heaven [2017, Jan 20]

Wainwright, O. 2015. Revealed: how developers exploit flawed planning system to minimise affordable housing. The Guardian. 25 June 2015. Available: https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/jun/25/london-developers-viability-planning-affordable- social-housing-regeneration-oliver-wainwright [2017, Jan 24]

WCG. 2016. Two Rivers Urban Park – Towards a sustainable integrated urban development. Western Cape Government Department of Transport and Public Works. Available: https://www.westerncape.gov.za/general-publication/two-rivers-urban-park-%E2%80%93-towards- sustainable-integrated-urban-development [2017, Jan 20]

26 Comments by Dave Wheeler

Once the land is gone, it it gone for ever.

Executive summary 4. p.iv Canalisation of the Liesbeek River in the 1960s has led to very low natural flow levels entering the original course of the Liesbeek River which is mostly supplied by backwaters of the Black River. Is this true?

6. p.iv While the comparative suitability of the site for a development of this nature will be assessed during the EIA Phase, the consideration of alternative sites is not possible. The purpose of the project is to deliver mixed-use development at the site. No other activity alternatives (other than the No Go alternative) are considered feasible to the proponent. Consideration of alternatives is always possible if the speculators are desperate enough.

Noise, both natural and human generated – how will this be managed at various areas of the site?

Open space which is not part of the biodiversity network or significant agricultural areas, but has been identified to promote access to open space for active and passive recreation. Whilst the focus is on areas that are usable and accessible for most of the year, the identification has included cemeteries, detention ponds, servitudes, river corridors and road reserves in order to promote the notion of a linked open space system. p.20

In general, avoid development of these areas in a manner that would compromise open space linkage. In general, development adjacent to open spaces or which rationalises these spaces, should be orientated towards the open space to encourage the use and passive surveillance of these areas. Design which compromises this condition (e.g. excessive blank walls and backing of development onto these spaces) should be discouraged. The green corridors linkage through the site must be maintained and be publicly accessible.

“Core 2”, as determined in the District Plan, includes: “Ecological corridors; critical ecological support areas; significant coastal and dune protection zones, major river corridors and waterbodies. In general, low impact activities such as passive recreation (e.g. walkways and trails), environmental education and tourism may be appropriate, but should be subject to stringent controls (e.g. limits to development footprint, management plans). 3. Where possible, all new utility infrastructure, services and structures should be located outside of these areas if a “…proposal is in conflict with the statutory designation and/or text of the District SDP and / or any other structure plan in terms of s4(10) of LUPO…” then “…the CoCT can consider condoning a deviation from the approved policy. This deviation should be fully motivated as part of any LUPO or building plan applications that may be required”.p.21

The River Club will be a mixed use precinct within TRUP and will include residential, commercial and retail uses, as well as an abundance of open space. p.25The mountain skylines and views of the sea are the defining elements that make Cape Town unique and views of them must continue to be protected from inappropriate built form through, for instance the application of the Tall Buildings Policy...”

The buildings proposed at the River Club are likely to be higher than surrounding development. How much higher and in what areas of the site? The height, combined with the total bulk to be developed means that a visual impact will be unavoidable. However, the low sensitivity of visual receptors south and east of the site (see Section 4.4), vast spaces surrounding the site, combined with the sites position in relation to the mountain and the sea, mean that the buildings and development layout can be designed to reduce the impact on view lines to both the mountain and the sea.

The existing character of the site and the surrounding area has been considered and has been factored into the design in the following ways: Open spaces will be retained for landscaping and informal recreational purposes – how many and what areas?; Buffer areas will be implemented adjacent to the rivers, as per specialist recommendation – how wide will the buffers be and where will they be located?; and Key axis and gateways will be retained so as to ensure that a visual connection with surrounding amenity values (such as the Observatory and the Raapenberg Wetland) are maintained and celebrated – how wide will the gateways be?. p.26

3.2 .p.33 last paras – too many “may”s – not enough certainty.

No building or fence may obstruct passage to or view of the rivers and their buffers.

Minimise hard surfaces to allow permeability.

Although the River Club will be welcoming of a wide variety of people, it is a commercial reality that the residential component will not be accessible to low income earners. p.18 Is the “commercial reality” the greed of the speculators to maximise return on capital – low income earners could be subsidised by high income earners.

Much of the comments are vague and unsubstantiated eg p. 42 para 3 “This will change the character of the site, transform transport linkages onto the site and open up new economic opportunities.” Really – how and what opportunities?

P.43 Improve regional mobility by connecting the Black River Parkway and M5 – how will this be done?

