APPENDIX G4
VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT
PROPOSED SUB DIVISION OF ERF 177476: ST JAMES, CAPE TOWN, W CAPE
DEA&DP REF NR: 1 6/3/3/6/7/1 /A6/82/21 12/1 7
VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT: DRAFT
January 2020
For
SLR Consulting (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd Unit 39, Roeland Square, Cape Town 8001 T: 021 461 1118. E: [email protected]
On behalf of Country Club Holdings (Pty) Ltd
Erf 177476
St James
Postnet Suite 15, P Bag 15, Somerset West 7129, Tel: 021 851 6716, email: [email protected] cell 0728 408 900, www.visual-la.co.za
Visual Impact Assessment for PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF ERF 177476 ST JAMES, CAPE TOWN
CONTENTS:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY v
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 General 1 1.2 Brief 1 1.3 Personnel 1
2.0 STUDY TERMS OF REFERENCE AND METHODOLOGY 2.1 Specialist Report Content and Terms of Reference 2 2.2 Methodology 3 2.2.1 The sequence of work employed in this Study 3 2.2.2 Written and Drawn Material was made available 3 2.2.3 Receiving Site 3 2.2.4 Determination of the Theoretical Viewshed 4 2.3 Key Issues 4 2.4 Rating Criteria 5 2.5 Assumptions and Limitations 5 2.6 Alternatives 5
3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION and SETTING 3.1 General 6 3.2 The Site 6 3.3 Proposed Access 6 3.4 Site Boundaries 6 3.5 The Visual Qualities of the Site 7 3.6 Sense of Place 7
4.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 4.1 The Project 8 4.2 Proposed Project: Sub-division of the Erf 8 4.3 Access 8 4.4 The Proposed Works to the Stream 8 4.5 Services 10 4.6 No Go Alternative 10
5.0 NATURE OF THE RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT 5.1 General 12 5.2 The Setting 12 5.3 Transport Network 12
K Hansen Landscape Architect, Somerset West ii St James, Erf 177476, VIA: January 2020 Revision nr 06
5.4 Topography and Watercourses 12 5.5 Protected Landscapes 13 5.6 Vegetation 13 5.7 Local Land Uses 13 5.8 Landscape Value 13 5.9 Landscape Character 13 5.10 Visual significance of the Area 14
6.0 VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 6.1. Viewshed Envelope definition 15 6.1.1 Significant Issues affecting visibility 15 6.2 Significant Receptors likely to be affected 15 6.3 View Catchment Areas 15 6.3.1 Defining a Correct Viewing Distance 15 6.3.2 The Visual Envelope 16 6.4 Visibility of the Proposed Scheme 16 6.4.1 Factors Affecting Visibility 16 6.4.2 Localities from which the scheme would be seen 17 6.4.3 No Go Alternative 17 6.4.4 Lighting 17 6.4.5 Construction Period 17 6.5 Extent of the Visual Impact 17 6.5.1 Extent of Impact of Proposed Project 17 6.5.2 Extent of Impact of the Construction Period 17 6.5.3 Extent of Impact of No Go Alternative 18 6.6 Visual Exposure 18 6.7 Zones of Visual Influence 19 6.7.1 Local Residential Receptors 19 6.7.2 Receptors along Boyes Drive, Main Rd, Railway, Recreational beach areas 20 6.7.3 Users of the TMNP 22 6.7.4 Summary 23 6.8 Visual Absorption Capacity 23 6.8.1 Proposed Project 23 6.8.2 No Go Alternative 23 6.9 Compatibility with Surrounding Landscape 23 6.9.1 Proposed Project 23 6.9.2 No Go Alternative 23 6.10 Intensity or Magnitude of the Visual Impact 24 6.10.1 Site Landscape: Proposed Project 24 6.10.2 Beyond the Site 24 6.10.3 Site Landscape and Beyond: Alternative Layout 24 6.10.3 No Go Alternative 24 6.10.4 Construction Period 24 6.10.5 Conclusion 24 6.11 Duration of the Visual Impact 24 6.12 Significance of the Visual Impact 25 6.13 Impact on Irreplaceable Resources 25 6.14 Potential Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Impacts 25 6.14.1 Direct impacts during construction and operational periods 26 6.14.2 Indirect impacts 26 6.14.3 Cumulative impacts 26 6.15 Visual Sensitivity Assessment 26 6.15.1 General 26 6.15.2 Areas and Users of high sensitivity 26
K Hansen Landscape Architect, Somerset West iii St James, Erf 177476, VIA: January 2020 Revision nr 06
6.15.3 Conclusion 26 6.16 Viewpoints and Images. 27
7.0 HERITAGE AND CULTURE IMPACTS 7.1 Heritage 28 7.2 Intangible Heritage 28 7.3 Anticipated Impacts on Heritage Resources 28
8.0 MITIGATION MEASURES 8.1 Environmental Management Plan 29 8.2 Project Elements to be addressed in the Design Period 29 8.2.1 Built Form 29 8.2.2 Vehicle Access 30 8.2.3 Planting 30 8.2.4 Lighting 31 8.2.5 Fencing 31 8.3 Construction Period 31 8.3.1 Duration 31 8.3.2 Site Control 31 8.3.3 Programme 31 8.4 Operational Period 31 8.5 Conclusion 31 8.6 Visual Impact Tables 31
9.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 9.1 Visual Statement 34 9.2 Visual Sensitivity 34 9.3 Visual Impact Rating 34 9.4 An Alternative Layout 35 9.5 Mitigation 35 9.6 Conclusion 35 9.7 Recommendations 35
FIGURES Cover image is a view from the beach of the site
Figure 1.1 location of St James, (red circle), on the False Bay side of the peninsula, and in relation to Cape Town, about 27km away. Source: Google maps/ Hansen 1 Figure 3.1 site location, approximately indicated by a yellow outline, and the extent of St James is shown between the two red lines. The built-up area is residential and becomes Kalk Bay to the south where there is commercial development along Main Road. Source Google Earth/Hansen 7 Figure 4.1 a conceptual render of what the future dwellings could look like on the erf when viewed from St James beach. Source Slee Architects 9 Figure 4.2 is an excerpt of ‘Site Plan_Rev 001’. (full drwg in Appendix 1). Authorised portion 3, top of layout, portion 2, in centre, portion 1, near Main Road. Portions 1 and 2 are within 3m of the north-west boundary. Building line is 10m on ravine side.Source: Slee/DDS Projects 9
K Hansen Landscape Architect, Somerset West iv St James, Erf 177476, VIA: January 2020 Revision nr 06
Figure 4.3 the well vegetated ravine, the fenced site boundary for construction works. Source Hansen 10 Figure 4.4 the proposed entrance to serve portion 1 from Main Road; the view has not changed greatly at this particular location, due to local trees. Source Hansen 10
Figure 4.5 from Heytor Road, 155m away, looking to the site, retaining wall clearly seen. Source Hansen 11 Figure 4.6 from south-west of Heytor Road, 165m away, retaining wall clearly seen. Source Hansen 11 Figure 4.7 from Rodwell Road, 177m away, retaining wall clearly seen. Source Hansen 11 Figure 5.1. a view of the retaining wall from Main Road; the comparison can be made although the scale of the later image is different to the earlier image. Source Hansen 14 Figure 5.2 a view of the site from opposite Ley Road, 513m away from the retaining wall. Source Hansen 14 Figure 5.3 a view of the site from opposite Sandhurst Road, 278m away from the retaining wall. Source Hansen 14 Figure 6.1 the extent of the visual envelope indicating the properties and land areas likely to be impacted upon by these proposals. The visual envelope around the site itself would be rated with greater significance than the envelope encompassing Main Road. Source CFM/Hansen 16 Figure 6.2 illustrating the residential buildings closest to the site; image 86 and 07 close to the north-east boundary, image 14 and 91 close to the south-west boundary. Source Hansen 18 Figure 6.3 because the visual impact primarily affects individual houses on individual erven, this provides the location reference graphic for affected properties. Source CFM/Hansen 19 Figure 6.4 a view of the subject erf from Boyes Drive and where the approved dwelling house and access road would be. Source Hansen 20 Figure 6.5 views of the site from the beach. (The images were taken from similar locations, but the scale is not quite equivalent). Source Hansen 21 Figure 6.6 views of the site from the beach, directly opposite the site. Source Hansen 22 Figure 6.7 a view of the site from the beach huts. Source Hansen 22 Figure 6.8 a view of the TMNP, on the opposite side of Boyes Drive. Source Hansen 22 Figure 6.9 showing the extent of the visual impact from the north part of the site and looking towards the bay. Source Hansen 24 Figure 6.10 showing the location of the images illustrating the report, (different font colours are only used for clarity). Source CFM/Hansen 27
TABLES Table 6.1 Impact on Local Affected Properties 20 Table 8.1 Construction Phase: Proposed Project, Impacts 32 Table 8.2 Construction Phase: Proposed Project: Mitigation 32 Table 8.3 Operational Phase: Proposed Project, Impacts 33 Table 8.4 Operational Phase: Proposed Project: Mitigation 33
ADDENDUM 1 Plan of Proposed Sub-Division prepared by Duncan Bates, Land Surveyors 36 ADDENDUM 2 Site Plan_Rev 001: DDS Projects/Slee Architects 37 ADDENDUM 3 Assessment Ratings and Definitions: DEA&DP 38 ADDENDUM 4 Assessment Ratings and Definitions: KHLA 40 ADDENDUM 5
K Hansen Landscape Architect, Somerset West v St James, Erf 177476, VIA: January 2020 Revision nr 06
Bibliography 42 ADDENDUM 6 Declaration of Independence 43 ADDENDUM 7 CV: K Hansen 44
Abbreviations used in the Report: Asl: above sea level. m: metres DEA&DP: Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning L.I.UK: Landscape Institute, United Kingdom GLVIA: Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment CFM: Cape Farm Mapper, Elsenburg TMNP: Table Mountain National Park
K Hansen Landscape Architect, Somerset West vi St James, Erf 177476, VIA: January 2020 Revision nr 06
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Visual Impact Assessment supports a Basic Assessment process being undertaken for the proposed subdivision of a property located on Boyes Drive in St. James – erf 177476. The proponent has obtained approval from the City of Cape Town to construct a single dwelling and access road. It is proposed that the existing erf be subdivided into three portions, a larger upper remaining portion (on which the existing house and access road would be located) and two additional portions located lower down the slope. As the activities located on the upper portion have already been authorised, the existing house, access road and service infrastructure are not considered in the scope of this assessment.
St James is within the Cape Town Metro between Muizenberg and Kalk Bay, and north of Fishhoek on the False Bay Coast. The current site zoning is residential, and the site lies within the designated urban edge. The application to develop is made in terms of the National Environmental Management Act (Act 107 of 1998) and the National Heritage Resources Act (Act 25 of 1999).
Karen Hansen, Landscape Architect and an independent Visual Impact Assessment practitioner, has been appointed to provide a Visual Impact Assessment Report for these proposals; K Hansen’s detailed CV and Experience is set out in Addendum 7.
The Site and the Layout Alternatives
The site is approximately 0.8 ha in extent, at a steep gradient, and land cover is partly indigenous vegetation, partly alien invasive vegetation and partly disturbed by current building operations for the approved house and access road (which would be located on the future subdivided Portion 3). The remainder of the erf, beyond the approved portion, would be subdivided into two additional portions such that a single residential, two storey house may be established on each portion, one accessed from Boyes Drive (Portion 2), one from Main Road (Portion 1).
An unnamed seasonal watercourse flows in a ravine along the north-east boundary, dividing as the ravine flattens out as it approaches Main Road. Culverting works are proposed for the stream to control this flow, and storm water catchment works.
The visual impact of the whole site is limited, locally, due to terrain, to adjacent houses, to Boyes Drive as a Scenic Drive, to the TMNP, to users of Main Road, the rail line, and the coast.
