Innesbrook Village Fairways Avenue Eastcliff Hermanus 7200
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
INNESBROOK VILLAGE FAIRWAYS AVENUE EASTCLIFF HERMANUS 7200 7 July 2020 SRf Consulting Postnet Sulte #i106 Prlvate Bag X18 Rondebosch Ttot Attentlon: Kelly Armstront gy electronlc mail: karmstrong@srk,co.za Dear Madam RE: HERMANUS cBD BYPASS EIA: RELEASE OF AMEI{DED FINAL EIA REPORT FOR PUBUC COMMENT DEA&DP REFERET{CE. L6l3l LlzlE2l t5l2t24h0 The owners of lnnesbrook Village are strongly opposed to the proposed bypass road, as reflected in your "448281_Hermanus CBo Bypass-Amended FEIR Executive Summan/ document sent by e-mail on 18 Jun€ 2020, and would like to bring the followin8 commefltslconcerns to your attention: . We do not understand why consideration is being glven to the building of the R43 (Bypass) through pristlne Fynbos covered land, through residential suburbs, through a bustling market, past two successful schools, 3 churches and through part of our precious wetland. we have been told that a 30o million raod road will provide easy flow tor 7% of the traffic that travels through Hermanus in the direction of Stanford. The current bypass may be contested for around 1yo ofthe year, which makes the consideration of building the proposed bypass road incredulous. We certainly do not support the social and ecological destruction the "bypass", really a thoroughfare, as proposed would cause. lt seems the proposed need for the bypass may not primarily be to ease traffic flow, but to remove the R43 from the town center, which we are totally against for the following reasons: o tt would adversely affect small buslnesses and the economy of our town and the new sport facilities which are at present under construction, as well as the sport facilities at the Attie Bishop field and cricket club (all used by children); o Blg sport days are held at the Hermanus High School and the bypass road will affect parking for cars visiting these sport days, as well as the Saturday market at the Cricket Club, As it stands at the moment parkin8 is already a problem. lt is not wise to build a bypass road where children walk and ride their bicycles to school and visit sport clubs to play:sport. o Scar part ofthe beautiful mountainside; o Destroy already endangered fynbos and wetlands; o Deyalue residential properties; o Bring noise and air pollution into the subutbsi o Close the market; and o Place a few hundred school children's well-being at risk. 2/... ,r VOELXLIP ADI.,IIT{ISTRATIOII CC Pogtnet Suite 124, PlbgXL6, Hermanus, 7200 Cell: 0725890007 Fax: 086 512 6669 Email : femkloofadmln@hermanus,co,za Reg No: 2005 I 118163 / 23 - -2- . Ahhough we do not have an objection to developinS alternate routes, the flow ofthe traffic through the CBD appears to be a secondary issue and alternative solutlons could be co.side.ed. Relief routes could be a substit!te for the Main Road through the CBD but would unfortunately probably not serve the current agenda ofthe Municipality (the creation ofa new'R'road). Although only in its lntancy, the new road concept has already consumed valuable funds whlch belong to every citizen. The Munlcipality should be ashamed that consideration is bein8 Siven to'downgradinS' its maior edUcational facility, being Hermanus High School, which has produced ma.y fine students. Educational facilities are the gold ofthe community and the massive expense con:idered forthe road could be well used to improve educational and social fucilities as well as to care for our precious natural environment. ln conclusion, please iive consideration to the following: 1. Should the ob.iect of the current ex€rcise be to re-route the R43 through the CBD, then the recently developed CBD bypass co!ld be modified to comply with provinclal regulations for a runk road passing through an urban development. This would include closing some entrances/exits and widening traftic circles to include extra junctions, aBd possibly a pedestrian bridge or two. 2. Should there be a real need to lmprove traffic flow through the town during peak times, additional relief routes should be improved (these would include traffic calming devices). The connection between Mountain Road and Lord Roberts Road could be improved with minimal effort. The road below the cemetery could be extended above Bosko Church to connect to Fernkloof Dtive which should be taffed on its eastern extension' There are possibly other relief road options to consider. Yours faithfu lly r/-). rt) /7/t7"'s-- MnDAvrDDrcEY 7 CHAIRPERSOT{: INNESBROOKVILLAGE POA Response to the Amended Final EIAR : Proposed new CBD bypass Road in Hermanus DEA&DP Reference Number: 16/3/1/2/E2/15/2124/14 Heritage Western Cape Reference Number: 11412403AS1203E At the outset the Hermanus Ratepayers Association (HRA), and its more than 400 members, wish to make their opposition to the proposed Bypass road absolutely clear. The HRA has as one of its goals,“To protect and preserve the traditional character and beauty of Hermanus and its surrounds”, and