The green corridors linkage through the site must be maintained and be publicly accessible.

Hill, Amy

From: H Bowen Sent: 10 February 2017 04:27 PM To: Hill, Amy Cc: Marc Turok; Leslie London; Carolyn Neville; [email protected] Subject: Revised Draft Scoping Report for the River Club (SRK Project Reference Number 478320; DEA&DP Reference Number: 16/3/3/6/7/2/A7/17/3104/16)

Importance: High

SRK Project Reference Number 478320; Department of Environmental Affairs references: DEA&DP Reference Number: 16/3/3/6/7/2/A7/17/3104/16; HWC Case Number: 15112504WD1217E; DWS Reference Number: 16/2/7/G22/A/11

Hello Amy I attended the presentation by the River Club on 1 February.

As a general comment, I am concerned that we were told on a number of occasions that the specialists for the River Club had liaised with specialised for the TRUP project and that the TRUP specialists had then realigned their findings to match those of the River Club specialists. Firstly, the TRUP project is in its consultative/public participation stage and many queries were raised with their specialists on findings presented to us – also it was obvious that there were alternatives which could (and should) be explored and we, the public participants asked that this be done. How, then, at this stage, can the River Club people be persuading the TRUP people to agree with the River Club and for this to be presented to the public as virtually a fait accompli?

Another general concern of mine is how the River Club property could have been sold at this crucial stage of the TRUP consultations.

Zoning as Open Space for Community Use: The River Club land is currently zoned for Community Use as Open Space. It should be developed within the parameters of that zoning. The fact that a private entity owns the property does not give it any right to develop the property without due regard to the zoning.

Recreational Use : This should not mean that buildings be erected because they have some “recreational” purpose while the open space and property community use is lost.

Alternatives: The report must provide information on other alternatives so that the best option for the site and for the people of Cape Town can be chosen.

Affordable Housing: This issue does not seem to be considered the responsibility of the owners of the River Club. However, the TRUP public participation process has developed a vision for the whole area which would incorporate affordable housing. The River Club cannot simply go ahead with its own development without being part of the TRUP process which is designated A World Design Capital 2014 project.

SPLUMA Principles: It is of great concern that the Revised Scoping Report does not abide by the five principles set out in the Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act 16 of 2013 (SPLUMA), namely:

· The principle of spatial justice · The principle of spatial sustainability · The principle of efficiency · The principle of spatial resilience

1 · The principle of good administration,

I should like to endorse what DAG has submitted: The importance of the strategically located River Club site in the broader Black River corridor and metropolitan open space system, as an accessible public open space, fulfilling vital ecological functions of flood attenuation and biodiversity protection, and as a potential integrative lynchpin in undoing the unjust spatial form of Cape Town, should not be underestimated.

It has become very clear that only research data and proposals which will allow the owners to develop the River Club property to maximise profit are being entertained – and put out to the public as the only viable options. Also, the public participation has been very limited and the River Club people seem to want to circumvent this need by facilitating co-operation with the TRUP specialists but disregarding public input.

The River Club owners still have much to work on in order for development in that area to be considered in any way just, appropriate and sustainable.

Kind regards

Hazel Bowen 110 Strubens Road Observatory 7925 0214478989 / 0828510835

P.O. Box 333, Rondebosch 7701 Public Benefit Organisation ref no 93000280 Non-profit Organisation ref no 56-033 www.fol.org.za [email protected]

February 10, 2017

Ms. A Hill SRK Consulting (South Africa) Pty Ltd. The Administrative Building, Albion Spring, 183 Main Road, Rondebosch, 7700 Post Net Suite #206, Private Bag X18, Rondebosch, 7701 Email: [email protected]

Dear Ms. Amy Hill,

Comment on the Revised Draft Scoping Report for Redevelopment of the River Club

We note the “Revised Draft Scoping Report for the Redevelopment of the River Club” and your consultancy’s efforts to address the concerns noted therein that shall be addressed as the EIA process unfolds. Please accept our previously submitted comments (dated 4 September 2016) as applicable unless otherwise indicated here below.

The Friends of the Liesbeek wishes to again state our support and respect for this process and developmental rights enjoyed by your client within the applicable regulatory and legislative frameworks, our concerns relate to the environment and enjoyment thereof of local residents and community members-in light of this, we submit the following comments for consideration:

1. An environmental levy. The Friends of the Liesbeek proposes that if the development of the River Club property does proceed as planned, a special environmental levy be written into title deeds (or via any other appropriate mechanism) in perpetuity that would be collected in a rates-like fashion by an appointed NPO. The purpose of this levy would be to fund a project that protects and improves the environment beyond the footprint of the development. The exact purpose of the Levy would be discretionary but could also include worthy environmental initiatives such as Environmental Education. Our suggestion is that this levy be used to clean litter and remove invasive species along the Liesbeek River in order to improve the quality of water feeding into and through the surrounding areas of the proposed development.

