Schmitz and Roux Animals Eiendoms Beperk

PROPOSED APPLICATION FOR CONSENT USE AND DEPARTURE ON SMUTSKLOOF 94/6, GEORGE MUNICIPALITY AND DIVISION

FOR: SCHMITZ AND ROUX ANIMALS EIENDOMS BEPERK

DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENT LINK Proposed Consent Use and Departure of Smutskloof 94/6, George Ref No: 939/GEO/18 Ref No: 866/GEO/16 George Municipality and Division

CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ...... 3 1.1 Title deed ...... 3 1.2 Land Use Application ...... 3 2. CONTEXTUAL INFORMATION ...... 4 2.1 The locality of the subject property ...... 4 2.2 Existing Land Uses and Character of the Area...... 5 2.2.1 Vegetation ...... 6 3. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL ...... 7 3.1 Proposed Development ...... 7 3.2 Accessibility and Parking ...... 8 3.3 Engineering Services ...... 8 4. RELEVANT SPATIAL PLANNING POLICIES ...... 8 4.1 George Municipal Spatial Development Framework (GMSDF) (2019)...... 8 5. STATUTORY FRAMEWORKS ...... 9 5.1 Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act, 2013 (ACT 16 OF 2013) (SPLUMA) ...... 9 5.1.1 Public interest ...... 9 5.1.2 Environmental Legislation ...... 9 5.2 Land Use Planning Act, 2014 (LUPA) ...... 10 5.2.1 Compliance/consistency with spatial policy directives ...... 11 5.3 Integrated Zoning Scheme Bylaw (2017) ...... 11 5.4 Pre-application meeting ...... 12 5.5 Desirability ...... 13 6. CONCLUSION ...... 13

February 2021 1 Proposed Consent Use and Departure of Smutskloof 94/6, George Ref No: 939/GEO/18 Ref No: 866/GEO/16 George Municipality and Division

ANNEXURES

1. POWER OF ATTORNEY 2. COMPANY RESOLUTION 3. TITLE DEEDS 4. BONDHOLDER’S CONSENT 5. LOCALITY MAP 6. SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 7. AQUATIC SPECIALIST STUDY 8. PRE-CONSULTATION APPLICATION FORM 9. APPLICATION FORM

February 2021 2 Proposed Consent Use and Departure of Smutskloof 94/6, George Ref No: 939/GEO/18 Ref No: 866/GEO/16 George Municipality and Division

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ON THE FARM SMUTSKLOOF 94/6, GEORGE MUNICIPALITY AND DIVISION, WESTERN CAPE

1. INTRODUCTION

DELplan Consulting was appointed by the owners of the above-mentioned property (“the subject property”), namely Schmitz and Roux Animals (PTY) LTD, to prepare and submit a consent use and departure application. A copy of the Power of Attorney and company resolution is attached as Annexure 1 and Annexure 2 respectively.

The subject property is currently zoned “Agricultural Zone I” according to the George Integrated Zoning Scheme, applicable to the subject property.

1.1 Title deed

According to the title deed (T34141/2016), Smutskloof 94/6, George is registered to Schmitz and Roux Animals (PTY) LTD. The title deed is attached as Annexure 3 as well as a conveyancer’s certificate confirming that there are no restrictive title deed conditions prohibiting the proposed development.

Condition C (c) stating: “Geen vrystaande tekens mag vertoon word waar hulle sigbaar is vanuit Grootpad 1/1 of Afdelingspad 1645 nie, sonder die toestemming van die beherende gesag.” The necessary permission will be obtained from the relevant party, this will be obtained during the public participation process. It will be part of the Act 21/1940 permission from the District Roads Engineer.

There is a registered bondholder for the property, a letter confirming that the bondholder is aware of the proposed development is attached as Annexure 4.

According to the title deed, the property is 39, 9767 ha in size. There are also no servitudes registered to the property.

1.2 Land Use Application

This land use application for the subject site entails the following: 1. Consent use in terms of Section 15(2) (o) of the Land Use Planning By-Law for George Municipality for a tourist facility including a restaurant.

February 2021 3 Proposed Consent Use and Departure of Smutskloof 94/6, George Ref No: 939/GEO/18 Ref No: 866/GEO/16 George Municipality and Division

2. Departure in terms of Section 15 (2)(b) of the Land Use Planning By-Law for George Municipality for the relaxation of the following building lines: • North-western boundary building line from 30m to 17.8m; • North-eastern boundary building line from 30m to 20.5m.

This land use application is further elaborated on and clarified in Section 5.

2. CONTEXTUAL INFORMATION

2.1 The locality of the subject property

The subject property is located in the Outeniqua Mountains. The farm is located directly north of the Outeniqua Pass (N9), being the main link between George and Oudtshoorn. The farm is situated closer to George than Oudtshoorn, it is approximately 18 km from central George. Figure 1 indicate the farm (indicated in red) in relation to the surrounding settlements including Great Brak River, George and Wilderness.

Figure 1: The location of the subject property in relation to George and major roads (Source: Cape Farm Mapper, 2019).

Figure 2 below, indicates an extract of satellite imagery of the Farms surrounding the subject property (indicated in red). This imagery shows the adjacent land uses found in a close proximity of the subject property. Furthermore, a Locality Plan can be seen hereafter as Annexure 5.

February 2021 4 Proposed Consent Use and Departure of Smutskloof 94/6, George Ref No: 939/GEO/18 Ref No: 866/GEO/16 George Municipality and Division

Figure 2: An extract of satellite imagery (Source: Cape Farm Mapper, 2018) of the subject property (indicated in red) together with the immediately surrounding land uses.

The toursit facility is proposed on a small portion of the property situated on the north- western part of the subject property, identified in Figure 3. The identified portion is separated from the rest of the subject property, by the tarred Divisional Road 1645.

Figure 3: The portion of the subject property identified for the proposed tourist facility.

2.2 Existing Land Uses and Character of the Area

The subject property is utilised for agricultural purposes; however, the subject portion is uncultivated and vacant. It is considered too small to cultivate. The proposed tourist facility will allow the owner to optimally utilise the portion.

February 2021 5 Proposed Consent Use and Departure of Smutskloof 94/6, George Ref No: 939/GEO/18 Ref No: 866/GEO/16 George Municipality and Division

The area surrounding the subject property is characterised by an agglomeration of farms in the Outeniqua Mountains. The area is mostly associated with agricultural activities varying from hobs plantations, other crops and livestock. There are also two other tourist facilities on the Outeniqua Pass, situated further along the road, closer to Oudtshoorn.

This proposed development will complement the business- and tourist- sector of the area.

2.2.1 Vegetation

This area forms part of the South Outeniqua Sandstone Fynbos and is mostly associated with the Eastern Fynbos-Renosterveld. Figure 4 below indicates the vegetation of the property. The property is associated with perennial stream vegetation.

Figure 4: An illustration of the Vegetation Map of the subject property and the adjacent Erven.

There are no signs of Critical Biodiversity Area’s (CBA) located within the property. However, the property was identified as an Ecological Support Area as indicated in Figure 5 below. This area must be restored and or managed to minimize impact on ecological processes and ecological infrastructure functioning, especially soil and water-related services, and to allow for faunal movement. It is important to notice that the proposed development preserve this area by utilising ecological infrastructure to complement the surrounding fauna and flora.

Figure 5: Ecological Support Areas and other natural land areas.

Further, according to the Ecosystem Threat Status indicated in Figure 6 below, the Garden Route Shale Fynbos is threatened in the area. It is however, anticipated that the proposed

February 2021 6 Proposed Consent Use and Departure of Smutskloof 94/6, George Ref No: 939/GEO/18 Ref No: 866/GEO/16 George Municipality and Division

development will not have a negative impact on the threatened fynbos as no intrusive development is proposed on subject property.

Figure 6: The subject property’s Ecosystem Threat Status.

Throughout the designs of the proposed development, it is significant that the natural environment is preserved to compliment the natural areas surrounding the properties. The proposed development is fairly small therefore will not have a major impact on the surrounding environment.

The area will be landscaped with indigenous plants.

3. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL

3.1 Proposed Development

As previously mentioned in Section 1 of this report, this proposed development entails a consent use application to allow for the development of a tourist facility. This tourist facility will consist of a small restaurant/coffeeshop and farmstall selling mainly farm produce. The farm produce Proteas and other wild flowers. The area is also frequented by mountain bikers who need a refreshment. The total size would be approximately 100m² which will consist mainly out of two converted shipping containers and a small timber deck.

Sufficient on-site parking for customers and deliveries will be supplied. This will be discussed in section 6 of this report. The Site Development Plan is attached as Annexure 6.

February 2021 7 Proposed Consent Use and Departure of Smutskloof 94/6, George Ref No: 939/GEO/18 Ref No: 866/GEO/16 George Municipality and Division

3.2 Accessibility and Parking

This proposed development will gain access from Divisional Road 1645, at the existing access, which is accessed via the national road, namely the N9 (Outeniqua Pass). The proposed tourist facility is situated 7.9m from the Divisional Road reserve.

As previously discussed, this proposed development will provide 18 parking bays, which is considered sufficient. The existing access point will be upgraded and used according to the Provincial Roads Authority’s conditions and standards.

3.3 Engineering Services

ESKOM power is available and water will be collected from the roofs and filtered. Additional water will be brought in if necessary. A septic tank or conservancy tank will be used as sewerage removal.

4. RELEVANT SPATIAL PLANNING POLICIES This section briefly addresses the relevant spatial policy frameworks that provide guidance to development proposals in general and its applicability to this proposed development. These include:

4.1 George Municipal Spatial Development Framework (GMSDF) (2019)

This spatial document does not specifically address the subject property. The GMSDF does however, state under Policy D4 that rivers and estuaries should be protected from pollution. The proposed tourist facility is situated more than 32m from the stream, nonetheless measured will be implemented to protect the stream from pollution.