The proposed project was presented for assessment as well as the No-Go Alternative. During the course of the assessment concerns were identified about the high visibility of potential future retaining walls that may be required for the future houses to be constructed on Portions 1 and 2.
K Hansen Landscape Architect, Somerset West vii St James, Erf 177476, VIA: January 2020 Revision nr 06
Visual Sensitivity
The character of the local landscape is low density residential with some challenges for vehicle access, which would be replicated in this proposal. Certain local adjacent dwellings would be impacted, despite their main views being towards the bay, as all have side windows and private outside spaces facing towards the site.
The hikers using the TMNP would have an intermittent view through the fynbos, but due to foreshortening and the bay view the impact was rated low. Receptors looking up from Main Road and the beach recreation areas would experience an impact. Vehicle users of Boyes Drive Scenic Route would not have a clear view of the new proposals, their view of the bay would remain unimpeded; pedestrians could be more visually aware of the development.
Visual Statement
Sensitive receptors were identified as occupiers of several local, neighbouring residential buildings, each side of the site, for whom the focus of their view would still be a clear view of the bay. Some other receptors locally, but further away, would experience visual impacts.
Visual Impact Rating
The potential assessed visual impact of the site and the proposals, can be managed by mitigation measures which would mainly relate to the architecture of the proposed built form, and the capacity of the site to offer opportunities for replanting. The proposed project would have a visual impact assessed as moderate before mitigation and moderate-low when planting is established.
An Alternative layout
Based on the foregoing, and the fact that only one layout was presented for assessment, the project was considered for a more optimum solution in terms of its potential visual impact.
An alternative layout was proposed which suggested that if the proposed building footprints of portions 1 and 2 were reduced, the visual impact of the cut and fill and the required retaining walls could be reduced.
Improved integration of soft and hard works through the whole site is required. Any visible retaining walls that may be required for future houses on Portions 1 and 2 may benefit from climbing plants as a shielding option.
K Hansen Landscape Architect, Somerset West viii St James, Erf 177476, VIA: January 2020 Revision nr 06
Conclusion
The proposed project to establish portions 1 and 2 would appear in character with the surrounding residential areas and would result in an initial visual impact rating of moderate, reducing to moderate-low when the site is established and with habituation.
Recommendation, Opinion, Authorisation
It is the finding of this assessment that the Proposed project layout and design would be visually acceptable and could proceed, if mitigation measures are undertaken. These measures are desirable as they improve the acceptability of the project and should be included as conditions of authorisation.
K Hansen Landscape Architect, Somerset West ix St James, Erf 177476, VIA: January 2020 Revision nr 06
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 General
This Visual Impact Assessment concerns a proposed sub-division of a residential erf in St James, on the False Bay side of the Cape Peninsula.
A Basic Assessment process is being undertaken for the proposed subdivision of a property located on Boyes Drive in St. James, erf 177476. The client has obtained approval from the City of Cape Town to construct a single dwelling and access road on the property. It is proposed that the existing erf be subdivided into three portions, a larger upper remaining portion (on which the existing house and access road would be located) and two additional portions located lower down the slope. As the activities located on the upper portion have already been authorised, the existing house, access road and service infrastructure are not considered in the scope of this assessment.
St James is located within the Cape Town Metro between Muizenberg and Kalk Bay, and north of Fishhoek. The site is located in a residential suburb, the current site zoning is residential, and the site lies within the designated urban edge. In order to facilitate the proposed subdivision, authorisations in terms of the National Environmental Management Act (Act 107 of 1998) and the National Heritage Resources Act (Act of 1999) are required.
1.2 Brief
To undertake a level III Visual Impact Assessment of a site in St James, for the proposed subdivision of Erf 177476.
1.3 Personnel
The Basic Assessment process, is being undertaken by SLR Consulting (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd. Karen Hansen, Landscape Architect and an independent Visual Impact Assessment practitioner, has been appointed to provide a Visual Impact Assessment Report for this proposal; K Hansen’s detailed CV and Experience is set out in Addendum 5.
ST JAMES Figure 1.1 location of St James, Fish hoek (red circle), on the False Bay side of the peninsula, and in relation to Cape Town, about Simons Town 27km away. Source: Google maps/ Hansen
K Hansen Landscape Architect, Somerset West 1 St James, Erf 177476, VIA: January 2020 Revision nr 06
2.0 STUDY TERMS OF REFERENCE AND METHODOLOGY
2.1 Specialist Report Content and Terms of Reference for this VIA
The specialist will consider baseline data and identify and assess impacts according to predefined rating scales. The specialist will also suggest optional or essential ways in which to mitigate negative impacts, enhance positive impacts and consider cumulative effects.
• Provide details of o the specialist who prepared the report o the expertise of that specialist to compile a specialist report including a curriculum vita • A declaration that the specialist is independent • An indication of the scope of, and the purpose for which, the report was prepared • The date and season of the site investigation and the relevance of the season to the outcome of the assessment • A reasoned opinion: o as to whether the proposed activity or portions thereof should be authorised o if the opinion is that the proposed activity or portions thereof should be authorised, any avoidance, management and mitigation measures and where applicable, the closure plan • A description of any consultation process that was undertaken during the course of preparing the specialist report • Identify issues raised relating to visual, aesthetic and scenic resources through any existing reports, and site visits. The study takes into account the expected community response • Describe the receiving environment and the proposed project in terms of landscape and townscape types, and character and also land use patterns • Describe the sense of place and contributing factors (spatial and non-spatial) • Establish the view catchment area, view corridors, viewpoints and receptors • Determine the relative visibility or visual intrusion of the proposed project • Determine the relative compatibility or conflict of the project with the surrounding landscape and land uses in terms of visibility • Determine significant/sensitive receptors • Indicate potential visual impacts using established criteria and including: o Potential lighting impacts at night o Consideration of impacts at the construction phase o Consideration of cumulative impacts potentially arising from other possible development projects locally • Describe alternatives, including the no-go, mitigation measures and monitoring programs; provide expert opinion on any issue in their field of expertise that they deem necessary in order to avoid potential detrimental impacts • Highlight the constraints and opportunities of the project in terms of its potential visual impacts, in so doing accounting also for constraints and opportunities of the development alternative and the ‘no development’ alternative; and prepare a constraints plan associated with each option
K Hansen Landscape Architect, Somerset West 2 St James, Erf 177476, VIA: January 2020 Revision nr 06
• Reference all sources of information and literature consulted • Use mapping and photos as appropriate • Include an executive summary to the report.
2.2 Methodology
2.2.1 The sequence of work employed in this Study A desktop survey using 1:50 000 topographical survey maps to assess the site setting, to identify landform, landscape, townscape and habitation patterns and assess the possible viewshed. Aerial photography, Google Earth, and Google Mapping were used to assist in this part of the study. Global Mapper, a GIS data processing application and spatial management tool, was used to start the visual envelope definition process.
Following the desktop information gathering process, site visits were undertaken to test the conclusions of the terrain analysis, to identify sensitive receptors, to appraise the local landscape and townscape.
2.2.2 Written and Drawn Material made available: • Background Information Document. Basic Assessment for the Proposed Sub-Division of Erf 177476, St James, Cape Town, 2017-07-11_Bayette BID_Final.pdf, SLR Consulting • Staatskoerant, 29 Aug 2014, excerpt, no. 37951 73. EIA Regs 2014 Appendix 6.png • The Pedestrians View from the Boyes Drive Pavement/Walkway – no Impediment to the View of the Sea. Line of Sight.png • Outline Layout Google Earth, showing the proposed layout as an overlay and presented by SLR Consulting.docx • Planners Report – ERF 177476 St James part 3 of 4 (Kellerman Hendrikse).pdf • S38 NID RESPONSE #17090415AS0914E Heritage Western Cape, 05 October 2017.pdf • Luna Trust Architectural Guidelines 2018 Rev 1 Final for Sub-division, Slee Architects • Proposed Services to Portions Stormwater, drawing, SLR Consulting • 2018-06-05_Rep Eng Services Erf 177476 St James_Rev 3, AVDM Engineers • Plan of subdivision A3 1000 Rev 8, Duncan Bates, Land Surveyor • SLR_Updated Project Description_Aug 18, SLR Consulting
Additional Information in November 2019 • From Boyes Drive_Rev01.pdf an image derived from Google Earth of the site as seen from Boyes Drive with the authorised development superimposed • Sectional drawing_Rev001.pdf a cross section generated by Slee and Co, Architects (Pty) Ltd, Stellenbosch • Site Plan_Rev001.pdf prepared by DDS Projects and Slee Architects illustrating the proposed built form and landscape works • St James Drone Shot_Rev001.pdf an image of the proposed development site taken by a drone And information received in emails.
2.2.3 Receiving Site The receiving site was assessed by walking the site and surrounding areas, and also areas of the locality from where the site appeared to be likely to be visible, notably built-up areas, local roads, adjacent lands and undeveloped areas.
K Hansen Landscape Architect, Somerset West 3 St James, Erf 177476, VIA: January 2020 Revision nr 06
The initial study was conducted during November 2017; following report completion and submission, revised proposals were received, and a further report submitted in August 2018. An additional site visit was conducted on 8 January 2020 to capture the existing baseline status of the site, and this report, revision 06, responds to the latest changes to the project proposal and the current visual impact of the site.
An effective VIA is not limited to any particular season, but must be undertaken in good, clear weather with good visibility.
Photographic surveys of the site and parts of the surrounding areas have been carried out to determine the extent of the visibility of the proposals. The visual impacts were evaluated using standard criteria such as geographic view-sheds and viewing distances as well as qualitative criteria such as compatibility with the existing landscape and townscape character and settlement pattern; referring to: Guideline for Involving Visual and Aesthetic Specialists in EIA Processes, Provincial Government of the Western Cape, Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning Edition 1 June 2005.
Potentially sensitive areas were assessed. Mitigation measures were evaluated.
2.2.4 Determination of the Theoretical Viewshed The theoretical viewshed has been determined in two ways. Firstly, the site and surrounding area has been thoroughly explored in publicly accessible areas and photographed from places where a view of the site appeared to be significant; the conclusions are addressed in Section 6.
Secondly, Global Mapper software was used to generate view-sheds by inputting building height; (a view-shed is the potential area visually impacted upon by an object in the landscape and is determined by inputting data such as heights of viewer and object, distance apart, and the terrain). This terrain analysis software provides detailed information on the terrain, transportation routes and centres of habitation, but not on lesser elements in the landscape that can delineate a view, such as houses, trees and buildings. The resulting analysis was useful, especially for topographical analysis, but has been ground truthed; the results and conclusions are described in Section 6.
2.3 Key Issues
The following possible issues relating to visual concerns arising from the assessment of the site and the proposed subdivision have been identified: • The potential visibility of future residences located on the subdivided portions • The ability of the landscape and townscape to absorb the future residences • The local landscape and townscape character • The potential negative visual impact during the construction phase • The consideration of alternatives • Cumulative Impacts and Possible • Mitigation measures to reduce impacts.
K Hansen Landscape Architect, Somerset West 4 St James, Erf 177476, VIA: January 2020 Revision nr 06
2.4 Rating Criteria
Assessment Methodologies which will be followed in this study are those stated in the Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning (DEA&DP), Guidelines and set out in Addendum 3, and those in use by the specialist in Addendum 4.
2.5 Assumptions and Limitations
The information and deductions in this report are based on information received from the clients’ representatives, as well as research and fieldwork by the specialist.
2.6 Alternatives
There is no site location alternative, apart from the study site. There are two activity alternatives, the proposed subdivision, and the No-Go Alternative. There is one site layout alternative, the Proposed Project; and any additional alternative which might emerge during the assessment.
K Hansen Landscape Architect, Somerset West 5 St James, Erf 177476, VIA: January 2020 Revision nr 06
3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION and SETTING
3.1 General
The site is located within an established residential area of St James, which lies between the coast road, ‘Main Road’, (M4) and the upper level road, ‘Boyes Drive’, (M35). St James was established as a residential centre in the late 19th century, along with the railway line, and adjacent settlements. The strip of land along the coast that it occupies faces south east, is about 1 km long and averages 220 m in width between the two roads.