Not only would the levy serve the greater good, but the required maintenance of the ‘to-be’ rehabilitated sections of the Liesbeek canal and old river would be reduced. Despite efforts to improve the health of the river, the lower sections still deal with the accumulative effects of a river that flows through an urban environment, which will require the attention of the future management of the proposed development. Additionally it would serve as ‘show of faith’ on behalf of the Developers that their

1 stated intentions and environmental ethic are genuine. The Levy would not be imposed on the Developers directly but the future owners of the developed land in perpetuity.

For more information on examples of recent developments where a similar levy has been imposed please contact Dr Anthony Roberts,CEO of CTEET (Cape Town Environmental Education Trust), [email protected], who has been involved in advocating and formulating such levies. Friends of the Liesbeek would suggest that CTEET serve the role of managing the levy via their established Nature Care Fund if it were to be adopted.

2. It is noted and appreciated that a different firm has been selected to perform the Hydrology Report (Aurecon) however our comments on the suitability and reliability of hydrological data in the Liesbeek catchment stand. We shall await the completion of the Hydrology Report before commenting on the veracity thereof.

3. Purple Loosestrife. We note the response to our comments regarding the wetland invader, Lythrum salicira (Purple Loosestrife) however fear that the importance of restricting its spread to have been insufficiently acknowledged. This is a prolific invader that’s only occurrence in South Africa is in and along the Liesbeek. The proposed development site is affected and any moving of soil offsite will have to be carefully managed to reduce the chance of its spread to other catchments regardless of whether the soil is deemed to have a viable seedbank for use on-site. Our concern is specifically the risk of spread off-site and we request this to be addressed in the EIA phase.

4. We raise our concern over the non-breeding grounds of the Western Leopard Toad population which is at risk of being severely reduced due to development activities onsite. We expect to see this adequately addressed during the EIA phase of the report.

5. We reiterate our concern for the ecologically sensitive areas in and around the development site and insist that any development on the site be conducted in such a way as to protect and enhance the ecological integrity of the system in which development is earmarked.

Thank you for a further chance to comment on this Scoping Report. We look forward to the finalised document and the EIA process going forward.

Sincerely,

Kyran Wright Committee Member o.b.o The Friends of the Liesbeek email: [email protected] /[email protected]

[Grab your reader’s attention with a

c/o: [email protected] Ref: SRK10/2/2017 To: Ms Amy Hill 10 February 2017 SRK Consulting By email: [email protected] SRK Project Reference Number: 478320 DEA&DP Ref No: 16/3/3/6/7/2/A7/17/3104/16 HWC Case No: 15112504WD1217E DWS Ref No: 16/2/7/G22/A/11

Dear Ms Hill, RE: Comment on the Revised Scoping report for the EIA for the River Club Development

1. We refer to the call for comments on the Revised Scoping Report for the Environmental Impact Assessment (the report) for the River Club Development .

2. Ndifuna Ukwazi (NU) is a non-profit activist organisation and law centre that combines research, political organising and litigation in campaigns to advance urban land justice in Cape Town. Our primary mission is to expand and protect access to affordable housing to build an integrated and inclusive City.

3. The River Club land parcel has immense value in terms of its strategic location close the good leisure and work opportunities as well as education, health and transport services. We must consider the development of such parcels in the context of whether they will advance the City and Province’s spatial planning priorities.

4. We note the multiple calls for the provision of affordable housing from a wide variety of stakeholders during the first round of submissions. Considering the chronic shortage of affordable housing in the city, a portion of affordable housing on the site would not only provide much needed stock for rental or purchase but would make a significant contribution to reversing the effects of apartheid spatial planning and segregation.

5. Thus, we would argue that any assessment of the environmental impact of the development must consider the long-term social and economic impact at a systemic level.

6. What will inevitably become an exclusive development serving predominantly wealthy and white investors will be a lost opportunity to contribute towards building a just and sustainable city. Every exclusive development raises property prices, rental and rates for poor and working class people who can then no longer afford to live in the area and are increasingly only able to find affordable housing on the periphery where land is cheap. This has a devastating impact on the opportunities of families and a long term impact on the City’s fiscus which ultimately affects all residents. Continual development on green field sites on the periphery leads to low density urban sprawl which ultimately requires further public transport, public infrastructure and basic services. We simply cannot ignore how private sector led development results in unjust outcomes spatially and replicate apartheid spatial planning.