Policy D8 state that the following: “Support the opening-up and development of destinations at entry points to special, unique places of scenic heritage and recreational value that provide public access, amenity and activities, and tourist attractions in the rural and natural landscape, designed sensitively and in harmony with their surrounds.”

Given the location of the subject property within the scenic Outeniqua Mountains in the Outeniqua pass it is considered in line with this policy. The development will be designed in such a way that is in harmony with the environment.

February 2021 8 Proposed Consent Use and Departure of Smutskloof 94/6, George Ref No: 939/GEO/18 Ref No: 866/GEO/16 George Municipality and Division

5. STATUTORY FRAMEWORKS

Following the most recent legislative and procedural changes that have become applicable to the management of land use planning in South Africa, and consequently the Western Cape Province, it is considered necessary to summarise the implications of the current statutory framework within the context of this land-use planning application. Set out below are a set of principles and ethical conventions related to this application.

5.1 Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act, 2013 (ACT 16 OF 2013) (SPLUMA)

The nature of this land use application does not directly affect the five development principles of the Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act, 2013 (Act 16 of 2013) (SPLUMA). Therefore, these principles are not discussed in detail in this motivation report. Only relevant aspects are addressed below.

5.1.1 Public interest The public interest is determined by the affect the approval of the application would have on the general public, as well as the adjoining neighbours of the subject property. The respective owner wishes to construct a tourist facility on the subject property, as previously mentioned. The interest of the public will be affected minimally by the approval of this application. Only the adjacent neighbours will be directly affected by the approval of this consent use application. There are also no dwelling houses within close proximity which will be negatively affected by the proposed facility.

A demand for such a facility to support the farming operations was identified as the area is frequented by mountain bikers and families. This will be an ideal stop to explore the valley.

5.1.2 Environmental Legislation No listed activities as contemplated by the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (as amended) (NEMA) are triggered by this consent and departure application as far as we are aware of.

The previous proposal was within the 32m from a watercourse, but after consultation with an environmental and freshwater specialist, we move the proposed structure away from the water course. No listed activity is therefore triggered in terms of the NEMA regulations.

An aquatic Specialist study were conducted in November 2020 by Sharples Environmental Services. The report indicated that the current position of the structure being 32m from the watercourses, will act as an adequate aquatic buffer zone to avoid impacting the wetland.

February 2021 9 Proposed Consent Use and Departure of Smutskloof 94/6, George Ref No: 939/GEO/18 Ref No: 866/GEO/16 George Municipality and Division

This width was also confirmed with a formal wetland buffer zone determination. Aquatic buffer zones are designed to act as barriers between human activities and sensitive water resources in order to protect them from adverse negative impacts. The report further determined that a buffer width of 15m could be sufficient to avoid impacts upon wetlands. The image below indicates the buffer zones.

Figure 7: Map indicating the buffer zones.

The focus of these buffer zones is to avoid and prevent any disturbance of ecosystems. It has been determined that with the current layout plan the avoidance of impacting the aquatic habitats is easily achievable. The mitigation of impacts must focus on preventing water pollution, maintaining freshwater habitat and managing the runoff generated by the development and introducing it responsibly into the receiving environment. The Aquatic Specialist report made several recommendations in order to mitigate any impacts from the development. The recommendations will be adhered to, this report is attached as Annexure 7.

5.2 Land Use Planning Act, 2014 (LUPA)

The development objectives entrenched in SPLUMA have been assimilated into the Western Cape Land Use Planning Act, 2014 (Act 3 of 2014) and sets out a basis for the adjudication of land use planning applications in the province. It requires that local municipalities have due regard to at least the following when doing so: • Applicable spatial development frameworks;

February 2021 10 Proposed Consent Use and Departure of Smutskloof 94/6, George Ref No: 939/GEO/18 Ref No: 866/GEO/16 George Municipality and Division

• Applicable structure plans; • Land use planning principles referred to in Chapter VI (Section 59); • The desirability of the proposed land use; and • Guidelines that may be issued by the Provincial Minister regarding the desirability of proposed land use.

The land-use planning principles of LUPA (Section 59) is, in essence, the expansion of the five development principles of SPLUMA listed above. Again, only the relevant aspects are addressed in this report.

5.2.1 Compliance/consistency with spatial policy directives

Section 19(1) and (2) of LUPA states that the following:

“(1) If a spatial development framework or structure plan specifically provides for the utilisation or development of land as proposed in a land use application or a land development application, the proposed utilisation or development is regarded as complying with that spatial development framework or structure plan;

(2) If a spatial development framework or structure plan does not specifically provide for the utilisation or development of land as proposed in a land use application or a land development application, but the proposed utilisation or development does not conflict with the purpose of the relevant designation in the spatial development framework or structure plan, the utilisation or development is regarded as being consistent with that spatial development framework or structured plan.”

In view of the nature of this land use application and its location within George, this proposal is consistent with LUPA.

5.3 Integrated Zoning Scheme Bylaw (2017)

According to the George Integrated Zoning Scheme, the subject property is zoned as “Agricultural Zone I” (see Figure 8 below). This application does not entail a rezoning; therefore, the zoning of the property will remain unchanged. A tourist facility is a consent use for “Agriculture Zone I” which is applied for. The proposed application therefore complies with the Zoning Scheme Regulations.

February 2021 11 Proposed Consent Use and Departure of Smutskloof 94/6, George Ref No: 939/GEO/18 Ref No: 866/GEO/16 George Municipality and Division

Figure 8: An illustration of the zoning for the subject property demarcated with red (Source: George Municipality GIS Viewer, 2019).

The area between the western boundary with RE. Smutskloof 94 is very narrow and therefore the relaxation of the building line. The building is also approximately 15 metres from the edge of the road.

5.4 Pre-application meeting

A pre-application was conducted 18 March 2020. The meeting pointed out the following: The existing servitude road over the subject property that provide access to RE /94 should be indicated on the plan. This is indicated on the plan.

Policy D4 in the MSDF should be addressed. This was discussed above.

No structures are allowed closer than 32m from a water course or 1:100-year flood line, whichever is greater (aquatic specialist). The building was moved to be further than 32m from the water course. The aquatic specialist study concluded that if the location and extent of the watercourses and the buffer areas is included within the development plans, and any proposed activities comply with all relevant legislation, there will be no unacceptable impact to aquatic habitat. The study indicated that the current position of the structure is considered desirable.

Obtain comment from: Department of Agriculture; District Roads Engineer; DEA&DP (Environmental section and planning section). DEA&DP to confirm that no environmental listed activities are triggered. Their comment will be obtained during the public participation process.

February 2021 12 Proposed Consent Use and Departure of Smutskloof 94/6, George Ref No: 939/GEO/18 Ref No: 866/GEO/16 George Municipality and Division

5.5 Desirability

The concept “desirability” in the land use planning context may be defined as the degree of acceptability of a proposed development on a land unit concerned. This sub-section expresses the desirability of the consent use in conjunction with the development principles and criteria, set out through the statutory planning framework listed above. As well as the degree to which this proposal may be considered within the context of broader public interest. It is our view that the desirability of the proposal reveals no negative impacts.

The proposed consent use and departure will allow for a tourist facility on a portion of the subject property. The fact that the subject property is located next to the Outeniqua Pass, make it a favourable location for a tourist facility as the Outeniqua Pass is the main link between George and Oudtshoorn and well-travelled.

The portion of the property that was identified for the tourist facility is separated from the rest of the property by a divisional road. This separated portion is relatively small, rendering it infeasible for agricultural activities. It will therefore allow the owner to optimally utilise the portion.

Furthermore, the approval of the application will not have a negative impact on the character of the area or the surrounding neighbours. Given the above, the application is considered desirable. As mentioned, there are already two other such facilities close by in the direction of Oudtshoorn as well as function venue on a farm to the northwest. These facilities are commonplace on farms.

The aquatic specialist study concluded that the proposal is unlikely to result in any water/soil pollution of aquatic habitat, provided the recommendations of the report are adhered to.

6. CONCLUSION

We believe that the abovementioned principles, considerations and guidelines for this land use application for Smutskloof 94/6, George satisfies the applicable legislation. As a result, it is trusted that this application can be finalised successfully.