St James would once have been a settlement separate from Muizenberg and Kalk Bay, but today this part of the False Bay Coast is almost continuously built up, with pockets of commercial and institutional land uses along the coastal Main Road, and residential up the steep hillside. A passenger railway line connecting Cape Town with Simons Town further south runs between Main Road and the sea.
3.2 The Site
The extent of the site is approximately 0.8 ha and extends from Boyes Drive at its highest point down to the erf boundary with a neighbouring house facing onto Main Road. The site is steeply sloping, and parts remain well vegetated while other parts are disturbed due to the commencement of construction of the approved house on the upper portion of the erf, positioned close to Boyes Drive. A seasonal watercourse runs down the north-east boundary in a well vegetated ravine, from ‘Nellies Pool’ within the National Park. The site boundaries are fenced.
3.3 Proposed Access
The proposed access would be from the approved existing access road from Boyes Drive for portion 3 and 2 and from Main Road for portion 1.
3.4 Site boundaries
The interfaces between the erf and its immediate surrounds are: • North-west boundary denoted by a mortared natural stone retaining wall, 0.9 m high on the Boyes Drive Side but varies up to 2 or 3 m high on the site side • North-east boundary is marked by a ravine containing a seasonal watercourse, partly within the site, and beyond a steep incline in the adjacent erf up to a neighbouring house currently under construction; there is a second house further down the erf that also shares the boundary • South-east boundary is edged by screening planting in the garden of the adjacent dwelling
K Hansen Landscape Architect, Somerset West 6 St James, Erf 177476, VIA: January 2020 Revision nr 06
• South-west boundary, where there is an existing dwelling that shares the same access off Boyes Drive, and then a thickly vegetated strip of land about 60 m by 15 m wide, which ends in another dwelling with garden.
3.5 Visual Qualities of the site
The local character is low density residential on steep terrain, with well treed gardens and long south-easterly views to the bay; the lateral views are short due to garden trees and the predominance of large houses.
3.6 Sense of Place
The surrounding established residential area provides a sense of place. Houses vary in height, extent, numbers of storeys and architectural styles because the locality has been developed over time. The sense of place is also identified by the consistent steep terrain, the mountain backdrop, and the views of the coast. Allowing for the steepness of the slope, St James is quite densely built up. To the north-east the slopes are steeper. The TMNP boundary is located on the northern side of Boyes Drive.
TMNP
Figure 3.1 site location, approximately indicated by a yellow outline, and the extent of St James is shown between the two red lines. The built-up area is residential and becomes Kalk Bay to the south where there is commercial development along Main Road. On the coast side of Main Road is the rail line. Source Google Earth/Hansen
K Hansen Landscape Architect, Somerset West 7 St James, Erf 177476, VIA: January 2020 Revision nr 06
4.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
4.1 The Project
The Applicant has recently obtained approval from the City of Cape Town to construct a single house and access road on the upper section of the property, referred to as portion 3. Construction of the approved house and access road (positioned closest to Boyes Drive) has commenced. The Applicant is now proposing to subdivide Erf 177476 into two additional portions.
Previous layout iterations have detailed the works to the stream running in the ravine. The current proposed works entail constructing a new headwall located approximately 15 m from the lower boundary of Portion 1 and diverting the watercourse into an underground closed culvert. The proposed closed culvert would be located diagonally across the lower part of the erf where it would link into an existing culvert situated in the access servitude on the western boundary of the erf. In addition, the amended layout also relates to built form.
4.2 Proposed Project: Sub-division of the Erf
Proposed extents of the sub divided erf and building lines: Portion 1: 2 140 m2 the most southerly portion, access from Main Road Portion 2: 1 676 m2 directly adjacent portion 1, access from Boyes Drive Portion 3: 4 270 m2, authorised, construction commenced, access from Boyes Drive
Portions 1 and 2 would be subject to the standard common building line restriction of 3 m on the western boundary; a 10 m development setback buffer to accommodate the seasonal watercourse and new stormwater diversion headwall. In addition, a 10 m stormwater servitude to accommodate the proposed closed culvert would also be included on the southern boundary of the Portion 1. Note the Land Surveyors Plan in Addendum 1, page 38.
The site plan indicates that all three portions would have 50% coverage; the proposed buildings on portions 1 and 2 are on or close to the western building line, allowing the 3 m strip between the built form and the boundary for shielding planting. There is however existing established, mainly indigenous planting on the south-west side of the boundary beyond the site, in both cases.
All future dwellings would most likely be partly built on cut and require building platforms and retaining walls due to the steep slope of the site and would be one and a half to two stories high. As the application relates to the proposed subdivision of the erf, no detailed information regarding the building envelope is available for the proposed dwellings on portions 1 and 2. Not withstanding this, a conceptual render of what the future dwellings could look like on the erf (when viewed from St James beach) is presented below.
K Hansen Landscape Architect, Somerset West 8 St James, Erf 177476, VIA: January 2020 Revision nr 06
Figure 4.1 a conceptual render of what the future dwellings could look like on the erf when viewed from St James beach. Source Slee Architechts
4.3 Access
Portion 2 would be accessed from Boyes Drive during the construction period, while access to Portion 1 would be from Main Road. During the operational period, portions 3 and 2 would be accessed from Boyes Drive and Portion 1 from Main Road.
4.4 The Proposed Works to the Watercourse
The watercourse is seasonal and flows in a steep sided and well vegetated ravine, partly within Erf 177476, and along its north-east boundary, but the ravine begins to flatten out as it proceeds towards the bay. As noted above, the watercourse would be diverted via a new headwall into a closed culvert that would accommodate the flow from the seasonal watercourse and stormwater runoff from the erf portions. In addition, an overland escape route and flood barrier to direct overland flows down the panhandle of the property would be accommodated on the lower part of Portion 1 (within the 10 m stormwater servitude). These changes would not impact the visual assessment. Source SLR Consulting
K Hansen Landscape Architect, Somerset West 9 St James, Erf 177476, VIA: January 2020 Revision nr 06
Figure 4.2 is an excerpt of ‘Site Plan_Rev 001’. (full drwg in Appendix 1).
Authorised portion 3, top of layout, portion 2, in centre, portion 1, near Main Road.
Portions 1 and 2 are within 3 m of the western boundary. Building line is 10m on ravine side and on the southern boundary of Portion 1.
Extensive built form, (houses, walls, access), provides few opportunities for shielding planting.
Source: Slee/DDS Projects
K Hansen Landscape Architect, Somerset West 10 St James, Erf 177476, VIA: January 2020 Revision nr 06
The ravine from the site The ravine from Boyes Drive
Figure 4.3 the well vegetated ravine; the fenced site boundary during construction of the approved house is evident. Source Hansen
4.5 Services
Services would be obtained from the local municipality. The site would not require firebreaks.
4. 6 No Go Alternative
This is where the proposals do not proceed, and the erf remains in its present condition with some fynbos and alien vegetation. Existing land uses (house and access road located on the upper part of the erf) would continue. The erf might be developed, in all or in part, in the future. The level of risk attached to the no-go alternative is defined as: • Trespass by vagrants, fire risk • Lower areas being eroded by flooding and flood risk to downstream properties.
58 2018 2020
Figure 4.4 the proposed entrance to serve portion 1 from Main Road; the view has not changed greatly between the first and second site visits at this particular location, due to shielding of the site by local trees. Source Hansen
Some images taken in 2020, along Main Road illustrating the visibility of the current construction works.
K Hansen Landscape Architect, Somerset West 11 St James, Erf 177476, VIA: January 2020 Revision nr 06
Current construction works Start of construction works
62 2018 2020 Figure 4.5 from Heytor Road, 155m away, looking to the site, current construction works are clearly seen. Source Hansen
Current construction works
Figure 4.6 from south-west of Heytor Road, 165m away, current construction works are clearly seen. Source Hansen
65
Current construction works
Figure 4.7 from Rodwell Road, 177m away, current construction works are clearly seen. Source Hansen
67
These images were taken from the footpath on the coast side of Main Road; pedestrians are more greatly impacted than motorists, when they look up at TMNP, and the houses.
K Hansen Landscape Architect, Somerset West 12 St James, Erf 177476, VIA: January 2020 Revision nr 06
5.0 NATURE OF THE RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT
5.1 General
Landscape and Townscape Character is defined as the distinct and recognisable pattern of elements that occur consistently in landscape and townscape types, and how this pattern is perceived. It reflects discrete combinations of geology, landform, soils, vegetation, river systems, land use and the story of human settlement. It defines the identifiable ‘sense of place’.
This section defines the character of the environment that would receive the scheme.
5.2 The Setting
The local area, from Kalk Bay to Muizenberg is low density residential, with thick garden planting on steep slopes between the mountains and the sea (see para.5.9).
5.3 Transport network
Boyes Drive, marking the north-west site boundary, runs between Kalk Bay in the south to Muizenberg in the north. It increases in elevation as it proceeds northwards from between 50 to 80 m when it passes the site and thence to between 90 m and 100 m, after which it reduces in elevation again as it approaches Muizenberg. It’s a popular road for its scenic qualities (it is a designated Scenic Route) as well as commuting.
Main Road follows the coast and has an average elevation of 10 m asl., with some variations. The road has been recently upgraded with underground utilities provision, resurfacing, new footpaths and car parking.
The residential areas of St James are also characterised by narrow roads accessed from both of the above-mentioned roads and are, of necessity, short and steep, with parking being provided where feasible. Several roads end in long flights of steps, and many residents must park their cars and use steps for access. This is part of the character of the locality.
A passenger railway line runs between Main Road and the sea, with a regular service between Cape Town and Simons Town and a railway station at St James.
5.4 Topography and Watercourses
St James has been established on a steep slope between two roads. Close to the site the average gradient is 1:2.75 to 1:2.6, towards Kalk Bay it is less steep, averaging 1:3.4 to 1:3.7, and towards Muizenberg the slope becomes steeper (approximately 1:1.8). The slope becomes less steep at Muizenberg.
K Hansen Landscape Architect, Somerset West 13 St James, Erf 177476, VIA: January 2020 Revision nr 06
The site lies at about 78 m to 90 m asl, at Boyes Drive, and at the lower end of the erf is at about 25 m to 28 m asl. This indicates an average slope of between 1:2.75 to 1:2.6, and the ground is uneven.
The high ground of the TMNP behind the site rises steeply to 450 to 500m asl.
Within the broader area, there are a number of seasonal watercourses coming down off the mountain that find their way to the sea. A seasonal watercourse is located on the site itself, flowing in a ravine along the north-east site boundary.
5.5 Protected Landscapes
Above Boyes Drive all the land lies within TMNP, and the Silvermine Nature Reserve. There are no Critical Biodiversity Areas nor Ecological Support Areas close to the site. The undeveloped slopes on the Muizenberg side of St James are identified as ‘Other Protected Areas’, (Source Cape Farm Mapper/Elsenburg), and that is where the slope is too steep to develop and remains vegetated, much of it indigenous.
5.6 Vegetation
The site is located within the South West Fynbos bio-region within the Fynbos biome and the undisturbed, south-eastern, part of the erf is well vegetated with mainly indigenous species, and some garden escapes. Construction of the approved house and access road is currently underway on the north-western part of the erf. The ravine is also well vegetated. There are many large and small rocks on the site.
5.7 Local Land Uses
Local land uses are largely residential; in the adjacent TMNP there are recreational uses, such as hiking trails. There is recreation open space along the coast, a popular beach, the iconic, colourful beach changing huts, and open grass areas for informal ball games. Along Main Road there are a few commercial retail outlets.
5.8 Landscape Value
A landscape may be valued for many reasons, which may include landscape quality, scenic quality, tranquillity, wilderness value, consensus about its importance either nationally or locally, and other conservation interests and cultural associations.
