Hi Amy Please Find Letter of Comment Form the Pinelands Ratepayers And
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
From: Carol Clark To: Amy Hill Cc: "Marc Turok" Subject: River Club Redevelopment: Comment on Pre-Application BAR Date: Sunday, 15 September 2019 20:23:06 Attachments: River Club Redevelopment PRRA Comment on Pre Applicaiton BAR 14 09 2019.docx Importance: High Hi Amy Please find letter of comment form the Pinelands Ratepayers and Residents Assocation Thanks carol From: Carol Clark To: Amy Hill Cc: [email protected] Subject: River Club Redevelopment: comment on Pre-Application BAR Date: Sunday, 15 September 2019 21:18:16 Attachments: River Club Redevelopment Comment on Pre Applicaiton BAR 15 09 2019 Carol Clark.pdf Importance: High Hi Amy Attached is my comment on the BAR Thanks Carol From: chantal fourie To: Amy Hill Cc: [email protected] Subject: River Club Redevelopment-pre application BAR Date: Monday, 16 September 2019 22:27:04 Attachments: Appendix_J_Impact_Assessment.pdf Dear Amy I'm contacting you regarding the River Club Redevelopment. I don't have personal, business or financial interests in the application to develop Erf 151832, Erf 26426, ERF 108936, Erf 26427, Erf 15326 Rem, Erf 26169, Erf 26170, Erf 26171, Erf 26172, Erf 26173, Erf 26174 and Erf 26175), 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 and WU9026 River Club, Cape Town My reason for the objection regards the enviromental impact. I refer to SRK Consulting: 478320 River Club Redevelopment Impact Assessment Page 3 Freshwater ecology – potential loss of, and changes to the quality or functioning of freshwater habitats within the project Area of Influence; • Fauna – potential faunal species mortalities, and changes in faunal habitat quality and connectivity; • Flora – potential changes in floral species composition at the site and adjacent areas; Also • An increase in flood velocity at the confluence of the rehabilitated Liesbeek Canal and Black River will create localised and isolated High Hazard Flood zones for flood return events of 1:50 years or less frequent along the western banks of the rehabilitated Liesbeek Canal (Riverine Concept Alternative only Referring to :SRK Consulting: 478320 River Club Redevelopment Impact Assessment Page 15 LAWM/dalc 478320_River Club_BAR Impact Assessment_July 2019_Final May 2019 the “High Hazard Zone” (and floods pose a risk to people and structures here). Figure 2-2 illustrates that an area is considered to be located within the High Hazard Zone if water depth exceeds 0.8 m and water velocity exceeds 2 m/s Referring to: 4.3.5 Potential Impact FE7: Changes to Habitat Quality in Rehabilitated Areas The Riverine Corridor Alternative and the Island Concept Alternative During operations, activities at the site and poor maintenance could degrade areas rehabilitated during construction, offsetting many of the anticipated ecological benefits. Activities at the site, and poor maintenance could lead to the following changes in rehabilitated environments: • Simplification of planted vegetation (and the expansion of grassed areas); • Development encroachment into rehabilitated areas; • Blocking of faunal pathways; • Incision and channelization of the low flow channel in the rehabilitated Liesbeek Canal; • Proliferation of invasive plant species; • Disturbance from increased human traffic in sensitive and rehabilitated areas; and • Predation by domestic animals. The impact is assessed to be of low significance and with the implementation of mitigation is reduced to insignificant (Table 2-14). 2.5.2.1 Potential Impact FA1: Faunal Mortalities During construction, construction vehicles will traverse (poor quality) terrestrial faunal habitat, and move within and close to wetlands and watercourses close to the site, and it is inevitable that this will lead to faunal mortalities from collisions. Pitfall fatalities of small faunal species are also possible. By far the faunal species of greatest concern at the site is the Endangered WLT. Although development, housing and job creation through construction is necessary I don't believe that this specific area should be sacrificed. The rivers and wetlands are vital for the survival of the WLT, bird species and the Cape Clawless Otter. Having such a built up area next to it would be devastating. I can be contacted via this email address or phone 0798456926 Kind regards Chantal Flat 1 Arundel Court, Arundel Road Rosebank 0798456926 From: Tony Drake To: Amy Hill Cc: [email protected] Subject: River Club RedevelopmentPre-Application BAR Date: Monday, 16 September 2019 10:06:22 To whom it may concern, Erf 151832, City of Cape Town, and adjacent properties (Erf 26426, ERF 108936, Erf 26427, Erf 15326 Rem, Erf 26169, Erf 26170, Erf 26171, Erf 26172, Erf 26173, Erf 26174 and Erf 26175) 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 and WU9026 River Club My name is Tony Drake, and I am a resident in Alfred St, Observatory. Between Hartleyvale Stadium and the railway line. I can be contacted via email at: [email protected] My objection is a simple one, and based on current circumstances. 