DELAREY VILJOEN Pr. Pln February 2021

February 2021 13

80/3 80/1 98/11 80/6 97 98/13

8 0 97 80/2 2 97/1

> 98/42

87/10 8

N 98/36

87 O 97/2

H 98/40 98/43 S 98/16 98/34 87/7 T 98/33

87/9 D

O 98

87/6

87/8 O T 90/4 87/5

4 /

8 90 /3 7 98/18 87/1 8 98/19 8 8 90/7 98/16 / 5 87/2 1

N 9 88/52 8 8 /N /4 3 0 1 5 2 / 88/50 8 88/72 90/5 96 8

88/70 88/37 88/38 88/69 88/44 88/46 88/74 88/13

88/61 88/4 5 94/7 88/21 88/57 8 88/16 88/21 8/64 7 1 88/2288/24 / 88/32 8 88/30 8 88/23 88/31 88/2588/28 8 94/2 1 / 0 88/26 88/29 94/9 94/5 8 /2 8 8 8 94/1 9 /1 88/55 8 94/4 8

5 2 129 3 296 370 9 DR 16 4/6 45 TO 315 G 9 EO /5 R 8 339 91/1 GE 8 337 > 91/2 91

130 131/4 1 3 1 / 5 131/1

131/2 131 131/9

342/1

142

139

342

142/9

LEGEND: PROJECT: PROJEK: Tel: 044 873 4566, Email: [email protected] www.delplan.co.za Proposed consent use & departure for S&R Animals (Pty) Ltd

DESCRIPTION: BESKRYWING:

Smutskloof 94/6, George

TITLE: TITEL:

Locality plan COPYRIGHT: KOPIEREG: This drawing is the copyright of DELplan Consulting. Do not scale from 939/GEO/18/GIS/Ligging it but refer to figured dimensions. All measurements must be checked and confirmed by a professional Land Surveyor. Any discrepancies should please be reported to DELplan immediately. DESIGNED: DRAWN: I ONTWERP: SG GETEKEN: MV Die kopiereg van hierdie tekening behoort aan DELplan Consulting. A4 Scale: Moenie daarvan afskaal nie, maar verwys na afstande soos aangedui. Alle afmetings moet deur 'n professionele Landmeter nagegaan en 1:50 000 DATE: PLAN NO: bevestig word. Enige teenstrydighede moet asseblief dadelik aan DATUM: MAR 2021 PLAN NR: ANNEXURE 5 DELplan rapporteer word. - an nie, ngs med ade- gional TITEL: d dimen- d 1:500 PROJEK: BESKRYWING: www.delplan.co.za 939/GEO/18/TEK/SKF/SDP3 Site development plan development Site Proposed consent use consent Proposed Smutskloof 94/6, George 94/6, Smutskloof lik aan DELplan rapporteer word. rapporteer DELplan aan lik for S & R Animals (Pty) Ltd (Pty) Animals R & S for 32m river and wetland buffer wetland and river 32m area) development preferred (Not boundaries wetland and River area) development preferred (Not facility tourist Proposed DV MV 2021 MARCH ANNEXURE ANNEXURE should please be reported to DELPlan immediately. DELPlan to reported be please should A3 Scale: A3 by a Professional Land Surveyor. Any discrepencies Any Surveyor. Land Professional a by Tel: 044 873 4566 • Email: [email protected] Email: • 4566 873 044 Tel: Die kopiereg van hierdie tekening behoort aan DELpl aan behoort tekening hierdie van kopiereg Die moet deur 'n Professionele Landmeter nagegaan en be en nagegaan Landmeter Professionele 'n deur moet maar verwys na afstande soos aangedui. Alle afmeti Alle aangedui. soos afstande na verwys maar vestig word. Enige teenstrydighede moet asseblief d asseblief moet teenstrydighede Enige word. vestig Planning. Do not scale from it but refer to figure to refer but it from scale not Do Planning. Stads- & Streekbeplanning. Moenie daarvan afskaal afskaal daarvan Moenie Streekbeplanning. & Stads- sions. All measurements must be checked and confir and checked be must measurements All sions. 18 Parking spaces 2.5m x 5.5m x 2.5m spaces Parking 18 This drawing is the copyright of DELplan Urban & Re & Urban DELplan of copyright the is drawing This PROJECT: DESCRIPTION: TITLE: NOTES: NOTAS: COPYRIGHT: KOPIEREG: DRAWN: GETEKEN: NO: PLAN NR: PLAN DESIGNED: DESIGNED: DATE: DATUM: 94/1/RE

Smuts Kloof Smuts

n i

g n

l d

u B

m 0 3

E G ) 1 R / O 1 E D G

A O O R T

U g

d e

R e r

a o R T < (

N / 9 N N R 30m Buidling line Buidling 30m O

O line power of conductor centre of Line < Centre line of tarred road tarred of line Centre H S T D 632 U O

O m

4 1

T 3 1

6 .

e 9

< r

d a

o R m <

632 specifications DRE to built be to Access

5 0

9 63

m track of line Centre

7 0

630 4

6 s 28 i

5 v i

0 2

94/1/RE 626 Smuts Kloof Smuts m 8 628 .9 7

624 10m

P a k r n i

g 8 ( ) 10m

2 Fence Deck

a 626

e m

s 9

m 0

1 o

f 6

m 24

1 m

.8 2

7 3

2 1 62

) 0 ( 1

0 g 2 n i k r a P

8 0

9 2

5 . 2 6

0 m 9

e Fence

d i

e r

t S 618 94/RE Smuts Kloof Smuts 618

616

dam Edge of

4 5 94/6 Smuts Kloof Smuts

AQUATIC SPECIALIST INPUT INTO THE PLANNING APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT ON PORTION 6 OF FARM SMUTSKLOOF 94, WABOOMSKRAAL

PREPARED Mr Wim Roux PREPARED Sharples Environmental Services FOR: S & R Animals (Pty)Ltd BY: cc Contact Person: Debbie Fordham Email: [email protected]

DATE: 13 November 2020

AQUATIC SPECIALIST STUDY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION OF SMUTSKLOOF 94/6, GEORGE

DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE I, Debbie Fordham, declare that I: ➢ Act as an independent specialist consultant, in the field of aquatic ecology; ➢ Do not have and will not have any financial interest in the undertaking of the activity, other than remuneration for work performed; ➢ Have, and will have, no vested interest in the proposed activity proceeding; ➢ Have no, and will not engage in, conflicting interests in the undertaking of the activity; ➢ Undertake to disclose, to the competent authority, any material information that have or may have the potential to influence the decision of the competent authority or the objectivity of any report, plan or; and ➢ Will provide the competent authority with access to all the information at my disposal regarding the application, whether such information is favourable to the applicant or not.

INDEMNITY AND COPYRIGHT The project deliverables, including the reported results, comments, recommendations and conclusions, are based on the author’s professional knowledge as well as available information. The author reserves the right to modify aspects of the report including the recommendations if and when new information may become available from on-going research or further work in this field, or pertaining to this investigation. The author has exercised reasonable skill, care and diligence in the provision of services, however, accepts no liability or consequential liability for the use of the supplied project deliverables and any information or material contained therein. All intellectual property rights and copyright associated with Sharples Environmental Services cc services are reserved and project deliverables may not be modified or incorporated into subsequent reports, in any form or by any means, without the consent of the author. This also refers to electronic copies of this report. Similarly, this report should be appropriately referenced if the results, recommendations or conclusions stated in this report are used in subsequent documentation.

AUTHOR SPECIALIST QUALIFICATIONS DETAILS M.Sc - Debbie is a qualified aquatic ecologist and environmental Environmental scientist. Debbie holds a BA (Environmental Science and Science Geography), BA (Hons) and M.Sc. in Environmental Science from

Rhodes University. She was awarded her Master of Science DEBBIE BA (Hons) - Environmental degree, by thesis, in Wetland Science, entitled: The origin and FORDHAM Science evolution of the Tierkloof Wetland, a peatland dominated by (AQUATIC Prionium serratum in the Western Cape. She has specialised in ECOLOGIST) BA - Environmental aquatic habitat assessment and has produced numerous aquatic Science and habitat impact assessment reports. She is well established in her Geography specialist field and has worked in various provinces within South Africa.

AQUATIC SPECIALIST STUDY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION OF SMUTSKLOOF 94/6, GEORGE

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1

1.1 LOCATION ...... 1 1.2 SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN ...... 1 2 RELEVANT LEGISLATION ...... 3 3 DESKTOP ASSESSMENT ...... 4

3.1 BIOPHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS ...... 4 3.2 NATIONAL WETLAND AND RIVER DATA ...... 5 3.3 WESTERN CAPE BIODIVERSITY SPATIAL PLAN ...... 6 3.4 CATCHMENT LAND USE CHANGES ...... 7 4 ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS ...... 8 5 FINDINGS ...... 9 6 PROPOSED LAYOUT IMPLICATIONS ...... 12 7 BUFFER AREAS ...... 13 8 MITIGATION ...... 14 9 CONCLUSION ...... 16 10 REFERENCES ...... 17 11 ANNEXURE A ...... 19

11.1 WETLAND DELINEATION AND HGM TYPE IDENTIFICATION ...... 19 11.2 DELINEATION OF RIPARIAN AREAS ...... 23 12 ANNEXURE B: ALIEN INVASIVE PLANT CONTROL ...... 26

LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1: TOPOCADASTRAL MAP SHOWING THE STUDY AREA IN RELATION TO THE WABOOMSKRAAL AND THE N9 ROAD ...... 1 FIGURE 2: GOOGLE SATELLITE IMAGERY (2020) INDICATING THE LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED BUILDING ON THE SITE IN RED ...... 2 FIGURE 3: SMUTSKLOOF 94/6 - SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN COMPILED BY DELPLAN CONSULTING (SEPTEMBER 2020) .. 2 FIGURE 4: NATIONAL SPATIAL DATASETS FOR RIVERS AND WETLANDS IN RELATION TO THE SITE ...... 5 FIGURE 5: THE SITE IN RELATION TO WESTERN CAPE SPATIAL BIODIVERSITY PLAN MAP (PENCE 2017) ...... 6 FIGURE 6: HISTORICAL AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY OF THE STUDY AREA (YELLOW CIRCLE) FROM 1957 ...... 7 FIGURE 7: GOOGLE SATELLITE IMAGERY FROM 2003 SHOWING THE STUDY SITE ...... 7 FIGURE 8: GOOGLE SATELLITE IMAGERY FROM 2020 SHOWING THE STUDY SITE ...... 8 FIGURE 9: MAP SHOWING THE IDENTIFIED AQUATIC HABITATS RELEVANT TO THE STUDY SITE ...... 9 FIGURE 10: PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE MOTTLED SOILS WHICH ARE CHARACTERISTIC OF HYDRIC WETLAND SOIL CONDITIONS ...... 10 FIGURE 11: PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE SEEP WETLAND ON THE PROPERTY SHOWING THE VARIETY OF WETLAND PLANT SPECIES ...... 11 FIGURE 12: PHOTOGRAPHS OF HUMAN ACTIVITIES WHICH HAVE IMPACTED THE STATE OF THE WETLAND ...... 12 FIGURE 13: MAP SHOWING THE 32M DISTANCE FROM THE EDGE OF THE AQUATIC HABITATS ...... 13 FIGURE 14: MAP SHOWING ADDITIONAL DEVELOPABLE AREA IF A 15M BUFFER IS APPLIED ON THE WETLAND (AFTER MITIGATION) AS OPPOSED TO THE 32M BUFFER. A 15M BUFFER WOULD BE ADEQUATE IN PROTECTING THE WETLAND HABITAT WHILST INCREASING DEVELOPABLE AREA. PLEASE NOTE THAT IF THE PLANS WERE TO ADOPT THE 15M BUFFER, THE PROJECT WOULD REQUIRE ENVIRONMENTAL AUTHORISATION...... 14