This site is perceived to be valued visually for its open, and well vegetated appearance in a residential area with a mountain backdrop.
5.9 Landscape Character
The landscape character of the site is somewhat cluttered by vegetation and variations in terrain. The landscape character of the immediate locality is low density residential, with
K Hansen Landscape Architect, Somerset West 14 St James, Erf 177476, VIA: January 2020 Revision nr 06
gardens big enough to support trees, on a steeply sloping hillside with good views to the sea. There is a great deal of visual clutter from the built form as the majority of the houses are different, and there are also many necessary retaining walls, roads, footpaths and steps. The mountain backdrop has no visual clutter, it is a simple and quiet landscape.
5.10 Visual Significance of the area
The site is not clearly seen from many locations because the view is foreshortened from both Main Road and Boyes Drive due to the steep slope, in addition to many shielding objects breaking up the view. However, at present the site provides an approximately 70 m wide undeveloped and vegetated strip surrounded by houses, and this provides both a ‘visual signpost’ and variety in the townscape. The site is only visually exposed to its immediate neighbours, and lateral views are short. Views towards the sea to the south-east, are long.
The significance of the site is measured by its relationship with the adjacent housing and roads.
Current construction works Construction works
2018 2020 70 Figure 5.1. the construction works from Main Road; note the shielding vegetation around proposed portions 1 and 2; note the scale of the later image is different to the earlier image. Source Hansen
Construction works Current construction works
83 2020 84 2020
Figure 5.2 a view of the site from opposite Figure 5.3 a view of the site from opposite Ley Road, 513m away from the retaining Sandhurst Road, 278m away from the wall. Source Hansen retaining wall. Source Hansen
K Hansen Landscape Architect, Somerset West 15 St James, Erf 177476, VIA: January 2020 Revision nr 06
6.0 VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
6.1. Viewshed Envelope definition
This refers to the theoretical outer-most extent of the area from which an object, (in this case the whole site), may be seen. Visibility can be obscured in part or in whole by objects within the viewshed such as existing buildings, trees, or landform.
Objects can also appear to be obscured by distance, where an object can seem to blend into its background by virtue of the distance between it and the viewer.
6.1.1 Significant Issues affecting visibility: • The nature of the site location: visually exposed to the south and south-east • The proposed uses, the scale, density, and the finishes of the proposed built form.
6.2 Significant Receptors likely to be affected
Significant potential receptors are likely to be: • Residential receptors within 100 m of the site • Users of Boyes Drive, Main Road, Railway and recreational beach areas • Users of the TMNP All potential receptor locations were assessed on site.
6.3 View Catchment Areas
6.3.1 Defining a correct viewing distance In order to determine the approximate distance from which future houses located on the proposed sub-divided portions would be visible, given local conditions, the visibility of the site was assessed from adjacent houses, roadways and the site itself.
From the site, it was evident that existing, adjacent dwellings would be visually impacted upon. The site is not clearly seen from Boyes Drive because of the steepness of the slope and the existing wall but is visible from parts of Main Road. Due to the density of dwellings in the locality and also shielding planting, it was estimated that the visual envelope would extend laterally for up to 100 m from the site boundary but open out towards the coast.
K Hansen Landscape Architect, Somerset West 16 St James, Erf 177476, VIA: January 2020 Revision nr 06
6.3.2 The visual envelope
Figure 6.1 the extent of the visual envelope indicating the properties and land areas likely to be impacted upon by these proposals. The visual envelope around the site itself would be rated with greater significance than the envelope encompassing Main Road. Source CFM/Hansen
6.4 Visibility of the Proposed Scheme
6.4.1 Factors affecting Visibility The visibility of the proposed scheme would be constrained by terrain, some tree cover and built form. The degree to which it would be visible is determined by its extent and location, and is moderated by: • distances over which these proposals would be seen • weather and season conditions • surrounding land uses and land cover in the local landscape.
K Hansen Landscape Architect, Somerset West 17 St James, Erf 177476, VIA: January 2020 Revision nr 06
Other key issues are: Visual effects: The site has some visual clutter from vegetation; the proposed scheme would provide additional visual clutter.
Visual order: The proposed scheme would not offer visual order from beyond the site, as it is set out in the landscape as a response to access, terrain, and other issues, not with the objective of creating a visible pattern.
Visual composition: The proposed scheme has potential to offer composition opportunities in creating linkages with adjacent uses.
6.4.2 The localities from where the proposals would be seen: • Local Residential receptors • Receptors along Boyes Drive, Main Road, Railway and Recreational beach areas • Users of the TMNP.
6.4.3 No-Go Alternative As the visual envelope is defined by the edge of the site, the visibility of the Proposed Project and the No-Go Alternative, are deemed to be similar.
6.4.4 Lighting Visible lighting within the scheme and from security lighting at night could be expected to influence visibility.
6.4.5 Construction Period The construction access would be off Boyes Drive for Portion 2, Main Road for Portion 1 and its extension into the site, which would be within the defined visual envelope. The construction period could also be expected to affect local roads and beyond, with increased traffic delivering materials etc., to the site and which could be beyond the defined visual envelope. There may also be lay-down area(s) within the site, visible within 300 m, albeit these would be temporary.
6.5 Extent of the Visual Impact
Rates the impact in terms of the geographical area that will be influenced by the visual impact: - no impact: no visual impact - site specific: visual impact is small, generally confined to the site - local: the site and the immediate surrounding area, (2km) - regional: affects more than 2km radius
6.5.1 Extent of Impact of Proposed Project The extent of the impact would be local. The extent to which the proposals would be considered visible is mainly taken to be less than 600 m. This has been assessed theoretically with terrain analysis software and ground truthed.
6.5.2 Extent of Impact of the Construction Period The extent of the impact upon roads around the site would be local; beyond 2 km any impact would be regional.
K Hansen Landscape Architect, Somerset West 18 St James, Erf 177476, VIA: January 2020 Revision nr 06
6.5.3 Extent of Impact of the No-Go Alternative The extent of the impact would be local.
6.6 Visual Exposure
Visual Exposure is based on the distance from the project to selected viewpoints. Exposure or Visual Impact tends to diminish exponentially with distance - high exposure: dominant or clearly noticeable, the focus of the view - moderate exposure: recognisable to the viewer - low exposure: not particularly noticeable to the viewer.
• The adjacent residential dwellings sharing a property boundary with the subject erf, would experience a visual exposure rated high, due to proximity to the subdivided portions • Other local residential dwellings, within 100 m, may experience some exposure, which is rated as moderate • Users of Boyes Drive, Main Road, coastal recreational areas, and users of the TMNP could experience a low visual impact as the proposals for the subdivided portions would not be particularly noticeable.
Though all neighbouring houses are designed for their main view to look out to the sea, and not to the site, some residences have side windows and external areas which have views facing towards the site. The one exception would be house illustrated in image nr 91 in Figure 6.2 whose bay view includes the site, albeit in the periphery of the main view out to the sea.
86 2018 07 2018
14 2018 91 2018 Figure 6.2 illustrating the residential buildings closest to the site, in 2018 and 2020; image 86 and 07 close to the north-east boundary, image 14 and 91 close to the south-west boundary. Source Hansen
K Hansen Landscape Architect, Somerset West 19 St James, Erf 177476, VIA: January 2020 Revision nr 06
6.7 Zones of Visual Influence
Describes the areas visually influenced by the proposals, and assesses the amount of influence - non-existent: the site cannot be seen from surrounding areas - low: the proposals are largely shielded from view by topography, planting, distance or buildings - moderate: the site is partially shielded - high: the proposals influence the view strongly and act as a visual focus.
6.7.1 Local residential receptors The assessment of the impact on individual residential buildings which could be clearly seen from the site and referring to Figure 6.2.
1 2 3
5
11 4 SITE
10 6
8 7 9
Figure 6.3 because the visual impact primarily affects individual houses on individual erven, this provides the location reference graphic for affected properties. Source CFM/Hansen
K Hansen Landscape Architect, Somerset West 20 St James, Erf 177476, VIA: January 2020 Revision nr 06
TABLE 6.1 AFFECTED PROPERTIES Ref Erf nr Comment Impact nr *proposed sub-divided portion Rating 1 88430 House under construction close to Boyes Drive, high clear view of proposals over ravine, esp. *p 5 and p 3 2 88430 Clear view across ravine of p 3, and p 2 high 3 146181 Limited view of p 3, shielded by house ref nr 2 moderate 4 175139 Open view of the site, p 1 to p 3 visible high 5 146181 Limited view, part shielded by house 5 moderate 6 88781/160176 View of p1, shielded from p 2 and p 3 moderate 7 177506 Limited view of p 1, shielded by garden planting moderate 8 88308 Limited view of p 1, shielded by garden planting moderate 9 88276 Limited view of the site, shielded by intervening low planting 10 88296 View of p 3 and p 2, limited view of p 1, would be moderate shielded from views once erf 88287 is developed 11 88288 House accessed directly from Boyes Drive and erf high 177476, open view of the site, p 3 and P2, P1 would be shielded by P2
The zone of visual influence for the proposed project is assessed as moderate for most of the properties impacted upon, (recognisable to the viewer but not necessarily the focus of the view which is towards the bay).
For adjacent houses with greatest proximity, the impact would be high, (influences the view strongly), because, although their primary view is to the bay, they have side windows and external areas from which an open view of the subject erf would be obtained.
2018 2020 Figure 6.4 a view of the subject erf from Boyes Drive and where the approved dwelling house and access road would be; new portions 1 and 2 would not be visible. Source Hansen
6.7.2 Receptors along Boyes Drive, Main Road, Railway and Recreational beach areas Boyes Drive, (a Scenic Route): traffic in either direction would only be visually aware of the approved house on portion 3 to a limited degree. This is due to the fact that: (i) the roof apex of the approved house is lower than the road; (ii) this two-lane road is busy with frequent changes of direction which require the attention of the driver; and (iii) the views of the sea are of greater interest. Development on other portions would be less visible, apart from roofs. Pedestrians
K Hansen Landscape Architect, Somerset West 21 St James, Erf 177476, VIA: January 2020 Revision nr 06
would be aware of the house on the proposed portion 3, shielding parts of future built form on the subdivided portions located on the lower slopes. Portion 3 may therefore be subject to overlooking.
Main Road: On completion of the construction of houses on the proposed subdivided portions, vehicle traffic would have to look to the side and up the hill and to see them. These additional houses would have a similar townscape character as the surrounding residential area of St James as there is a great deal of visual clutter and activity to absorb them when travelling along the road. Pedestrians on the bay side of the street could look up at the mountain and see an extension of the same townscape character below Boyes Drive and the undisturbed slopes of the TMNP located above Boyes Drive.
Updated Assessment: January 2020 This assessment has been revised and updated in January 2020 to assess the impact of the retaining walls constructed to provide a building platform for portion 3, the most elevated building on the site. The main retaining wall has been constructed of dressed natural stone as agreed and the colour is a light buff. It is visible due to its height and colour. It has been built of the same or very similar stone as the retaining wall along Boyes Drive which is old and much darker because it is weathered.
Reference to the landscape plan, (Site Plan) indicates that screening trees are proposed. No retaining walls are evident on the Site Plan for portions 1 and 2 but due to the gradients it is assumed that they would be necessary and may appear similar, although lesser in scale, to those in portion 3. Mitigation measures are discussed in Sections 8 and 9.
Users of the passenger rail service, while travelling in either direction could look up towards the mountain and see the additional houses as an extension of the same townscape character. As for pedestrians walking on the bay side of Main Road, the main views would be looking out to the bay or the undisturbed slopes of the TMNP located above Boyes Drive.
Recreational users of the coastal green spaces and beach, the iconic beach huts, and the tidal pool would look up towards the mountain and see the additional houses as an extension of the same townscape character.