7. The report is written on the assumption that a private sector led development necessarily excludes affordable housing: “As this is a private development initiative, it is not viable to the proponent to provide social housing on the site – the cost of servicing the site with water, sewage electricity, road access etc. for social housing would be too high for a private developer.” The report, however, does not draw on particular evidence to support this, nor engage in independent feasibility studies of alternative models which could result in more just outcomes.

8. The inherent logic is that the profit incentives on a purely private sector led development outweighs any consideration of alternative models. We would argue that any environmental consideration therefore must include conditions regarding affordable housing in order to counter this logic and in order to compel developers to consider investing in approaches, for example, that could incorporate a state sector supported component of affordable housing. Affordable housing can be viable through cross-subsidization mechanisms and the incorporation of government grants.

9. Additionally, we wish to draw to attention to the following; 9.1. The Constitution places a lateral obligation on all of us to contribute towards restitution and the realisation of socio-economic rights for all in order to secure a sustainable future. Property developers in Cape Town have a large impact on the future of our city. At the very least they should be providing reasonable amount of affordable housing as part of large scale developments. 9.2. This development and many others like it, are contingent on the state granting a host of permissions and rights which translate to private profits if development is carried out successfully. Public benefits can and must be secured in exchange for the granting of these rights. 9.3. This parcel of land is currently part of the Commons as reflected in its zoning as a public open space. Its extraction into the realm of private property places an additional demand that serious public benefit is produced as a trade-off. The cursory allusion to the River Club being a “destination place that will welcome everyone to enjoy the retail and recreational attractions on offer” is grossly inadequate.

10. We would welcome further consideration being given to these principles outlined above.

Yours faithfully, Ndifuna Ukwazi / Ndifuna Ukwazi Law Centre

Per: Julian Sendin, Researcher

TO : Whom it may concern / Sun Development FROM : Kendre Allies DATE : 10 February 2017 RE : Commentary on development proposal

Dear Sir/Madam,

Attached please find a map which incorporates areas that have been proposed for future development, as well as pictures of horse outride route referred to herein.

I own and manage Oude Molen Stables based at Oude Molen Eco Village, which has been established for the last 22 years. My horses have been rescued, re-homed and rehabilitated, before being integrated into the riding school and taking outrides.

Our stables are situated closest to the Cape Town tourist hub and we enjoy many overseas visitors. One of our popular offerings are on and off-site outrides that we take our clients on.

Tourists and public also use this area for nature walks, bicycle rides, accessing work, jogging and environmental educational projects.

I have marked one of the routes we routinely follow and have an understanding with Valkenberg hospital as to utilisation of the road that crosses over the M5 (see attached maps and pics) and it is important for us that no gates, locks, walls etc are erected that interrupt access on the outride route.

It is vitally important that we are able to have continued access to all areas marked, so that we can continue to offer this outride to regular clients and tourists alike. It also allows our horses a change of environment.

Beyond that - we have over the last year noticed an increase and return of wildlife – birds, otters, fish and meerkat, amongst others to the area. We have a great commitment to providing them with a safe, natural and ecologically friendly environment.

Will we have a guarantee that whatever developments are progressed – will not : - Allow parking in natural grassed areas and will have underground parking - Will not lay down tar or tiling unnecessarily - Will ensure that all sewerage and effluence has NO impact whatsoever on surrounding environment and both Liesbeek or Black River

…/2 Page 2

- Will not change the environmental balance, or visual appeal, or destroy any existing natural terrain - Will not in any way disturb the Raapenberg bird sanctuary through any form of construction or pollution, including noise pollution

There are so many office blocks across the Cape with “to let” space – why would you choose such an environmentally rich and sensitive area for development? What natural environmental and natural heritage are we preserving for our children and the future?

Please will you take note of this and contact me with any further queries, and reassurances that we will continue to maintain this route uninterrupted by roads and access points. In fact it would be most appreciated if you personally contact me and allow yourself to experience and appreciate the environment we are wanting to protect, rather than referring to maps and images etc.

With this in mind, I’d like to invite you to experience the area from a different perspective, joining me on a horseback outride, regularly enjoyed by my clients and tourists.

I look forward to your feedback.

S1incere regards,

Kendre Allies Owner/Manager Oude Molen Stables Tel : 073 199 7395

Oude Molen Eco Village, Alexander Road, Pinelands