AQUATIC SPECIALIST STUDY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION OF SMUTSKLOOF 94/6, GEORGE

1 INTRODUCTION

Sharples Environmental Services cc (SES) was appointed by S & R Animals (Pty) Ltd to conduct an Aquatic Specialist Assessment to inform a municipal development application process on Portion 6 of Farm Smutskloof 94, Waboomskraal, near George. This was required by the George Municipality due to desktop indications of aquatic habitat within the property, the most visible feature being the dam. It is therefore necessary to confirm the presence and extent of the aquatic habitat, identify any risks posed by possible development on the land, and determine aquatic buffer areas. The assessment included a detailed site assessment conducted on the 20th of October 2020.

1.1 Location Figure 1 shows the location of the study area in relation to the N9 National Road, Outeniqua Mountains, and the agricultural settlement of Waboomskraal (Figure 1). It is understood that S & R Animals (Pty) Ltd propose to construct a small shop, from which they can sell flowers, and other goods to the public. See proposed building site indicated in red in Figure 2 and the Delplan Consulting site development plan in Figure 3.

Figure 1: Topocadastral map showing the study area in relation to the Waboomskraal and the N9 road

1.2 Site development plan There is presently limited detailed information regarding the proposal, but it is understood that the project involves the construction of a small café/farmstall to sell flowers and other goods to the public

AQUATIC SPECIALIST STUDY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION OF SMUTSKLOOF 94/6, GEORGE

(largely travellers passing by Waboomskraal). It is assumed that the existing access road will be used as the access route to the building. There will be a parking area as shown in Figure 3.

Figure 2: Google satellite imagery (2020) indicating the location of the proposed building on the site in red

Figure 3: Smutskloof 94/6 - Site development plan compiled by Delplan Consulting (September 2020)

AQUATIC SPECIALIST STUDY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION OF SMUTSKLOOF 94/6, GEORGE

It is also assumed that the ablution facilities will be in the form of conservancy tanks or similar, and that no sewage or grey water will be discharged into the surrounding environment. The café and vehicles on site will be prevented from causing any pollution through grease or hydrocarbon contaminants being released into the environment. Solid and domestic waste will be removed and not disposed of on site. No contaminated surface runoff will enter any watercourses. All proposed infrastructure will be outside of 32m from watercourses. The 32m wide area between watercourses and activities will remain undisturbed and managed through alien clearing.

2 RELEVANT LEGISLATION

The protection of water resources is essential for sustainable development and therefore many policies and plans have been developed, and legislation promulgated, to protect these sensitive ecosystems. The proposed project must abide by the relevant legislative requirements. Table 1 below shows an outline of the environmental legislation relevant to the project.

Table 1: Relevant environmental legislation Legislation Relevance South African The constitution includes the right to have the environment protected Constitution 108 of 1996 Outlines principles for decision-making on matters affecting the National Environmental environment, institutions that will promote co-operative governance Management Act 107 of and procedures for coordinating environmental functions exercised by 1998 organs of state. The 2014 regulations have been promulgated in terms of Chapter 5 of Environmental Impact NEMA and were amended on 7 April 2017 in Government Notice No. Assessment (EIA) R. 326. In addition, listing notices (GN 324-327) lists activities which are Regulations subject to an environmental assessment. The new building footprint is more than 100 square metres in size and would trigger Listing Notice 1 Activity 12 if it were located within 32m of the wetland or river. However, the site layout has specifically set the building 32m back from the aquatic habitats, and therefore this location does not require NEMA authorisation. If the site is changed in a way where it does encroach into the 32m buffer Activity 12 will apply. Activity 12 of GNR 327: Listing Notice 1 GNR 327 The development of— NEMA (as amended (i) dams or weirs, where the dam or weir, including 2017) infrastructure and water surface area, exceeds 100 square metres; or (ii) (ii) infrastructure or structures with a physical footprint of 100 square metres or more; where such development occurs— (a) within a watercourse; (b) in front of a development setback; or (c) if no development setback exists, within 32 metres of a watercourse, measured from the edge of a watercourse

AQUATIC SPECIALIST STUDY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION OF SMUTSKLOOF 94/6, GEORGE

Chapter 4 of the National Water Act addresses the use of water and stipulates the various types of licensed and unlicensed entitlements to the use of water. The water uses under Section 21 (NWA) that are associated with the proposed development are most likely section 21 (c) and (i). This is because, according to the Department of Water and The National Water Act Sanitation (DWS), any structures within a 500-metre radius from the 36 of 1998 boundary of a wetland constitutes a Section 21(c) and (i) water use and as such requires a water use licence or registration ito GA. Any uses of water which do not meet the requirements of Schedule 1 or the GAs, require a license which should be obtained from the Department of Water and Sanitation (DWS). The project will require a General Authorisation in terms of Section 21 (c) and (i) of the National Water Act (NWA), Act 36 of 1998, as the development will be within 500m of the wetland. Government Notice R509 of 2016 was issued as a revision of the General Authorisations General Authorisations (No. 1191 of 1999) for section 21 (c) and (i) water uses (impeding or (GAs) under the NWA diverting flow or changing the bed, banks or characteristics of a watercourse) as defined under the NWA. Determining if a water use licence is required is associated with the risk of impacting on that watercourse. A low risk of impact could be authorised in terms of a General Authorisations (GA). This is to provide for the management and conservation of South National Environmental Africa’s biodiversity through the protection of species and ecosystems; Management: the sustainable use of indigenous biological resources; the fair and Biodiversity Act No. 10 equitable sharing of benefits arising from bioprospecting involving of 2004 indigenous biological resources; and the establishment of a South African National Biodiversity Institute. To provide for control over the utilization of the natural agricultural resources of the Republic in order to promote the conservation of the soil, the water sources and the vegetation and the combating of weeds Conservation of and invader plants; and for matters connected therewith. It is the Agricultural Resources responsibility of the landowner to clear the alien invasive plants, as Act 43 of 1967 required by the Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act, 1983 (Act No. 43 of 1983), and apply Section 28 of the NEMA, “Duty of Care”. The Duty of Care states that reasonable measures must be taken to prevent pollution or degradation from occurring, continuing or reoccurring.

3 DESKTOP ASSESSMENT

3.1 Biophysical characteristics The watercourses assessed are located within the upper reaches of the K35B quaternary catchment. They are fed by the Outeniqua Mountains, through surface water inputs and some groundwater seepage, within the classified George and Outeniqua Strategic Water Source Area. The underlying geology of the site consists of quartzitic sandstone and minor shale of the Nardouw sub group of the Table Mountain Group. There are no FEPA classified wetlands nor rivers within the study area that lies

AQUATIC SPECIALIST STUDY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION OF SMUTSKLOOF 94/6, GEORGE within the South Eastern Coastal Belt Ecoregion. The natural vegetation of the area is classified as South Outeniqua Sandstone Fynbos (Least Threatened Ecosystem Threat Status), however, there is little remaining in this transformed agricultural landscape. The pocket of wetland habitat on site, between the road and dam, contains natural wetland fynbos vegetation.

3.2 National Wetland and River Data The South African Surveys and Mapping Directorate of the Department of Land Affairs supported manual mapping of topographical features, including wetland and river data, from aerial photography, which was later vectorised and converted to shapefile formats (DLA: CDSM, 2000). The river line shapefiles were thus mapped from 1:50 000 topographical maps to form the national rivers dataset. The river line data shows a non-perennial river, flowing in a south westerly direction through the site, to join the larger non-perennial river in the valley bottom (Figure 4).

A South African Inventory of Inland Aquatic Ecosystems (SAIIAE) was established during the National Biodiversity Assessment of 2018 (Van Deventer et al. 2018). The SAIIAE offers a collection of data layers pertaining to ecosystem types and pressures for both rivers and inland wetlands. National Wetland Map 5 (NWM5) is one such data layer. The NWM5 shows the Bosrivier system, which flows along the southern site boundary, as an unchannelled valley bottom wetland (Figure 4). There is no other wetland habitat identified on the site by the database.