Current Construction Construction works works
2018 2020
Figure 6.5 views of the site from the beach. (The images were taken from similar locations, but the scale is not quite equivalent). Source Hansen
K Hansen Landscape Architect, Somerset West 22 St James, Erf 177476, VIA: January 2020 Revision nr 06
Current construction Construction works works
2018 2020
Figure 6.6 views of the site from the beach, directly opposite the site. Source Hansen
Current Construction works
Figure 6.7 a view of the site from the beach huts. Source Hansen
2020
The zone of visual influence for the proposed project is assessed as moderate
6.7.3 Users of TMNP The hill to the immediate north of Boyes Drive has hiking routes which would offer intermittent views through the fynbos and alien vegetation located on the site. The main views would be of the bay, while the future houses to be established on the site would appear in character with the existing houses on either side.
K Hansen Landscape Architect, Somerset West 23 St James, Erf 177476, VIA: January 2020 Revision nr 06
Figure 6.8 a view of the TMNP, on the opposite side of Boyes Drive to the site, and the density of the vegetation. Source Hansen
2018 The zone of visual influence for the proposed project is assessed as low
6.7.4 Summary Reference to the Visual Envelope shows that the extent of the potential visual influence of the proposed works would have the highest impact on local residential buildings. A secondary area of visual impact is Boyes Drive, Main Road, Railway and the recreational areas.
6.8 Visual Absorption Capacity
This refers to the ability of the surrounding area to visually absorb the development. In this assessment, high is a positive and low is a negative. - low: the area cannot visually absorb the development - medium: the area can absorb the development to a degree, but it will look somewhat out of place - high: the area can easily visually absorb the development
6.8.1 Proposed Project The proposed subdivision of the site (and the related future two additional dwellings) would provide the same land uses and density as those directly adjacent to the site and in the broader locality. As part of the proposals there would also be retaining walls and winding vehicle roads providing building platforms and access, which are commonly seen in St James though mostly shielded by mature planting. The visual absorption capacity is rated medium.
6.8.2 No-Go Alternative The visual absorption capacity is rated medium, because of the visual prominence of the retaining walls.
6.9 Compatibility with Surrounding Landscape/Visual Intrusion
This refers to the extent to which the proposed development and land usage is in line with the surrounding development and land usage. - appropriate: the development will fit in well with the surrounding landscape - moderately appropriate: the development can blend in, but to a lesser degree and only with care - inappropriate: the development introduces new elements into the landscape that do not fit in.
K Hansen Landscape Architect, Somerset West 24 St James, Erf 177476, VIA: January 2020 Revision nr 06
6.9.1 Proposed Project The proposed project, portions 1 and 2, would offer the same land uses at a similar residential density, with dwellings that would be 2 stories, as seen locally. Access from Main Road is already largely in place. However, the possible retaining walls could be a discordant visual feature which could result in the scheme only ‘blending in’ with care.
There are visual and physical links between the surrounds and the proposed development, and it is assessed as moderately appropriate; it could blend in with care.
6.9.2 No-Go Alternative The land usage would continue to be appropriate, within the context of other rural land in the locality.
2018 Figure 6.9 showing the extent of the visual impact from the north part of the site and looking towards the bay. Source Hansen
6.10 Intensity/Magnitude of the Visual Impact
This refers to the degree to which the visual nature of the landscape will be altered, whether the potential impact would be destructive or benign. low: natural or social functions are negligibly altered, or unaltered medium: natural or social functions are slightly altered high: natural or social functions are severely or notably altered, and to the extent that the impact intrudes noticeably into the landscape.
6.10.1 Site Landscape; Proposed Project Existing natural and social functions on the site would be altered with the change from vacant, vegetated land, to low density residential development. The intensity is assessed as medium- high, as natural functions would be notably altered.
6.10.2 Beyond the Site The nature of the landscape would be altered within the zone of visual influence of the proposals. It is noted that the site is within an existing residential area but the proposed dwellings are likely to be all, or in part, two stories, there may be retaining walls, and their coverage is 50%; the intensity is assessed as medium.
K Hansen Landscape Architect, Somerset West 25 St James, Erf 177476, VIA: January 2020 Revision nr 06
6.10.3 No-Go Alternative The intensity of visual impact on the site and local landscape would be low.
6.10.4 Construction Period The intensity would be medium due to the additional traffic from construction vehicles; and materials would be delivered, stored on site, and surplus materials cleared. This would however take place over the short-term.
6.10.5 Conclusion The Intensity is summarised as medium as natural functions would be notably altered.
6.11 Duration of the Visual Impact
The duration of the impact upon its surroundings - short term: 18 months or less - medium term: up to 3 years - permanent: where the impact, either by natural processes or by human intervention will be permanent
The duration of the scheme is intended to be as long term as any similar development and to extend beyond 20 years; it will not be transient. The duration is judged to be permanent.
6.12 Significance of the Visual Impact of the proposed scheme as a whole
The consequence of the visual impact is assessed as a combination of: - the extent of the impact (paragraph. 6.5, local) - the intensity/magnitude of the impact, (paragraph. 6.10, medium). - The duration of the impact (paragraph 6.11, permanent)
Examining all these impacts allows an assessment of the significance to be made. Ratings range from Very Low, Low, Medium, High, to Very high (see Addendum 2).
The overall significance of the layout of the proposed project is assessed as medium as there would be permanent change in the local landscape and this change would be of medium intensity. This would be due to activities associated with the construction period as well as the visual impact of the proposals being beyond the immediate confines of the site.
6.13 Impact on Irreplaceable Resources
The resources which can be considered irreplaceable due to their visual qualities are: • The loss of ‘green space’ currently experienced by local residents, people in local employment, people using local transport corridors • The impact on the local flora and fauna.
Responses to these issues are within Section 8 of this report, ‘Mitigation’.
K Hansen Landscape Architect, Somerset West 26 St James, Erf 177476, VIA: January 2020 Revision nr 06
6.14 Potential Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Visual Impacts.
Direct Impacts: primary impacts Indirect Impacts: occur later in time or at a different place Cumulative impacts (incremental impacts of the activity and other past, present and future activities on a common resource) Negligible: (impact insignificant/no impact) Low: there is still significant capacity of the environmental resources within the geographic area to respond to change and withstand further stress Medium: the capacity of the environmental resources within the geographic area to respond to change and withstand further stress is reduced High: the capacity of the environmental resources within the geographic area to respond to change and withstand further stress has been or is close to being exceeded.
6.14.1 Direct impacts during construction and operational periods • Change in landscape character from undeveloped land to residential development • Disturbance during the construction period • Small increase in future traffic movements locally • Removal of fynbos vegetation, and the time taken for indigenous planting to mature.
6.14.2 Indirect impacts • None noted at this time; there are sufficient utilities services provided for the subdivided portions.
6.14.3 Cumulative impacts • The proposal could be visually experienced as additive, bringing more traffic in this locality, but this would be a negligible visual impact • The proposal could have a synergistic effect reducing a part of the natural vegetation cover in this locality.
This site is rated medium: the capacity of the environmental resources within the geographic area to respond to change and withstand further stress is reduced
6.15 Visual Sensitivity Assessment
6.15.1 General Landscape and townscape character sensitivity is defined as: “the sensitivity of the landscape as a whole, in terms of its overall character, its quality and condition, the aesthetic aspects of its character, and the sensitivity of individual elements contributing to the landscape’’. Source: GLVIA, LI, UK, 2013.
Assessment of the overall sensitivity of the local townscape and landscape character to this development is based on the relative ability of the locality to respond to and, where appropriate, accommodate, change of a particular type; in this case, a residential scheme.
6.15.2 Areas and Users of high sensitivity The locally sensitive sites in need of protection are • Local residents referred to in para. 6.7.1.
K Hansen Landscape Architect, Somerset West 27 St James, Erf 177476, VIA: January 2020 Revision nr 06
6.15.3 Conclusion The local site character would change from unused, vegetated land to a residential scheme; it would also change from a site with some natural visual clutter to one with greater visual clutter from built form. The proposed land use is considered to have low sensitivity as there are few properties which would be impacted locally and directly.
Existing residential and TMNP ‘neighbours’ are sensitive receptors and these concerns will be addressed in the Section 8 of this report, ‘Mitigation’. Local visual sensitivity is assessed as low.
K Hansen Landscape Architect, Somerset West 28 St James, Erf 177476, VIA: January 2020 Revision nr 06
6.16 Viewpoints and Images.
The images were created on site and within the surrounding landscape during the morning and afternoon in November 2017 and January 2020 and from locations where the site would be deemed to be visible. The weather was clear and open, and deemed to be typical. The camera was set at a focal length deemed to be as close to natural eye experience as possible. No filters were used. Panoramic images have been overlapped and stitched.
Figure 6.10 showing the location of the images illustrating the report. Source Google earth/Hansen
K Hansen Landscape Architect, Somerset West 29 St James, Erf 177476, VIA: January 2020 Revision nr 06
7.0 HERITAGE AND CULTURE IMPACTS
7.1 Heritage
A Heritage Impact Assessment for the proposed project has been compiled by Aikman Associates Heritage Management, and their report.
St James has a long history of residential development, from the arrival of the ‘Randlords’ towards the end of the 19th Century. There were many notable individuals, including Cecil Rhodes, whose local cottage is a museum. Therefore, there are many buildings and other artefacts over 60 years old and this may apply to one or more of the properties discussed in para 6.7.1.
There does not appear to be any traces of visible built form on the site. The site supports dense vegetation, mainly fynbos in the areas undisturbed by building operations.
7.2 Intangible Heritage
The ‘sense of place’ of this locality, and the local place names, contribute to the sense that the area has been inhabited over a long period.
7.3 Anticipated Impacts on Heritage Resources
This study has not identified any impacts on heritage resources, and while there are cultural references locally, associated with the landscape and the National Park, it is acknowledged that these matters will be addressed fully by the Heritage Specialist.
K Hansen Landscape Architect, Somerset West 30 St James, Erf 177476, VIA: January 2020 Revision nr 06
8.0 MITIGATION MEASURES
8.1 Environmental Management Plan
An environmental management plan should be drawn up to set out principles for the implementation of the visual mitigation measures. The proponent is required to demonstrate that these measures are included in the design and construction phase. The responsibilities of an Environmental Control Officer on this site are noted in para. 8.6.2.
8.2 Project elements to be addressed in the Design period
8.2.1 Built form The visual impact of the proposed project, portions 1 and 2, would be moderated by good design and layout, effectively landscaped open spaces and the use of tree planting and buffers to manage the interfaces with adjacent residential dwellings and the ravine. The architectural guidelines should be enforced.
It is noted that both proposed dwelling units are extensive in plan form and will require extensive building platforms for: • safe manoeuvring of labour and plant, • for construction camp/layout space and • storage of waste and spoil materials prior to their removal off site.
Efficient site management will be critical. Substantial natural areas will be cleared for grading activities. Spoil will be excavated to allow the platforms to be partially in cut. Changes in level would require retaining walls.
General Built form dominates the development because of the necessary large building platforms. Apart from the ravine, there is one significant area of ‘soft’ between portions 2 and 3.
Building Height The portions of the subdivided erf would become more visible with increasing elevation; it is noted that the height to apex of the proposed buildings would not exceed that stipulated in the architectural guidelines and would be in full accord with the Local Authority requirements.
Cladding and Finishing Colours It has been stated by the Project Architects that the cladding materials for all the proposed retaining walls and parts of proposed buildings, would be natural local stone, the same as used for the retaining wall at Boyes Drive. This is an attractive cladding, but its light colour has a significant visual impact. However, over time the colour would darken due to exposure to the elements. Where external walls are plastered and painted, a natural palette of mid earth tones would be used, not light earth tones.
Roofs Due to the steep slope, roofs would be very evident, therefore only dark neutral colours should be used; if profile roof sheeting is used it must be finished in a dark, matte colour.
K Hansen Landscape Architect, Somerset West 31 St James, Erf 177476, VIA: January 2020 Revision nr 06
Building Line The building line around the site perimeter is noted, this buffer should be used for shielding planting. The development is significantly more visible in the wider landscape from the west and south west. The built form on this boundary is taken right up to the 3m building line. Concern is raised that a 3m strip may not be wide enough to provide effective screening.