1. Traffic congestion in the precinct, specifically during peak hours, is already a major problem, with gridlock on station road up as far as lower main road on most afternoons from as early as 3.30pm until well after 6pm. Even a small development in the precinct will exacerbate this situation. A development of the size proposed is guaranteed to create a situation of chaos, even with severe reworking of the roads and access points to the River Club precinct. 2. The area is a wetland. I am not sure why this issue seems to be continually overlooked by the developer. There is plenty of more viable vacant property in the vicinity for such a development. 3. Very few homes in the surrounding area have off street parking as it is, and, especially after hours, there is already a shortage of on-street parking for current residents. Based again on the size of this development, any parking overflow (and there will be if parking inside the development is not free) will result in an even greater shortage for residents to find parking outside, or even near to their own homes. The narrow streets in the suburb are also an exacerbating factor. To summarise, while I am not opposed to a modest upgrade of the area that takes environmental impact and congestion well into consideration, and respects the heritage of the area, and is inclusive. I am absolutely opposed, and object in the strongest terms, to the construction of a development of the density and magnitude proposed, which is guaranteed to favour greed and profit over humanity, stomp on the environment, destroy wildlife, make it impossibly expensive for those who have lived in the area and called it home for many years, and turn a beautiful and functional space into an eyesore. While I understand the need for upgrading and maintenance of all areas, I am absolutely opposed to developers who use their financial prowess to ride roughshod over those with less means and no voice, to bypass due process, to jump the gun, and to ‘bend’ the rules. I am opposed to this development as proposed, even in the unlikely event that the developer actually does not exceed the limits on the plans he is showing the public, and the gentrification and exclusion that will follow. -- From: Dot Feast To: Amy Hill Cc: [email protected] Subject: River club Date: Monday, 16 September 2019 06:45:46 EMAIL subject: River Club Redevelopment Pre-Application BAR Dear Amy, My name is Dorothy Feast and I prefer to be contacted by mail Re: Erf 151832, Erf 26426, ERF 108936, Erf 26427, Erf 15326 Rem, Erf 26169, Erf 26170, Erf 26171, Erf 26172, Erf 26173, Erf 26174 and Erf 26175), 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 and WU9026 River Club, Cape Town I grew up in the SAAO and as a child Played in the black river and was witness to its diverse and rich natural life. This development will irrevocably destroy the natural surrounds and biodiverse habitat that is there. 1. My objection is based on the design (in main report and Appendix G6 pages 51 to 57). The height of 50m, scale and density of the development will impact the local area in changing the view and aesthetic of the area. The buildings will completely change the local environment and will affect the experience and view from the national heritage site at the Observatory and surroundings areas. It will detract from existing walkability along the rivers and the potential for improved access and walkability is not attractive as the development is largely commercial and so busy in the day and empty at night. 2. My objection is based on the policy coherence because social housing needs to be included in all developments so this benefit is not a benefit that adds to this application in particular. 3. My objection is based on the flood risk and hydrology. I object to increasing the flood risk and reducing the ability of the river to adapt to climate change by adding several meters of concrete into the very soil sponge of a floodplain that currently absorb the increasingly risky weather events. This shifts the greater risk and uncertainty on ratepayers, residents and commuters in the whole catchment area of the Black and Liesbeek Rivers and tributaries. The proposed river ‘rehabilitation’ does not offset the loss of flood absorption capacity and sets a dangerous precedent for future development in floodplains, giving others the right to do the same, and further reducing our ability to adapt to extreme weather.