Figure 4: National spatial datasets for rivers and wetlands in relation to the site (note: aerial photography utilised in map is pre-2018)

AQUATIC SPECIALIST STUDY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION OF SMUTSKLOOF 94/6, GEORGE

3.3 Western Cape Biodiversity Spatial Plan The Western Cape Biodiversity Spatial Plan (WCBSP) is recognized by both the Department of Environmental Affairs and South African National Biodiversity Institute. The primary purpose of a map of Critical Biodiversity Areas and Ecological Support Areas is to guide decision-making about where best to locate development. Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBA’s) are required to meet biodiversity targets. These areas have high biodiversity and ecological value and therefore must be kept in a natural state without further loss of habitat or species. The WCBSP made a distinction between areas likely to be in a natural condition (CBA1) and areas that could be degraded (CBA2). Ecological Support Areas (ESA’s) are not essential for meeting biodiversity targets but are important as they support the functioning of CBA’s and Protected Areas (PA’s). ESA’s support landscape connectivity surrounds ecological infrastructure that provide ecosystem services, and strengthen resilience to climate change. These areas include Endangered vegetation; water source and recharge areas; and riparian habitat around rivers and wetlands. The WCBSP also made a distinction between ESA’s in a functional condition (ESA1) and degraded areas in need of restoration (ESA2). According to the WCBSP, the study area contains no CBA habitat.

Figure 5 shows that there is ESA 2 aquatic habitat surrounding the proposed building location. The watercourses are in need of restoration to meet biodiversity targets and no further habitat loss should occur.

Figure 5: The site in relation to Western Cape Spatial Biodiversity Plan map (Pence 2017)

AQUATIC SPECIALIST STUDY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION OF SMUTSKLOOF 94/6, GEORGE

3.4 Catchment land use changes The catchment has been under increasingly intense agricultural use for decades. In Figure 6 there are already established cultivated lands within the valley in 1957. The site proposed for development, however, seems undisturbed apart from the road infrastructure. The tributary which flows from the mountain slope through the site, to merge with the Bosrivier, is in near natural ecological condition and has not yet been dammed in 1957.

Figure 6: Historical aerial photography of the study area (yellow circle) from 1957

Figure 7 shows that by 2003 there is little natural habitat remaining due to the huge expanse of agricultural lands. The imagery shows the dam which was constructed on the property before 2003. There is also evidence of alien invasive tree encroachment within the tributary drainage line and main river. In 2003 the site is vegetated and not completely transformed like the surrounding cultivated lands. However, since 2003 there has been further vegetation clearance and soil disturbance within the catchment (Figure 8: 2020 imagery).

Figure 7: Google satellite imagery from 2003 showing the study site

AQUATIC SPECIALIST STUDY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION OF SMUTSKLOOF 94/6, GEORGE

Figure 8: Google satellite imagery from 2020 showing the study site

4 ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS

• The report was compiled to inform a municipal planning process through identification, delineation, and buffer determination of aquatic habitats. • It is assumed that the land use will be related to farmstall type activities only, not industrial/commercial scale activities. • The areas 32m between any watercourses and infrastructure will remain undisturbed and be managed as natural vegetation. • The recommendations presented in this report do not exempt the current, or any future landowner, from complying with any other environmental legislation triggered by their activities. • Aquatic ecosystems vary both temporally and spatially. Once-off surveys such as this are therefore likely to miss certain ecological information due to seasonality, thus limiting accuracy and confidence. However, for the purposes of this investigation, and considering that the findings are based upon an in-depth site assessment, there is a high confidence level associated with the report results. • No detailed assessment of aquatic fauna/biota was undertaken. • The vegetation information provided is based on observation (and desktop research) not formal vegetation plots. As such species documented in this report should be considered as a list of dominant and/or indicator riparian species and only provide a very general indication of the composition of the vegetation communities.

AQUATIC SPECIALIST STUDY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION OF SMUTSKLOOF 94/6, GEORGE

5 FINDINGS

The aquatic habitats within the property were identified and mapped on a desktop level utilising available data, the Geographic Information System, QGIS 2.18 and Google™ Earth Pro. The infield site assessment then confirmed the location and extent of these systems (recorded with a Garmin Montana hand-held GPS).

The identified aquatic habitat which will potentially be impacted upon by proposal include: • A non-perennial river • a seep wetland

The non-perennial Bosrivier riparian habitat joins the Waboomskraal River to the north east. It is located on the southern property boundary, downslope of the dam. There are smaller, non-perennial tributaries and seep wetlands joining the Bosrivier along its length. The seep wetland flows through the property to merge with the Bosrivier. However, the wetland has been impounded by a small dam prior to its confluence with the river. Figure 9 shows the delineated and mapped aquatic habitat within the study site.

Figure 9: Map showing the identified aquatic habitats relevant to the study site

There have been significant habitat modifications within all of the watercourses and the reference extent of the systems would have been substantially larger in the pre-impacted landscape. Habitat has

AQUATIC SPECIALIST STUDY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION OF SMUTSKLOOF 94/6, GEORGE been modified through the damming and diversion of the watercourses for water abstraction. There physical changes lower the accuracy and confidence level of the desktop habitat delineation. Therefore, a detailed site assessment was undertaken for the watercourses which may be impacted upon by the proposal. Groundtruthed delineation with a hand held soil auger was conducted to accurately delineate the extent of the wetland habitat located on the property (Figure 10).

Figure 10: Photograph showing the mottled soils which are characteristic of hydric wetland soil conditions

The wetland can be classified as a relatively small wetland seep (Figure 11). The wetland habitat becomes transformed to a dam prior to joining the trunk river. The perennial trunk river flows from east to west along the southern property boundary. The wetland has been significantly impacted by past land uses and the road construction. The remaining pocket of wetland habitat on site is presently in a good ecological state and geomorphically stable. The system as a whole is significantly degraded. The habitat on site is well vegetated with a highly diverse cover of wetland plant species which provide habitat and refuge for a range of biota. This is important within the context of a highly disturbed area. See dominant wetland plant species list in Table 2 below.

Although small, the wetland provides services to society such as water purification, flood attenuation, erosion control, and sediment trapping. No further disturbance to the wetland must be allowed to take place. It must be maintained by preventing erosion and sedimentation from being initiated and by managing alien plant species which encroach into the wet areas (largely Black Wattle trees).

AQUATIC SPECIALIST STUDY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION OF SMUTSKLOOF 94/6, GEORGE

Figure 11: Photographs of the seep wetland on the property showing the variety of wetland plant species

Figure 12 shows photographs of the existing impacts upon the wetland. This reach of the wetland has been subjected to habitat loss by infilling of wetland for roads, channelising flow, and impounding flow from construction of the dam.

AQUATIC SPECIALIST STUDY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION OF SMUTSKLOOF 94/6, GEORGE

Figure 12: Photographs of human activities which have impacted the state of the wetland

Table 2: List of wetland species observed on site Pteridium aquilinum Wachendorfia thyrsiflora (dominant) Carpha glomerate (common) Elegia juncea Juncus capensis Juncus cephalotes Helichrysum sp. (common) Zantedeschia aethiopica Isolepsis prolifera Juncus lomatophyllus Cliffortia sp. Chrysanthemoides monilifera Brachylaena neriifolia Cliffortia strobilifera (common)

6 PROPOSED LAYOUT IMPLICATIONS

The draft building layout initially proposed the construction of infrastructure on the edge of the dam with associated facilities (such as the parking area) in the rest of the eastern half of the property (near the remaining wetland habitat). The proposal was likely to impact the watercourses. However, the layout was changed following preliminary aquatic specialist input to avoid impacts upon aquatic habitat. The layout was amended to set-back all activities 32m from the watercourse and dam. Figure 13 shows the proposed building located 32m away from any watercourses to avoid disturbance.

Based on the layout in Figure 13, although there has been limited information provided, the proposal is unlikely to result in any water/soil pollution of aquatic habitat, provided the recommendations of the report are adhered to.

AQUATIC SPECIALIST STUDY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION OF SMUTSKLOOF 94/6, GEORGE

Figure 13: Map showing the 32m distance from the edge of the aquatic habitats

7 BUFFER AREAS

As per the above section, the proposed site development plan has already included a 32m wide setback area from watercourses. This will act as an adequate aquatic buffer zone to avoid impacting the wetland. However, a formal wetland buffer zone determination was conducted to confirm this width.

Aquatic buffer zones are designed to act as barriers between human activities and sensitive water resources in order to protect them from adverse negative impacts. Buffer zones associated with water resources have been shown to perform a wide range of functions and have therefore been adopted as a standard measure to protect water resources and associated biodiversity. An aquatic impact buffer zone is defined as a zone of vegetated land designed and managed so that sediment and pollutant transport carried from source areas via diffuse surface runoff is reduced to acceptable levels (Macfarlane and Bredin 2016).

The aquatic buffer zones were determined separately for the main Bosrivier river system downslope of the site, and the identified wetland tributary on site. The watercourses have vastly different characteristics which determines the size of the recommended buffer. It was determined that an aquatic buffer width of 32m from the edge of the watercourses will be adequate to protect the

AQUATIC SPECIALIST STUDY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION OF SMUTSKLOOF 94/6, GEORGE ecosystems. However, with the application of stringent mitigation measures, a buffer width of 15m could be sufficient to avoid impacts upon the wetland (Figure 14).

Figure 14: Map showing additional developable area if a 15m buffer is applied on the wetland (after mitigation) as opposed to the 32m buffer. A 15m buffer would be adequate in protecting the wetland habitat whilst increasing developable area. Please note that if the plans were to adopt the 15m buffer, the project would require environmental authorisation.

These recommended buffer areas are guidelines for planning. Activities proposed within or near these areas may require further assessment and environmental authorisation. The aquatic and terrestrial features on the property are protected under various legislation, such as NEMA (2014, as amended), the NWA (Act 36 of 1998), CARA (1998), amongst others. Any construction on the property will require a WULA with Risk Matrix (under GA) as there is a wetland within 500m proximity. This should be a S21 (c) and (i) process (if the wetland is avoided) with the BGCMA online platform application. Any future proposed projects on the property or changes to this proposal must abide by the relevant legislative requirements.