8.2.2 Vehicle Access During the construction period and the operational period vehicle access for portion 2 would be off Boyes Drive via an existing road.
The vehicle access to serve portion 1 would be off an existing driveway and panhandle from Main Road, between nos 36 and 38. The width is 3.13 m and the length, 45 m.
The steepness of the site would likely necessitate the construction of retaining walls for the building platforms which could be visually intrusive. The colour of the natural stone is light buff. While the possible retaining walls could shield some of the proposed works there would also be extensive cut and fill operations and supporting works to create building platforms. Unvegetated land could have a noticeable visual impact until appropriate land cover could be established.
8.2.3 Planting The effectiveness of the shielding function of the existing vegetation is being reduced during building works.
It is critical that this vegetation is replaced by planting with endemic species, as soon as practicable with the objective of shielding the proposals from existing residential buildings to as great an extent as feasible. The landscape plan indicates the planting of trees and shrubs; the species list in the landscape plan is pragmatic given the conditions, and appropriate.
Portions 1 and 2 may require • climbing plants to rapidly cover any retaining walls • the built form, (portions 1 and 2), to be re-positioned further away from the 3m building line, (along the north-west boundary) • having regard for the local sense of place, either a greater proportion of the erf should be treated as soft, or the areas that can be planted should be integrated better with the built form; landscape buffers are necessary for this layout
This treatment would soften the hard edges of the site boundaries and the built form. Planting in advance of the construction works should be considered, where practical. These measures would mitigate visual impact.
8.2.4 Lighting Floodlighting is to be avoided, and no lighting should be shining towards neighbouring dwellings, or upwards. The use of lower output lamps is preferred, and the shielding of light sources from neighbours. Security lighting should be designed to respond only to public and private safety. These measures are to reduce the visual impact of lighting at night. Timber screens such as pergolas are required over extensive areas of fenestration, to reduce sun-flashing off glazed surfaces as much as possible in the early mornings.
K Hansen Landscape Architect, Somerset West 32 St James, Erf 177476, VIA: January 2020 Revision nr 06
8.2.5 Fencing Where fencing is to be erected, a high-quality security fence is preferred, it should be semi permeable, black, unclimbable and uncuttable; ‘Cochrane Clear Vu’ is an example. Consideration should be given to a fence type as least visible as practicable.
8.3 Construction Period
8.3.1 Duration The construction period should be kept to a minimum, and with due care to local residents and road users. There should be no out-of-normal-hours working due to the proximity of houses. The site vehicle entrance should have adequate traffic control measures, signage, and dust control measures. These measures are to reduce visual impact.
8.3.2 Site Control Controls on the location of materials storage, etc, should be enforced to ensure that they are contained within the actual site boundaries. Piles of construction materials should be stored at lower elevations. In addition, no fires are to be allowed and no litter and contaminants are allowed to enter the environment. Excess materials and all waste are to be removed from the construction areas.
8.4 Operational Period
The visual impact of the completed scheme during the operational period should be mitigated by maintenance of the built form, boundary treatments, and planting.
8.5 Conclusion
If all identified mitigation measures listed above are implemented the residual impact would be of infill housing in a residential area. The proposed scheme would have carefully resolved edge treatments which would create a successful interface with adjacent properties and the ravine.
The extent of the visual impact would not reduce or expand, but the absorption capacity and the compatibility ratings would increase.
8.6 Visual Impact Assessment Tables
Definitions not already included in the report, and described in Addendum 2 are: Probability: Improbable the consultant believes the impact would not occur Probable <50% chance Highly Probable 50% to 90% chance Definite More than 90% certain that the impact would occur
K Hansen Landscape Architect, Somerset West 33 St James, Erf 177476, VIA: January 2020 Revision nr 06
Table 8.1 CONSTRUCTION PHASE: PROPOSED PROJECT, IMPACTS Impact Criteria Extent Duration Intensity Probability Significance Visual intrusion of Local Short Term Medium- Definite Medium construction vehicles and high activities on-site, construction camp Visual intrusion of Regional Short term Low Highly Low construction vehicles and probable activities on ‘feeder’ roads, such as M4, M35 Level of disturbance to Local Short term Medium- Definite Medium-High adjacent residential high areas Length of contract time, Local Short term Medium Definite Low including all site works Visual intrusion of site Local Short term Medium Highly Low lighting probable
Table 8.2 CONSTRUCTION PHASE: PROPOSED PROJECT, MITIGATION Nature: Impact of initial site works, construction camps, site set up, laying services, ground works Without mitigation With mitigation Extent Local Local Duration Short -term Short-term Magnitude Moderate Medium-Low Probability Highly probable Highly probable Significance Medium-High Medium Status (positive or negative) Negative Negative Reversibility High High Irreplaceable loss of resources? Yes No Can impacts be avoided, managed or mitigated? Yes Mitigation: Establish screening structures to shield construction works from sensitive receptors; good traffic and site management. Keeping construction period as short as reasonable. Reinstate damaged fynbos areas Cumulative impacts: None
Residual Impacts: Change of landscape character; removal of established fynbos; some limited but permanent ground contamination could occur.
K Hansen Landscape Architect, Somerset West 34 St James, Erf 177476, VIA: January 2020 Revision nr 06
Table 8.3 OPERATIONAL PHASE: PROPOSED PROJECT, IMPACTS Impact Criteria Extent Duration Intensity Probability Significance Effect on local Local Long Term Medium Highly Medium residential receptors of Probable the change in landscape character to a residential development Visual impact on Local Long Term Low Definite Low receptors using local roads, M4, M35 Visual impact on Local Long Term Low Probable Low receptors living and working locally along Main Road Impact on Heritage and Local Long Term Low Definite low Cultural Resources Impact of the colours, Local Long Term Medium Definite Medium-low finishes, heights of the buildings Impact of security and Local Long Term Medium Definite Medium other lighting
Table 8.4 OPERATIONAL PHASE: PROPOSED PROJECT, MITIGATION Nature: Impact on receptors living and working locally of the change in site character to residential Without mitigation With mitigation Extent Local Local Duration Long -term Long-term Magnitude Medium Medium-low Probability Highly probable Highly probable Significance Medium Medium-low Status (positive or negative) Negative Neutral Reversibility Low Low Irreplaceable loss of resources? No No Can impacts be avoided, managed or mitigated? Yes Mitigation: colours, finishes of buildings, edge treatment, lighting, protection and restoration of existing vegetation, tree and shrub planting. Cumulative impacts: The scheme could be visually experienced as additive, bringing more, similar, development and more traffic in this locality. Residual Impacts: change of site and local landscape character; impacts on flora
Proposed Project: The rating scale for the proposed development, without mitigation indicates a medium impact; reducing to medium-low with maturity of mitigation measures.
K Hansen Landscape Architect, Somerset West 35 St James, Erf 177476, VIA: January 2020 Revision nr 06
9.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
9.1 Visual Statement
The project would provide for a new residential development on an unused, vegetated site visible over a moderate area. During the construction period, the site would be accessed off a roads and access points which are existing access points. During the operational period this access would continue.
The proponent has received approval for one house and access road and wishes to subdivide the remainder of the erf into 2 additional portions of extents typical in the locality for single residential. Proposed houses would be 2 storey, (9 m to wall plate, 11 m to roof apex) which is typical in the locality. The other uses on the site could also include retaining walls and landscaped areas.
The visual envelope has been demonstrated to be limited locally due mainly to terrain, but there are some residential buildings close to the site which would experience a visual impact rated high, and the nature of the impact reduces with distance.
The impact of the proposals on receptors within the visual envelope has been rated as moderate reducing to moderate-low with eventual maturity of mitigation measures; this would be due to the location and the nature of the proposals.
9.2 Visual Sensitivity
The character of the landscape is deemed to be able to accommodate change as described in the proposed project because the development under consideration would represent a continuation of landscape and townscape character evident in the immediate area.
The locally sensitive sites are the adjacent residential areas and the TMNP; the local site character would change; the probable proposed land use is considered to have low sensitivity as there are similar land uses in the immediate locality.
While no heritage listed built form appears to be affected, there are cultural implications from the history of the locality, the trees and the National Park which will be assessed by the Heritage Specialist.
9.3 Visual Impact Rating
The proposed project would have a visual impact rating of moderate-low after maturity of mitigation measures.
K Hansen Landscape Architect, Somerset West 36 St James, Erf 177476, VIA: January 2020 Revision nr 06
9.4 An Alternative layout
Based on the foregoing, and the fact that only one layout was presented for assessment, the project was considered for a more optimum solution in terms of its potential visual impact.
Portion 3 is already approved, and the remainder lends itself to additional portions, as it could be developed at a density typical for the local area. The scheme could be visually appropriate in those terms.
The development of portions 1 and 2 would inevitably require building platforms supported by retaining walls, which may have a visual impact and measures must be undertaken to reduce the visual impact as described in section 8 and as follows. • climbing plants to rapidly cover any retaining walls • the built form, (portions 1 and 2), to be re-positioned further away from the 3m building line, (along the north-west boundary) • having regard for the local sense of place, either a greater proportion of the erf should be treated as soft, or the areas that can be planted should be integrated better with the built form; landscape buffers are necessary for this layout
The detailed design of these two portions must limit the extent of building platforms with the objective of integrating soft and hard works more thoroughly to retain and enhance the local landscape character and the local sense of place.
9.5 Mitigation
The main measures are the controls on cladding materials and colours, roofing materials and colours, the building lines and the adherence to the architectural guidelines. Based on the current layout the site only presents limited opportunities for screening planting and more will be required which should be undertaken to reduce the visual impact for adjacent sensitive receptors. Screening of the light-coloured walls by climbing plants is necessary which could be more effective in the short to medium term, than trees in confined spaces.
9.6 Conclusion
The proposed project would appear in character with the surrounding residential areas and would result in an initial visual impact rating of moderate, reducing to moderate-low when the site is established and with habituation.
9.7 Recommendation, Opinion, Authorisation
It is the finding of this assessment that the Proposed project layout and design would be visually acceptable and could proceed, if mitigation measures would be undertaken. These measures are desirable as they improve the acceptability of the project and should be included as conditions of authorisation.
K Hansen Landscape Architect, Somerset West 37 St James, Erf 177476, VIA: January 2020 Revision nr 06
Addendum 1: Plan of Proposed Sub-division, prepared: Duncan Bates, Land Surveyors
K Hansen Landscape Architect, Somerset West 38 St James, Erf 177476, VIA: January 2020 Revision nr 06
Addendum 2: Site Plan_Rev 001: DDS Projects/Slee Archts
K Hansen Landscape Architect, Somerset West 39 St James, Erf 177476, VIA: January 2020 Revision nr 06
Addendum 3: DEA&DP Assessment Ratings and Definitions
Criteria Required by: The Guidelines, Provincial Government of the Western Cape, DEA&DP, June 2005:
Visual Impact Assessments: Definitions and Ratings Referred to are criteria specific to visual impact assessments referred to in the DEA&DP guideline document and which are as follows:
Viewshed The viewshed refers to the theoretical outer-most extent of the area from which an object may be seen. Visibility can be obscured in part or in whole by objects within the viewshed such as existing buildings, trees, or landform.
Rating – not rated, a description given
Visibility of the Site A description of the actual places within the view shed from which the site can be seen; significant views are discussed
Rating: not rated, a description given
The Extent of the Visual Impact Rates the impact in terms of the geographical area that will be influenced by the visual impact
Ratings: - no impact: no visual impact - limited: visual impact is small, generally confined to the site - local: the site and the immediate surrounding area, (1-5km) - sub-regional: a greater area is influenced, (5-10km) - regional: the influence extends to an entire region - national: the influence has national importance and extends beyond boundaries
Visual exposure Visual exposure refers to the visibility of the project site in terms of the capacity of the surrounding landscape to offer screening. This is determined by the topography, tree cover, buildings, etc.