it is in this context that we are registered as an IAP and that we make comment. The proposed Bypass is an extremely contentious issue in Hermanus which has been the subject of discussion since it was first proposed in its current form in 2015. It would be difficult to find anyone in Hermanus who is in favour. It is both mystifying and a source of annoyance that the provincial Department of Transport and Public Works (WCDTPW) continues, in the face of known opposition, to push its agenda forward regarding the Bypass. In December 2017 the HRA submitted its comments on the EIA and focussed on the following points which we believe are still valid: • The cursory and biased mannner in which previous points were dealt with and the factual inaccuracies the responses contained, particularly those referring to transport. • The Multiple contradictory and irregular roles played by members of the OM administration, who are the initiators of the project. • The procedurally incorrect interpretation by the EAP of the comments of the OM administration to mean that the Municipality has commented. A clear distinction must be made between the views of the Administration and those of the Municipality. In addition, following a thorough examination of the current revised document there are, in our opinion, three bases on which the proposed Bypass fails - Societally, Environmentally and Economically. • It will destroy the unique character of Hermanus • It will seriously affect the Environment • It is not the best or lowest cost option There is no compelling case that is being made in favour of a Bypass and the EAP acknowledges this in the concluding section of the Executive Overview, but then goes ahead to recommend it anyway. In formulating this response we will adopt the same subject headings as are reflected in the Executive summary for ease of reference. INTRODUCTION We find it puzzling that the DEAD&DP, having previously rejected the EIA and FEIR, has chosen to offer a further opportunity for refinement. Having been found wanting at the “Authority Acceptance” stage on two previous occasions one would have thought that it would have been rejected outright. GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORK On January 29th 2020 a Water Use Licence 02/G40H/CI/8938 was issued for the Bypass. How is this possible when there is currently no approval for the project? We need some kind of assurance that the Minister of Environmental Affairs was consulted and fully briefed on the motivation as part of the Water Licence application. ENVIRONMENTAL PROCESS The S&EIR process described, as well as the graphic provided, are clear and leave no room for misunderstanding. DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND ENVIRONMENT The prosaic description of the Hermanus lanscape and its many favourable attributes and attractions is a reminder of why people have chosen to make it their home and why they would want to preserve it. It is stultifying to read further that the EAP then describes how this urban Nirvana will be desecrated by driving a road through it. The EAP goes on to give a rather one-sided description of how little disruption there will be as it “abuts urban areas and natural areas ” when in fact it is designed to drive right through it. As the stakeholders who currently enjoy the mentioned - Fernkloof Nature Reserve – Residential Areas of Northcliff, Eastcliff, Innesbrook Village and Fairways Close – Institutions and recreational areas – and Heritage Areas which are detailed, we wish to preserve these at all costs as they are part of the fabric of Hermanus society. PROJECT MOTIVATION The opening three points made in this section are key elements which support the contention by residents that there is no real basis for motivating the Bypass. • The contention that the Bypass supports the “currently investigated” CBD Regeneration Framework (CBDRF) is clutching at a very weak straw. The CBDRF is a muti-year project dependant on the availability of capital. Economic activity in the CDB is substantially lower since the advent of the Whale Coast Mall and will take years to recover. At no stage has the CBDRF been dependant on the construction of a Bypass. The current relief road runs on the periphery of the CBD and its continued status has no negative effect on the CBDRF. Refer to pages 238-240 of the current IDP for clarification. • The contention that a bypass would facilitate mobility between eastern and western parts of Hermanus is fanciful as the current Relief Road and other roads, if properly maintained, can perform quite adequately. Analysis done by Carl Schonborn suggests that a circle on Main Road in the vicinity of Fairways avenue will cause congestion in an easterly direction and hamper East West traffic flow. • The contention that the Bypass will provide improved access to schools, sports fields, farmers markets and other institutions in the area is also called into question as it represents a serious disruption of the very institutions mentioned.