8 MITIGATION

Mitigation requires the adoption of the precautionary principle and proactive planning that is enabled through a mitigation hierarchy. Its application is intended to strive to first avoid disturbance of ecosystems and loss of biodiversity, and where this cannot be avoided altogether, to minimise,

AQUATIC SPECIALIST STUDY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION OF SMUTSKLOOF 94/6, GEORGE rehabilitate, and then finally offset any remaining significant residual negative impacts on biodiversity (DEA 2013). The focus of this project plan is to avoid and prevent any disturbance of ecosystems. It has been determined that with the current layout plan the avoidance of impacting the aquatic habitats is easily achievable. The mitigation of impacts must focus on preventing water pollution, maintaining freshwater habitat and managing the runoff generated by the development and introducing it responsibly into the receiving environment. Below are recommendations to mitigate any impacts from development: • The stormwater flows must enter the wetland areas in a diffuse flow pattern without pollutants. • Frequent, multiple stormwater outlets must be designed to prevent erosion at discharge points. Outlets should be in the form of multiple smaller storm water outlets rather than a few large outlets in order spread out surface flow and avoid flow concentration and erosion as far as possible. • Stormwater exit points must include a best management practice approach to trap any additional suspended solids and pollutants originating from the proposed development. Also include the placement of stormwater grates (or similar). The use of grease traps/oil separators to prevent pollutants from entering the environment from stormwater is recommended. To ensure the efficiency of these, they must be regularly maintained. • The buffer area must be considered as a No Go area for infrastructure. An important component of these buffers is that they represent minimum setbacks from the watercourse. Functions such as stormwater attenuation and roads must lie outside of this setback area or be designed with consideration to the mitigation measures of this report. • No equipment laydown or storage areas must be located within delineated freshwater buffer zone. • All bare slopes and surfaces to be exposed to the elements during clearing and earthworks must be protected against erosion using rows of silt fences, sandbags, hay bales and/or earthen berms spaced along contours at regular intervals. • All disturbed areas beyond the construction site that are intentionally or accidentally disturbed during the construction phase must be rehabilitated immediately. • Erosion features that have developed due to construction within the aquatic habitat due to the project are required to be stabilised. This may also include the need to deactivate any erosion headcuts/rills/gullies that may have developed. • The solid domestic waste must be removed and disposed of offsite. • It is recommended that landscaping promote the use of indigenous species common to the region and that as much natural ground cover is established on the site to help with binding

AQUATIC SPECIALIST STUDY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION OF SMUTSKLOOF 94/6, GEORGE

soils and encouraging water infiltration, thus reducing overland flows and the pressure on storm water management infrastructure. • Appropriate wastewater infrastructure must be designed to prevent any such water from entering the surrounding environment. • The Department of Water regional office should be notified, as soon as possible, of any significant chemical spill or leakage to the environment where there is the potential to contaminate surface water or groundwater. • Maintenance of the freshwater habitat and buffer area must be implemented for it to remain effective. Apart from erosion control and alien invasive plant eradication, the encroachment of any further infrastructure or vehicles must be prevented.

9 CONCLUSION

The aquatic habitat assessment identified two watercourses which may potentially be impacted upon by development on the site. The Bosrivier river main river flows along the southern property boundary and there is a small seep wetland joining the river from the mountain slope through the site. There is limited wetland habitat remaining due to the construction of a dam on site, the two road crossings, and land transformation upslope due to agriculture. The pocket of remaining wetland habitat is in near natural condition and requires protection from any direct or indirect impacts. The development of the proposed building, located 32m away from any watercourses, is unlikely to impact the aquatic habitat surrounding the site. To conserve the remaining aquatic habitat there must be no activities within the buffer areas, and any potential pollutants must be prevented from entering the environment.

If the location and extent of the watercourses and the buffer areas is included within the development plans, and any proposed activities comply with all relevant legislation, there will be no unacceptable impacts to aquatic habitat.

AQUATIC SPECIALIST STUDY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION OF SMUTSKLOOF 94/6, GEORGE

10 REFERENCES

BROMILOW, C. 2001. Problem Plants of South Africa: a Guide to the Identification and Control of more than 300 invasive plants and other weeds. Briza Publications, Pretoria.

CSIR (Council for Scientific and Industrial Research). 2010. National Aquatic Ecosystem Priority Areas (NFEPA). Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, Pretoria, South Africa.

DAY, L., ROWNTREE, M., & KING, H. 2016. The Development of a Comprehensive Manual for River Rehabilitation. WRC Report No TT 646/15. Water Research Commission, Pretoria.

DLA:CDSM (Department of Land Affairs: Chief Directorate of Surveys and Mapping) (2006) Hydrological polygon and river line shapefiles mapped from the 1:50 000 topographical maps. DLA:CDSM, Cape Town

DEPARTMENT OF WATER AFFAIRS AND FORESTRY, 1999a. Resource Directed Measures for Protection of Water Resources. Volume 4. Wetland Ecosystems Version 1.0, Pretoria.

DEPARTMENT OF WATER AFFAIRS AND FORESTRY, 2005. A Practical Field Procedure for Identification and Delineation of Wetland and Riparian areas. Edition 1, September 2005. DWAF, Pretoria.

Department of Water Affairs (DWA), 2014. Reserve Determination Studies for Surface Water, Groundwater, Estuaries and Wetlands in the Gouritz Water Management Area: Desktop EcoClassification Report. Prepared by Scherman Colloty & Associates. Report no. RDM/WMA16/00/CON/0213.

DEPARTMENT OF WATER AFFAIRS AND FORESTRY. 2009. DWAF Training Manual: National Water Act Section 21(c) and (i) Water Uses. Version: November 2009.

DRIVER, A., NEL, J.L., SNADDON, K., MURRAY, K., ROUX, D.J., HILL, L., SWARTZ, E.R., MANUEL, J. AND FUNKE, N. 2011. Implementation Manual for Aquatic Ecosystem Priority Areas. Report to the Water Research Commission. Pretoria

DWAF. 2008. Updated Manual for the Identification and Delineation of Wetlands and Riparian Areas, prepared by M. Rountree, A. L. Batchelor, J. MacKenzie and D. Hoare. Stream Flow Reduction Activities, Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, Pretoria, South Africa

KLEYNHANS, C.J., 1996. Index of Habitat Integrity (IHI).

KOTZE, D.C., MARNEWECK, G.C., BATCHELOR, A.L., LINDLEY, D.S. AND COLLINS, N.B. 2009. WET- Ecoservices: A technique for rapidly assessing ecosystem services supplied by wetlands.

MACFARLANE, D.M. and Bredin, I.P. 2016. Buffer zone guidelines for rivers, wetlands and estuaries. Part 2: Practical Guide. WRC Report No (tbc), Water Research Commission, Pretoria.

AQUATIC SPECIALIST STUDY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION OF SMUTSKLOOF 94/6, GEORGE

MACFARLANE, D.M., KOTZE, D.C., ELLERY, W.N., WALTERS, D., KOOPMAN, V., GOODMAN, P. & GOGE, C. 2008. WET-Health: A technique for rapidly assessing wetland health, Version 2.

MUCINA, L. AND RUTHERFORD, M. C. (EDS) 2006. The Vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Strelitzia 19. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria.

NAIMAN, R.J., AND H. DECAMPS. 1997. The ecology of interfaces -- riparian zones. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 28:621-658

OLLIS, D.J., SNADDON, C.D., JOB, N.M. & MBONA, N. 2013. Classification System for Wetlands and other Aquatic Ecosystems in South Africa. User Manual: Inland Systems. SANBI Biodiversity Series 22. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria.

ROGERS KH. 1995. Riparian Wetlands. In: Wetlands of South Africa, Cowan GI (ed). Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism: Pretoria.

VAN GINKEL, C.E., GLEN, R.P., GORDAN-GRAY, K.D., CILLIERS, C.J., MUASYA AND VAN DEVENTER, P.P., 2011. Easy identification of some South African Wetland Plants (Grasses, Resticios, Sedges, Rushes, Bulrushes, Eriocaulons and Yellow-eyed grasses). WRC Report No. TT 459/10.

AQUATIC SPECIALIST STUDY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION OF SMUTSKLOOF 94/6, GEORGE

11 ANNEXURE A

11.1 Wetland delineation and HGM type identification

Wetland delineation includes the confirmation of the occurrence of wetland and a determination of the outermost edge of the wetland. The outer boundary of wetlands was identified and delineated according to the Department of Water Affairs wetland delineation manual ‘A Practical Field Procedure for Identification and Delineation of Wetland and Riparian Areas’ (DWAF, 2005a). Wetland indicators were used in the field delineation of the wetlands: position in landscape, vegetation and soil wetness (determined through soil sampling with a soil auger and the examining the degree of mottling).

Four specific wetland indicators were used in the detailed field delineation of wetlands, which include: • The Terrain Unit Indicator helps to identify those parts of the landscape where wetlands are more likely to occur. • The Soil Form Indicator identifies the soil forms, as defined by the Soil Classification Working Group (1991), which are associated with prolonged and frequent saturation. • The Soil Wetness Indicator identifies the morphological "signatures" developed in the soil profile as a result of prolonged and frequent saturation. • The Vegetation Indicator identifies hydrophilic vegetation associated with frequently saturated soils.

Figure A11.1a: Cross section through a wetland, indicating how the soil wetness and vegetation indicators change as one moves along a gradient of decreasing wetness, from the middle to the edge of the wetland. Source: Donovan Kotze, University of KwaZulu-Natal.