Ratings: - no exposure: the site is hidden by topography, planting, etc - low: the site is largely hidden - medium: the site is partially hidden - high: there is little in the surrounding landscape that can shield the development from view
Zones of visual influence Describes the areas visually influenced by the proposed development, and assesses the amount of influence Ratings: - non-existent: the site cannot be seen from surrounding areas
K Hansen Landscape Architect, Somerset West 40 St James, Erf 177476, VIA: January 2020 Revision nr 06
- low: the development is largely shielded from view by topography, planting, etc - moderate: the development is partially shielded - high: the development strongly influences the view and acts as a visual focus
Visual Absorption Capacity This refers to the ability of the surrounding area to visually absorb the development. In this assessment, high is a positive and low is a negative
Ratings: - low: the area cannot visually absorb the development - medium: the area can absorb the development to a degree but it will look somewhat out of place - high: the area can easily visually absorb the development
Compatibility with Surrounding Landscape This refers to the extent to which the proposed development and land usage is in line with the surrounding development and land usage.
Ratings: - appropriate: the development will fit in well with the surrounding landscape - moderately appropriate: the development can blend in, but to a lesser degree and only with care - inappropriate: the development introduces new elements into the landscape that do not fit in.
Intensity or Magnitude, of Visual Impact This refers to the degree to which the visual nature of the landscape will be altered.
Ratings: - low: the impact is noticeable but does not act as a strong focus in the landscape - moderate: the landscapes visual nature is altered in a way that is noticeable - high: the visual impact of the development intrudes into the landscape in a noticeable way
Duration of visual Impact The duration of the impact upon its surroundings
Ratings: - temporary: one year or less - short term: one to five years - medium term: five to fifteen years - long term: more than fifteen years
Significance of the Visual Impact This rating combines the other ratings and looks at the overall impact
Ratings: - very low: the visual impacts will be limited to the site itself - low: the impacts will be local, and/or in the short term - moderate: the impacts will be experienced locally and may lead to permanent change in the local landscape - high: these impacts will be experienced over a wide area, or sub regionally and will be irreversible
Potential Cumulative Visual Impacts Looks at the accretion of similar developments over time
Ratings: not rated, a description given
K Hansen Landscape Architect, Somerset West 41 St James, Erf 177476, VIA: January 2020 Revision nr 06
Addendum 4: KHLA Assessment Ratings and Definitions
Criteria Rating Scales Cumulative impacts (incremental • Negligible: (impact insignificant/no impact) impacts of the activity and other • Low: there is still significant capacity of the environmental past, present and future activities resources within the geographic area to respond to change on a common resource) and withstand further stress • Medium: the capacity of the environmental resources within the geographic area to respond to change and withstand further stress is reduced • High: the capacity of the environmental resources within the geographic area to respond to change and withstand further stress has been or is close to being exceeded
Nature • Positive • Negative • Neutral
Extent (the spatial limit of the • Local: extending only as far as the site and its immediate impact) surroundings, within 5km • Regional: Western Cape • National: South Africa • International
Intensity (the severity of the • Low: where the impact affects the environment in such a impact) way that natural, cultural and social functions and processes are not affected • Medium: where the affected environment is altered but natural, cultural and social functions and processes continue albeit in a modified way • High: where natural, cultural or social functions and processes are altered to the extent that the impact intrudes noticeably into the landscape
Duration (the predicted lifetime of • Short-term: (0 to 5 years) the impact) • Medium term: (5 to 15 years) • Long term: (16 to 30 years) where the impact will cease after the operational life of the activity either because of natural processes or by human intervention. • Permanent: where the mitigation either by natural processes or by human intervention will not occur in such a way or in such a time span that the impact can be considered transient.
Probability (the likelihood of the • Improbable: where the possibility of the impact occurring impact occurring) is very low • Probable: where there is a good possibility (<50 % chance) that the impact will occur • Highly probable: where it is most likely (50-90 % chance) that the impact will occur • Definite: where the impact will occur regardless of any prevention measures (>90 % chance of occurring)
K Hansen Landscape Architect, Somerset West 42 St James, Erf 177476, VIA: January 2020 Revision nr 06
Non-Reversibility (ability of the • Low: (impacted natural, cultural or social functions and impacted environment to return to processes will return to their pre-impacted state within the its pre-impacted state once the short-term) cause of the impact has been • Medium: (impacted natural, cultural or social functions removed) and processes will return to their pre-impacted state within the medium to long term) • High: (impacted natural, cultural or social functions and processes will never return to their pre-impacted state)
Impact on irreplaceable resources ▪ Yes (is an irreplaceable resource ▪ No impacted upon?)
Confidence level (the specialist’s ▪ High: greater than 70% sure of impact prediction degree of confidence in the ▪ Medium: between 35 and 70% sure of impact prediction predictions and/or the information ▪ Low: less than 35% sure of impact prediction on which it is based)
Table 2: Significance rating
Rating Intensity, Extent and Duration Rating
VERY HIGH of high intensity at a regional level and endure in the long term; of high intensity at a national level in the medium term; of medium intensity at a national level in the long term. HIGH of high intensity at a regional level and endure in the medium term; of high intensity at a national level in the short term; of medium intensity at a national level in the medium term; of low intensity at a national level in the long term; of high intensity at a local level in the long term; of medium intensity at a regional level in the long term. MEDIUM of high intensity at a local level and endure in the medium term; of medium intensity at a regional level in the medium term; of high intensity at a regional level in the short term; of medium intensity at a national level in the short term; of medium intensity at a local level in the long term; of low intensity at a national level in the medium term; of low intensity at a regional level in the long term. LOW of low intensity at a regional level and endure in the medium term; of low intensity at a national level in the short term]]7 of high intensity at a local level and endure in the short term; of medium intensity at a regional level in the short term; of low intensity at a local level in the long term; of medium intensity at a local level and endure in the medium term. VERY LOW of low intensity at a local level and endure in the medium term; of low intensity at a regional level and endure in the short term; of low to medium intensity at a local level and endure in the short term. NOT APPLICABLE zero intensity with any combination of extent and duration UNKNOWN in certain cases it may not be possible to determine the significance of an impact.
K Hansen Landscape Architect, Somerset West 43 St James, Erf 177476, VIA: January 2020 Revision nr 06
Addendum 5: Bibliography
• Guideline for Involving Visual and Aesthetic Specialists in EIA Processes, Provincial Government of the Western Cape, Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning Edition 1 June 2005. • Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, (GLVIA). 3rd Ed. Landscape Institute (LI) UK 2013. • Good Practice Guidance, Landscape and Visual Amenity. Scottish Natural Heritage 2007. • Landscape Character Assessment Guidance Landscape Institute, UK. 2008. • Use of Photography and Photomontage in Landscape and Visual Assessment. Landscape Institute UK. advice note 01/2011. Landscape Institute Technical Committee March 2011 • Scenic Drive Management Plan Review, Phase 1, 2013 City of Cape Town. • Heritage and Scenic Resources: Inventory and Policy Framework for the Western Cape, 2013, version 5.
K Hansen Landscape Architect, Somerset West 44 St James, Erf 177476, VIA: January 2020 Revision nr 06
Addendum 6: Declaration of Independence
The specialist appointed in terms of the Regulations
I, Karen Hansen, declare that
General declaration:
I act as the independent specialist in this application; I will perform the work relating to the application in an objective manner, even if this results in views and findings that are not favourable to the applicant; I declare that there are no circumstances that may compromise my objectivity in performing such work; I have expertise in conducting the specialist report relevant to this application, including knowledge of the Act, Regulations and any guidelines that have relevance to the proposed activity; I will comply with the Act, Regulations and all other applicable legislation; I have no, and will not engage in, conflicting interests in the undertaking of the activity; I undertake to disclose to the applicant and the competent authority all material information in my possession that reasonably has or may have the potential of influencing - any decision to be taken with respect to the application by the competent authority; and - the objectivity of any report, plan or document to be prepared by myself for submission to the competent authority; all the particulars furnished by me in this form are true and correct; and I realise that a false declaration is an offence in terms of regulation 48 and is punishable in terms of section 24F of the Act.
Signature of the specialist:
KHLA
Name of company (if applicable):
13 January 2020
Date:
K Hansen Landscape Architect, Somerset West 45 St James, Erf 177476, VIA: January 2020 Revision nr 06
Addendum 7: CV: K Hansen
Karen Hansen, CMLI Independent Consultant Landscape Architect
Qualifications Chartered Membership of the Landscape Institute, UK, in 1982, registered nr. 11994. Strathclyde University, Scotland, 1995, course in Environmental Impact Assessment covering the legislative background to, and practice of, Environmental Impact Assessment, with particular reference to Visual Impact Studies.
Experience in South Africa 2010 onward: Consultant Landscape Architect to Viridian Consulting (Pty) Ltd. and Independent Consultant Landscape Architect specialising in, inter alia, Visual Assessments 2006 to 2010: Senior Landscape Architect with Viridian Consulting, (Pty) Ltd., Somerset West, undertaking landscape design projects and environmental studies.
Experience in UK/Africa 2000 to 2006: Landscape Architect and Team Leader with Glasgow City Council. Master planning, design, implementation of the Heritage Lottery funded urban parks and urban dual carriageways. 1992 to 2000: Partner with Kirklee Landscape Architects, Glasgow, Scotland, undertaking landscape design projects and environmental studies. 1985 to 1992: Director of Landscape Architect practice based in Harare, Zimbabwe, undertaking strategic projects for the Ministry of Defence and Infrastructure projects for the Ministry of Public Housing and National Construction.
Environmental Studies: Visual Impact Assessments
Transport corridors • The VIA informed the design and Implementation of landscape works for major new road, ‘Western Distributor Road’, Glenrothes, Fife, Scotland. (1996). • East End Regeneration Route: visual impact assessment leading to strategy decisions for the optimum routing of this new dual carriageway whose construction would act as a driver for change in the East End of Glasgow. (2004). • Vredenburg, Witteklip, a portion of the proposed Southern Bypass, with Ecoimpact Consulting. (2018)
Forestry/Greenbelt • Study of landscape aspects of felling and restocking of several areas of existing coniferous woodlands and change to native woodland species in catchment area for West of Scotland Water at Loch Katrine, Strathclyde, Scotland. (1996). • Environmental Study for Central Scotland Countryside Trust as part of the process to determine future access and tree planting policy in the Greenbelt surrounding Falkirk, Scotland. (1997).
Residential • Study for a proposed coastal Links Golf Residential Estate, close to the airport at Prestwick, Scotland. (1998). • A small residential development at L’ Avenir Winery, on an exposed and elevated site, Stellenbosch, W Cape. (2007).