According to the wetland definition used in the National Water Act, vegetation is the primary indicator, which must be present under normal circumstances. However, in practise the soil wetness

AQUATIC SPECIALIST STUDY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION OF SMUTSKLOOF 94/6, GEORGE indicator tends to be the most important, and the other three indicators are used in a confirmatory role. The reason is that vegetation responds relatively quickly to changes in soil moisture regime or management and may be transformed; whereas the morphological indicators in the soil are far more permanent and will hold the signs of frequent saturation long after a wetland has been drained (perhaps for several centuries).

The permanent, seasonal and temporary wetness zones can be characterised to some extent by the soil wetness indicators that they display (Table A11.1a)

A11.1a: Soil Wetness Indicators in the various wetland zones

TEMPORARY ZONE SEASONAL ZONE PERMANENT ZONE Minimal grey matrix (<10%) Grey matrix (<10%) Prominent grey matrix Few high chroma mottles Many low chroma mottles present Few to no high chroma mottles Short periods of saturation (less Significant periods of wetness (at Wetness all year round (possible than three months per annum) least three months per annum) sulphuric odour)

Table A11.1b: Relationship between wetness zones and vegetation types and classification of plants according to occurrence in wetlands

VEGETATION TEMPORARY WETNESS ZONE SEASONAL PERMANENT WETNESS ZONE

WETNESS ZONE Predominantly grass species; Hydrophilic Dominated by: (1) emergent plants, Herbaceous mixture of species which occur sedges and including reeds (Phragmites extensively in non-wetland areas, grasses australis), a mixture of sedges and and hydrophilic plant species restricted to bulrushes (Typha capensis), usually which are restricted largely to wetland areas >1m tall; or (2) floating or submerged wetland areas aquatic plants. Woody Mixture of woody species which Hydrophilic Hydrophilic woody species, which occur extensively in non-wetland woody species are restricted to wetland areas. areas, and hydrophilic plant restricted to Morphological adaptations to species which are restricted wetland areas prolonged wetness (e.g. prop roots). largely to wetland areas.

SYMBOL HYDRIC STATUS DESCRIPTION/OCCURRENCE Ow Obligate wetland species Almost always grow in wetlands (>90% occurrence) Fw/F+ Facultative wetland species Usually grow in wetlands (67-99% occurrence) but occasionally found in non-wetland areas F Facultative species Equally likely to grow in wetlands (34-66% occurrence) and non-wetland areas

AQUATIC SPECIALIST STUDY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION OF SMUTSKLOOF 94/6, GEORGE

Fd/F- Facultative dryland species Usually grow in non-wetland areas but sometimes grow in wetlands (1-34% occurrence) D Dryland species Almost always grow in drylands

In order to identify the wetland types, using Kotze et al. (2009) and Ollis et al. (2013), a characterisation of hydrogeomorphic (HGM) types was conducted. These have been defined based on the geomorphic setting of the wetland in the landscape (e.g. hillslope or valley bottom, whether drainage is open or closed), water source (surface water dominated or sub-surface water dominated), how water flows through the wetland (diffusely or channelled) and how water exits the wetland

(Figure A11.1b).

AQUATIC SPECIALIST STUDY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION OF SMUTSKLOOF 94/6, GEORGE

Figure A11.1b: Illustration of wetland types and their typical landscape setting (From Ollie et al. 2013)

SUBDIVISION OF ERF 15 HOEKWIL 11.2 Delineation of Riparian Areas

Riparian zones are described as “the physical structure and associated vegetation of the areas associated with a watercourse which are commonly characterised by alluvial soils, and which are inundated or flooded to an extent and with a frequency sufficient to support vegetation of species with a composition and physical structure distinct from those of adjacent areas” i , Riparian zones can be thus be distinguished from adjacent terrestrial areas through their association with the physical structure (banks) of the river or stream, as well as the distinctive structural and compositional vegetation zones between the riparian and upland terrestrial areas. Unlike wetland areas, riparian zones are usually not saturated for a long enough duration for redoxymorphic features to develop. Riparian zones instead develop in response to (and are adapted to) the physical disturbances caused by frequent overbank flooding from the associated river or stream channel.

Like wetlands, riparian areas can be identified using a set of indicators. The indicators for riparian areas are: - Landscape position; - Alluvial soils and recently deposited material; - Topography associated with riparian areas; and - Vegetation associated with riparian areas.

Landscape Position A typical landscape can be divided into 5 main units, namely the: - Crest (hilltop); - Scarp (cliff); - Midslope (often a convex slope); - Footslope (often a concave slope); and - Valley bottom.

Amongst these landscape units, riparian areas are only likely to develop on the valley bottom landscape units (i.e. adjacent to the river or stream channels; along the banks comprised of the sediment deposited by the channel). Alluvial soils are soils derived from material deposited by flowing water, especially in the valleys of large rivers. Riparian areas often, but not always, have alluvial soils. Whilst the presence of alluvial soils cannot always be used as a primary indicator to accurately delineate riparian areas, it can be used to confirm the topographical and vegetative indicators.

SUBDIVISION OF ERF 15 HOEKWIL Quaternary alluvial soil deposits are often indicated on geological maps, and whilst the extent of these quaternary alluvial deposits usually far exceeds the extent of the contemporary riparian zone; such indicators are useful in identifying areas of the landscape where wider riparian zones may be expected to occur.

Topography and recently deposited material associated with riparian areas The National Water Act definition of riparian zones refers to the structure of the banks and likely presence of alluvium. A good indicator of the presence of riparian zones is the presence of alluvial deposited material adjacent to the active channel (such as benches and terraces), as well as the wider incised “macro-channels” which are typical of many of southern Africa’s eastern seaboard rivers. Recently deposited alluvial material outside of the main active channel banks can indicate a currently active flooding area; and thus the likely presence of wetlands. Vegetation associated with riparian areas unlike the delineation of wetland areas, where redoxymorphic features in the soil are the primary indicator, the identification of riparian areas relies heavily on vegetative indicators. Using vegetation, the outer boundary of a riparian area can be defined as the point where a distinctive change occurs: - in species composition relative to the adjacent terrestrial area; and - in the physical structure, such as vigour or robustness of growth forms of species similar to that of adjacent terrestrial areas. Growth form refers to the health, compactness, crowding, size, structure and/or numbers of individual plants.

As with the delineation approach for wetlands, the field delineation method for riparian areas focuses on two main indicators of riparian zones: - Vegetation Indicators, and - Topography of the banks of the river or stream.

Additional verification can be obtained by examining for any recently alluvial deposited material to indicate the extent of flooding and thus obtain at least a minimum riparian zone width. The following procedure should be used for delineation of riparian zones: A good rough indicator of the outer edge of the riparian areas is the edge of the macro channel bank. This is defined as the outer bank of a compound channel, and should not be confused with the active river or stream channel bank. The macro-channel is an incised feature, created by uplift of the subcontinent which caused many rivers to cut down to the underlying geology and creating a sort of “restrictive floodplain” within which one or more active channels flow. Floods seldom have any known influence outside of this incised feature. Within the macro-channel, flood benches may exist between the active channel and the top of the macro channel bank. These depositional features are often covered by alluvial deposits and may have riparian vegetation on them. Going (vertically) up the macro channel bank often represents a dramatic

SUBDIVISION OF ERF 15 HOEKWIL decrease in the frequency, duration and depth of flooding experienced, leading to a corresponding change in vegetation structure and composition.

Figure A11.2a: A schematic diagram illustrating the edge of the riparian zone on one bank of a large river. Note the coincidence of the inflection (in slope) on the bank with the change in vegetation structure and composition. The edge of the riparian zone coincides with an inflection point on the bank; where there are not obligates upslope; few preferential. The boundary also coincides with the outer edge of the stature differences (DWAF 2008).

SUBDIVISION OF ERF 15 HOEKWIL 12 ANNEXURE B: ALIEN INVASIVE PLANT CONTROL

Table showing control options for likely alien invasive plants species (Adapted from Day et al. 2016)

Manual: Hand pulling or hoeing of seedlings or saplings. Grubbing, hoeing and digging out of immature stage up to 2 m. Felling and cutting of stump to the ground for larger mature trees. Acacia cyclops

(Rooikrans) Bio-Control: Indigenous field mice eat the seeds. Rooikrans seed weevil. Flower galler (Dasineura dielsi Rubsaamen). Seed feeder (Melanterius servulus).

Manual: Hand pulling of seedlings or saplings <40 cm. Grubbing. Hoeing. Digging of immature trees up to 2 m. Felling used for large mature trees. Ringing, ring of 10 cm width in large plants.

Acacia mearnsii Chemical: Seedlings – Mamba, Garlon 4, Viroaxe. Tree stumps – Timbrel 3A. (Black Wattle)

Bio Control: Stump fungus (Cylindrobasidium laeve) applied to freshly cut stumps. Seed weevil (Melanterius maculates).

SUBDIVISION OF ERF 15 HOEKWIL

Manual: Repeated removal. Cutting of stalks. However, cut stalks can re-root and manual methods generally unsustainable.

Chemical: 3Apply MAMBA or Nexus GLYPHOSATE 360 Reg. NO L7113: Act /Wet no 36/ 1947. This is Arundo donax a broad spectrum herbicide so applicable in dense monospecific stands. Ideally use as foliar spray, just (Spanish Reed) before winter (as this is the time that translocation in plant nutrients to the root-mass takes place in preparation for winter dormancy and toxin transfer to roots is most effective. If stands too dense for good foliar application, cut stems and then apply as foliar to resprouting material – but note that cut material may resprout and transfer to roots less effective as cutting stimulates stem growth. If mixed stands, use GLYPHOSATE 360, on cut stems, but note less effective.

Manual: Hand pulling of seedlings or saplings. Grubbing or hoeing of small patches. Cutting is ineffective as plant coppices use of herbicides needed. Large infestation should be crushed or rolled with brush cutters then stumps treated with herbicides.

Chemical: Seedlings/ saplings – Mamba/Kilo Touchdown / Access. Mature tree stumps – Chopper / Lantana camara Access/ Timbrel 3A.

Bio Control: Flower galler (Aceria lantanae Cook). Leaf miner (Calycomyza lantanae). Leaf sucker (Falconia intermedia). Leaf feeder (Hypena laceratalis Walker). Leaf miner (Octotoma scabripennis Guerin-Meneville). Leaf miner (Ophiomyia camarae Spencer). Seed miner (Ophiomyia lantanae). Leaf &

flower sucker (Teleonemia scrupulosa Stal). Leaf miner (Uroplata girardi Pic).

Manual: hand pull by roots; kikuyu often associated with raised fill / disturbed areas – removal will reduce invasion opportunities; Inclusion of hard paths on upland edge of river, buffer or wetland provides hard Pennisetum management edge from which to manage invasion and also reduces to some extent root spread clandestinum

(Kikuyu grass) Chemical: Spray with Roundup ® while grass is actively growing (not when dormant) and follow up spray any regrowth after 4 months.

SUBDIVISION OF ERF 15 HOEKWIL

Rubus spp Chemical: Mamba max – most effective in autumn when downward sap movement. (Bramble)

Cirsium vulgare (Scottish Thistle) Manual: hand pull

Hedychium gardnerianum Manual: hand pull (Kahili ginger lily)

GEORGE MUNICIPALITY

APPLICATION FORM FOR APPLICATION SUBMITTED IN TERMS OF THE LAND-USE PLANNING BY-LAW FOR GEORGE MUNICIPALITY

NOTE: Please complete this form using BLOCK capitals and ticking the appropriate boxes. PART A: APPLICANT DETAILS DELAREY First name(s)

VILJOEN Surname

SACPLAN Reg No. A/1021/1998 (if applicable) Company name DELPLAN CONSULTING (if applicable) PO BOX 9956

Postal Address Postal GEORGE 6530 Code

Email [email protected]

Tel Fax 044 873 4568 Cell 082 808 9624 044 873 4566 PART B: REGISTERED OWNER(S) DETAILS (if different from applicant) Registered owner SCHMITZ AND ROUX ANIMALS EIENDOMS BEPERK SMUTSKLOOF 94/6, GEORGE

Address Postal GEORGE 6529 code E-mail [email protected]

Tel Fax Cell 082 870 0100

PART C: PROPERTY DETAILS (in accordance with Title Deed) Property SMUTSKLOOF 94/6, GEORGE Description Page 1 of 5

[Erf / Erven / Portion(s) and Farm number(s), allotment area.] Physical Address GEORGE

GPS Coordinates Lat: -33.873221 Lon: 22.372012 Town/City GEORGE

AGRICULTURAL ZONE I Are there existing Current Zoning Extent 39, 9767 ha Y N buildings? AGRICULTURAL ZONE I Current Land Use

Title Deed T34141/2016 number & date Any restrictive If Yes, list conditions Y N condition prohibiting number(s). application? Are the restrictive conditions in If Yes, list the Y N favour of a third party(ies). party(ies)? Is the property If Yes, list encumbered by Y N Bondholder(s)? a bond? Has the Municipality If yes, list already decided Y N reference on the number(s)? application(s)? Any existing unauthorized buildings and/or land use If yes, is this application to legalize Y N Y N on the subject property(ies)? the building / land use? Are there any land claim(s) Are there any pending court case / order relating to Y N registered on the subject Y N the subject property(ies)? property(ies)? PART D: PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION Has there been any pre- If Yes, please complete the information below and attach the Y N application consultation? minutes.

Reference Smutskloof 94/6, Date of Official’s name Jeanne Fourie 18/03/2020 number George consultation

PART E: LAND USE APPLICATIONS IN TERMS OF SECTION 15 OF THE LAND USE PLANNING BY-LAW FOR GEORGE MUNICIPALITY & APPLICATION FEES PAYABLE

Page 2 of 5

*Application fees that are paid to the Municipality are non-refundable and proof of payment of the application fees must accompany the application.

BANKING DETAILS Name: George Municipality Bank: ABSA Branch no.: 632005 Account no.: 01022220981 Type: Cheque Swift Code: ABSAZAJJCPE-SORTCODE 632005 VAT Registration Nr: 4630193664 E-MAIL: [email protected]

*Payment reference: Smutskloof 94/6, George

PART F: DETAILS OF PROPOSAL Brief description of proposed development / intent of application: The application for Smutskloof 94/6, George entails the following: • Consent use in terms of Section 15(2)(o) of the Land Use Planning By-Law for George Municipality for a tourist facility including a restaurant. • Departure in terms of Section 15 (2)(b) of the Land Use Planning By-Law for George Municipality for the relaxation of the following boundary building lines: • North -western boundary building line from 30m to 17.8m. • North-eastern boundary building line from 30m to 20.5m.

PART G: ATTACHMENTS & SUPPORTING INFORMATION FOR LAND USE PLANNING APPLICATIONS Please complete the following checklist and attach all the information relevant to the proposal. Failure to submit all information required will result in the application being deemed incomplete. Is the following compulsory information attached? Pre-application Checklist (where Y N Completed application form Y N applicable) Power of Attorney / Owner’s consent if Y N Y N Bondholder’s consent applicant is not owner Y N Motivation report / letter Y N Proof of payment of fees S.G. noting sheet extract / Erf diagram / Y N Full copy of the Title Deed Y N General Plan Y N Locality Plan Y N Site layout plan Minimum and additional requirements: Y N N/A Conveyancer’s Certificate Y N N/A Land Use Plan / Zoning plan Proposed Subdivision Plan

Y N N/A (including street names and Y N N/A Phasing Plan numbers)

Page 3 of 5

Copy of original approval letter (if Y N N/A Consolidation Plan Y N N/A applicable) Y N N/A Site Development Plan Y N N/A Landscaping / Tree Plan Home Owners’ Association Y N N/A Abutting owner’s consent Y N N/A consent Copy of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) / Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) / Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) / 1: 50 / 1:100 Flood line Y N N/A Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) / Y N N/A determination (plan / report) Major Hazard Impact Assessment (MHIA) / Environmental Authorisation (EA) / Record of Decision (ROD) (strikethrough irrelevant) Services Report or indication of Required number of Y N N/A all municipal services / Y N N/A documentation copies 2 copies registered servitudes Any additional documents or information required as listed in Y N N/A Y N N/A Other (specify) the pre-application consultation form / minutes PART H: AUTHORISATION(S) IN TERMS OF OTHER LEGISLATION National Heritage Resources Act, 1999 Specific Environmental Management Y N/A (Act 25 of 1999) Act(s) (SEMA) National Environmental Management (e.g. Environmental Conservation Act, Y N/A Act, 1998 (Act 107 of 1998) 1989 (Act 73 of 1989), National Subdivision of Agricultural Land Act, Environmental Management: Air Quality Y N/A 1970 (Act 70 of 1970) Act, 2004 (Act 39 of 2004), Y N/A National Environmental Integrated Spatial Planning and Land Use Y N/A Management Act, 2013 (Act 16 of Coastal Management Act, 2008 (Act 24

2013) (SPLUMA) of 2008), National Environmental Management: Waste Act, 2008 (Act 59 Occupational Health and Safety Act, of 2008), 1993 (Act 85 of 1993): Major Hazard Y N/A National Water Act, 1998 (Act 36 of 1998) Installations Regulations (strikethrough irrelevant) Land Use Planning Act, 2014 (Act 3 of Y N/A Y N/A Other (specify) 2014) (LUPA) If required, has application for EIA / HIA / TIA / TIS / MHIA approval been made? If yes, attach Y N documents / plans / proof of submission etc. N/A If required, do you want to follow an integrated application procedure in terms of section 44(1) of Y N the Land-Use Planning By-law for George Municipality?

Page 4 of 5

SECTION I: DECLARATION I hereby wish to confirm the following: 1. That the information contained in this application form and accompanying documentation is complete and correct. 2. The Municipality has not already decided on the application. 3. I’m aware that it is an offense in terms of section 86(1)(d) to supply particulars, information or answers in an application, knowing it to be false, incorrect or misleading or not believing them to be correct. 4. I am properly authorized to make this application on behalf of the owner and (where applicable) copies of such full relevant Powers of Attorney/Consent are attached hereto. 5. I have been appointed to submit this application on behalf of the owner and it is accepted that correspondence from and notifications by the Municipality in terms of the by-law will be sent only to me as the authorised agent and the owner will regularly consult with the agent in this regard (where applicable). 6. That this submission includes all necessary land use planning applications required to enable the development proposed herein. 7. I confirm that the relevant title deed(s) have been read and that there are no restrictive title deed restrictions, which impact on this application, or alternatively an application for removal/amendment/suspension forms part of this submission. 8. I am aware of the status of the existing bulk services and infrastructure in the subject area and that I am liable for any possible development charges which may be payable as a result of the proposed development.

Applicant’s signature: Date: 22 / 02 / 2020

Full name: DELAREY VILJOEN

PROFESSIONAL PLANNER Professional capacity:

A/1021/1998 SACPLAN Reg. Nr:

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

Date received: Received by:

Receipt number:

Date application complete

ANNEXURES Annexure A: Exemplar of locality plan (consult guidelines for precise requirements) Please do not submit these Annexure exemplars with Annexure B: Application submission checklist the application form. Annexure C: Exemplar of typical layout plan (consult

guidelines for precise requirements Annexure D: Examples of required documents

Page 5 of 5