K Hansen Landscape Architect, Somerset West 46 St James, Erf 177476, VIA: January 2020 Revision nr 06
• A proposed residential development with open space over 3,460ha at St Helena Bay, W Cape, a core project of the St Helena SDI, with Denis Moss Partnership and D J Environmental Consultants. (2008). • Phase 2 of De Zalze Residential Golf Estate, for Spier, Stellenbosch with Denis Moss Partnership and D J Environmental Consultants. (2009). • A proposed security estate in a long-established residential suburb, Somerset West, W Cape with Viridian Consulting. (2013). • Second phase of middle-income housing at Haasendal II, Kuilsriver, W Cape with Braaf Environmental Practitioners. (2013). • Weltevreden Hills, a proposed residential development directly adjacent to the Weltevreden Historic Farm, Stellenbosch with Denis Moss Partnership, Stellenbosch. (2014). • Farm 85, Patrys Valley, Stellenbosch, a proposed residential development close to Welgevonden and to a building of heritage significance with Denis Moss Partnership, Stellenbosch. (2014). • Strandfontein, W Cape with Macroplan. (2015) • Residential Estate, Johannesdal, with Braaf Environmental (2016) • Residential Development, Contract Nature Reserve, Paternostergroep, Kana Environmental (2016) • Visual Streetscape study for two dwellings and change to Guesthouse in Franschhoek. (2016) • Visual Streetscape Study for four dwellings in Franschhoek (2016). • Noordhoek, Evergreen Lifestyle Village with Planning Partners, Amdec Properties, (2017) • Raithby Constraints Study and subsequent VIA for Residential Development, with Doug Jeffery Environmental Consultants, (2017) • Residential Development in Hout Bay with Cameron Consulting. (2017) • Paternoster Bekbaai, housing with Human Nature (2018) • New dwelling as part of Lichtenstein Castle, Hout Bay, with Khula Environmental Consultants. (2018) • Eikezicht Development of Apartment Blocks, Brackenfell, with Braaf Environmental. (2018) • D’Olyfboom development in Paarl, with Aikman Associates Heritage Management. (2018) • House Gaetjie, Paarl; residential at very high elevation with Kemp Architects (2018) • St James, Cape Town, new dwellings on steep, exposed site, with SLR Consulting. (2018) • Erf 579 Franschhoek, Group Housing in treed site with David Hellig Abrahamse, Paarl (2018) • Cape Point Vineyards, Noordhoek, residential development with some tourism facilities over a portion of a long-established wine estate, within a Grade IIIc landscape with Doug Jeffery Environmental Consultants. (2019) • Enslin Street, Paarl, residential development on an elevated site, with Aikman Associates. (2019). • Vredehoek, development of apartment blocks with CalgroM3, Gauteng. (2019) • Rozelle Village, Wellington, townhouses, with Aikman Associates. (2019) • Lake Michelle, Noordhoek, final phase of residential development within salt marsh for Evergreen Retirement Holdings and Amdec, with Doug Jeffery Environmental Consultants. (2019)
Mixed uses/Retail • Mixed Use Development at Mandalay, Khayelitsha, Cape Town. Predominately housing, with some commercial and institutional uses, opposite the railway station; with Braaf Environmental Practitioners. (2009). • Mixed Use Development, Crammix Brickworks, Cape Town. Change of use to predominately housing, with some commercial and institutional uses, and integrated open space with Denis Moss Partnership and D J Environmental Consultants. (2009). • A new Retail Mall with car parking, Philippi, Cape Town on a green-field site and close to a major traffic intersection with Power Construction and D J Environmental Consultants. (2011). • Suider-Paarl Business Park, Paarl, W Cape. Located on the R101 just south of Paarl, and focussing on motor car showrooms with Praktiplan, Paarl. (2013). • Commercial Development on Farm Welgemoed, Atlantis, W Cape. At the junction of the R304 and Bloembosch Road, outside of the urban edge with Enviro Dinamik. (2013).
K Hansen Landscape Architect, Somerset West 47 St James, Erf 177476, VIA: January 2020 Revision nr 06
• Major new Retail Park, Office Development and Residential Estate in Paarl with Lazercor Developments (Pty) Ltd and Meadowbridge (Pty) Ltd. (2016) • New single residential, and retirement village, with Hotel, Hospital and Retail in Bredasdorp with Braaf Environmental Practitioners. (2017) • Paarl Junction, Suider Paarl, with Jan Hanekom Partnership, CP Developments, Gauteng. (2018) • Bredasdorp, mixed uses, housing, institutional, with Braaf Environmental. (2018) • Annandale residential and commercial, M23, Brackenfell, with Braaf Environmental (2018) • Devonbosch mixed use development at Koelenhof, M23 with Doug Jeffery Environmental (2018) • New Retail outlet for Builders Express with car parking, Cecilia St, Paarl, with Aikman Associates, (2019)
Transmission Lines • Eskom 400kV Transmission lines, servitude and screening issues, for De Wijnlanden Residential Estate, Stellenbosch, W Cape with the Residents Association and Eskom. (2009). • 132kV Transmission Lines to evacuate power generated from a WEF to the south-west of De Aar at Maanhaarberg, direct to Eskom Hydra substation with Aurecon Group. (2011). • 132kV Transmission Lines to evacuate power generated from a WEF north-east of De Aar at the Eastern Plateau, direct to Bushbuck substation with Aurecon Group. (2011). • 132kV Transmission Lines to evacuate power generated from a WEF north-east of De Aar at the Eastern Plateau, direct to Eskom Hydra substation with Aurecon Group. (2013).
Industry and Agri-Industry • Scrap Metal Yard at Blackheath, Cape Town; yard extension and screening concerns with Braaf Environmental Practitioners. (2009). • Meerlust Wine Estate, Proposed Bottling Plant in an agricultural area with Ron Martin Heritage. (2009). • A proposed industrial estate off the R101 between Paarl and Klapmuts for Agri-Industrial uses with Braaf Environmental Practitioners. (2009). • Value Logistics Warehouse Signage, Kraaifontein, with FJC Consulting, Cape Town and Goldcoast Management, Wilderness. (2014) • Geodetic Observatory, Matjiesfontein, with Ecosense, Stellenbosch (2015) • Agri-industry vegetable plant, Aquaculture, West Coast with EnviroLogic, Cape Town. (2017) • Canola Processing Plant, Klapmuts, with Ecosense, Stellenbosch (2017) • Ernita Blueberry Farm Wellington, Visual Statement for Aikman Associates. (2017) • Bacco Wine Estate, Simonsvlei Road, W Cape, Wine Tourism and Residential, with Aikman Associates. (2019). • Proposed Business Park and Hospital in Wellington with Guillaume Nel Environmental Consultants. (2019) • Wellington Landfill Site, assessment of potential increase to airspace, with Legacy Environmental Management Consulting. (2019) • Babylonstoren Historic Farm, additional storage facilities, with Aikman Associates. (2018)
Education • University of Cape Town Middle Campus, Rondebosch, for Urbanscapes, MLH Architects and UCT; to assess impacts derived from change of use of multi-level piazza to new lecture theatre and administration buildings. (2009).
Tourism • Visual baseline study for tourism development at Kogel Bay Tourist Resort, Western Cape as part of the Development Framework Policy document, for the City of Cape Town. (2009). • New Airport Hotel, Edinburgh Airport, Scotland, assessment of relationship with other built form on the land-side. (1997). • Berg River Mouth Development; Vacation Apartments, Laaiplek Harbour, W Cape, with Dudley Janeke Environmental Consultants, Somerset West. (2014) • New Guest Cottages, and Spa for Morgenster Wine Estate with Aikman Associates. (2017)
K Hansen Landscape Architect, Somerset West 48 St James, Erf 177476, VIA: January 2020 Revision nr 06
Heritage • Groote Schuur Estate, Rondebosch, Cape Town, Visual and Heritage Study for the Department of Public Works (2009). • Worcester Transport Interchange, W Cape, a proposed transport hub in the old centre with Jakupa Architects and Urban Designers, and Cape Winelands Municipality. (2013). • Bakkerskloof, house dated from 1792, Somerset West, W Cape, an assessment of development works adjacent to an historic building with Herman Heunis Family Trust and Heritage Architects. (2013). • Lake de la Vie, Port Elizabeth, Guest Accommodation, With Habitatlink Consulting. (2017) • Tourism Centre, Hout Bay, with Khula Environmental Consultants. (2018) • Domaine du Preez guest accommodation, Paarl (2018) • African Valley, Helshoogte Road, Stellenbosch, Tourist Accommodation and other residential on an exposed site, with Rowney Reid Associates, Gauteng. (2019)
Alternative Energy • Scoping Study for Wind Turbines and Wind Measuring Masts in a number of sites around the N and W Cape with D J Environmental Consultants. (2010). • Wind Measuring Masts in Vredendal, Worcester, and De Aar with D J Environmental Consultants. (2010). • Wind Farms, Photovoltaic installations and Concentrating Solar Power Installations in six centres in Western and Northern Cape, (De Aar, Vredendal, Worcester, Bitterfontein/Namaqualand, Springbok, Copperton/Prieska) with D J Environmental Consultants. (2010). • Photovoltaic Installation in Vredendal, W Cape with D J Environmental Consultants. (2010). • Wind Farm near Koekenaap, W Cape with Aurecon Group. (2011). • Wind Farm at Copperton, N Cape with Aurecon Group. (2011). • Matzikamma Solar Park, Vredendal, W Cape with D J Environmental Consultants. (2011). • Visual Scoping Study, Photovoltaic Installation, Aggeneys, N Cape with D J Environmental Consultants. (2011). • Two Wind Farms, Eastern Plateau, De Aar, N Cape with Aurecon Group. (2012). • Three Photovoltaic Installations, at Paarde Valley, Badenhorst Dam Farm, Annex du Plessis Farm, at De Aar, N Cape with Aurecon Group. (2011). • Photo-voltaic installation, Hoekplaas Farm, Copperton, N Cape with Aurecon Group. (2012). • Photo-voltaic installation, Klipgats Pan Farm, Copperton, N Cape with Aurecon Group. (2012). • Photo-voltaic installation, Struisbult Farm, Copperton, N Cape with Aurecon Group. (2012). • Wind Farm at Gouda, W Cape with Aurecon Group. (2011). • Photo-voltaic installation, Stella, NW Province with Savannah Environmental (Pty) Ltd. (2013). • Photo-voltaic installation, Wolmaransstad, NW Province, with Savannah Environmental (Pty) Ltd. (2013). • Photo-voltaic installation, Boshof, Free State, with Savannah Environmental (Pty) Ltd. (2013). • Photo-voltaic installation, Hibernia, NW Province, Savannah Environmental (Pty) Ltd. (2013). • Photo-voltaic installation, Boundary, Kimberley, Free State, with Savannah Environmental (Pty) Ltd. (2013). • Photo-voltaic installation, Blackwood, Kimberley, Free State, with Savannah Environmental (Pty) Ltd. (2013). • Wind Farm at Springbok, N Cape with Holland Environmental. (2015). • Vredefort, Solar Farm, Touws River, SESCC. (2015). • IshwatiEmoyeni proposed Windfarm and Eskom Distribution Grid, Richmond/Murraysburg, W Cape; Visual Assessment report on proposed Technical and Specification changes, with Applied Science Associates (2019).
Mining • Palmiet Quarry Extension, Grabouw, W Cape with Site Plan Consulting, Strand, W Cape. (2011).
K Hansen Landscape Architect, Somerset West 49 St James, Erf 177476, VIA: January 2020 Revision nr 06
• Abandoned open cast coal mines for British Coal Opencast, at Knockshinnoch Nature Reserve, Ayrshire, Scotland, and other locations, for recreational uses. (1998) • Elandsfontein Minerals and Mining, Hopefield W Cape with Braaf Environmental Practitioners. (2013-14). • Velvet Mountain, Malmesbury, application for mining right to extract granite aggregate, with Femcotech. (2016).
Landscape Planning • Assessment of Durbanville Inner Valley, comprising six wine estates, and their tourism related developments, residential sites and varying agricultural sectors, analysing potential visual impact from proposed development with Alwyn Laubscher and Associates, Cape Town. (2016)
Karen Hansen has no business, financial, personal or other interest other than fair remuneration for work performed in connection with these studies and there are no circumstances that may compromise her objectivity in pursuing and serving the interests of the public.
Contact Details Karen Hansen CMLI Physical Address: 28 Beaulieu Crescent, Heritage Park, Somerset West, 7130. Postal Address: Postnet Suite 15, P Bag 15, Somerset West 7129. Tel: 021 851 6716. Cell 0728 408 900 E: [email protected] w: www.visual-la.co.za
Other Information BEE Certification by Empowerdex, Cape Town: Level 4, Exempt Micro Enterprise. PAIA Manual available Software: Global Mapper Terrain Analysis; Adobe Photoshop, CAD, all Microsoft programs VAT nr: 4100261926
Banking: Capitec Bank, savings a/c; bank code: 470010; bank a/c: 1305323260, a/c name: KHLA.
January 2020
K Hansen Landscape Architect, Somerset West 50 St James, Erf 177476, VIA: January 2020 Revision nr 06