Phase 1B1 Thornhill Housing Development, Port Alfred, Ndlambe Municipality, Eastern Cape Province
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
PHASE 1B1 THORNHILL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT, PORT ALFRED, NDLAMBE MUNICIPALITY, EASTERN CAPE PROVINCE. Phase 1 – Heritage Impact Assessment Issue Date - 29 May 2018 Revision No. - 2.0 Project No. - 299HIA PGS Heritage (Pty) Ltd PO Box 32542 Totiusdal 0134, T +27 12 332 5305 F: +27 86 675 8077 Reg No 2003/008940/07 Declaration of Independence The report has been compiled by PGS Heritage (Pty) Ltd, an appointed Heritage Specialist for Nemai Consulting on behalf of the Thornhill Housing Development Project, in Port Alfred. The views stipulated in this report are purely objective and no other interests are displayed during the decision-making processes discussed in the Heritage Impact Assessment Process . HERITAGE CONSULTANT - PGS Heritage REPORT COMPILED BY - Ilan Smeyatsky CONTACT PERSON - Ilan Smeyatsky Tel - +27 (0) 12 332 5305 Email - [email protected] SIGNATURE - ______________________________ ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT CLIENT - Nemai Consulting CONTACT PERSON - Samantha Gerber Tel - +27 (0) 11 781 1730 Fax - +27 (0) 11 781 1731 Email – [email protected] SIGNATURE - ______________________________ HIA – Thornhill Housing Development Project ii Date - 29 May 2018 Phase 1 Heritage Impact assessment: Phase 1B1 Thornhill Housing Development Document Title - Port Alfred, Ndlambe Municipality, Eastern Cape Province Control Name Signature Designation Author Ilan Archaeologist / PGS Smeyatsky Heritage Reviewed PGS Wouter Archaeologist / PGS Fourie Heritage Reviewed Samantha Nemai Consulting Gerber HIA – Thornhill Housing Development Project iii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PGS Heritage (Pty) Ltd (PGS) was appointed by Nemai Consulting to undertake a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) that forms part of the Environmental Impact Assessment Report (EIA) for the proposed Phase 1B1 of the Thornhill Housing Development Project, Port Alfred, Ndlambe Municipality, Eastern Cape Province. During the heritage study, no heritage related sites were identified. However, due to an update in the development layout, a 1 ha portion of one of the proposed layouts (Alternative Layout 1) now sits outside the purview of the study area that had been surveyed for this report. The study has identified that the proposed development layout for Alternative Layout 1 will result in a MODERATE heritage impact risk. This rating is assigned as a direct result of the fact that a 1 ha portion of the proposed layout has not been surveyed due to project scope amendments. This rating takes into account the LOW heritage impact risk of the surveyed portion of project footprint and the likelihood of heritage finds in the non-surveyed portion. The proposed development layout for Alternative Layout 2 will result in a LOW heritage impact risk as no surface heritage finds were uncovered and the likelihood of subterraneous heritage finds is relatively low. While it is unlikely that anything of heritage value will be uncovered, it is our professional recommendation that if Alternative Layout 1 is preferred then additional fieldwork will be required to fill in that gap as we cannot guarantee the absence of heritage resources in that area. However, we can endorse the development of Alternative Layout 2 without any additional fieldwork as Alternative Layout 2 presents no impacts on heritage resources and therefore is rated as LOW. Therefore, Alternative Layout 2 is preferential as it would not require any additional fieldwork. In terms of the palaeontological impact of the development, it is clear that the study area falls within a ‘MODERATE’ rated sensitivity zone as per the palaeontological sensitivity map accessed via the SAHRIS service and therefore required a palaeontological desktop study before development could continue (Figure 14). The results of which showed that no further palaeontological heritage studies, ground truthing and/or specialist mitigation are required pending the discovery of newly discovered fossils (Butler 2018). It is thus considered that the development of the proposed development is HIA – Thornhill Housing Development Project iv deemed appropriate and feasible and will not lead to detrimental impacts on the palaeontological resources of the area (Butler 2018). HIA – Thornhill Housing Development Project v The HIA report has been compiled taking into account the National Environmental Management Act (Act 107 of 1998) (NEMA) appendix 6 requirements for specialist reports as indicated in the table below. NEMA REGS (2014) - APPENDIX 6 RELEVANT SECTION IN REPORT Details of the specialist who prepared the report Page 2 of Report – Contact details and company The expertise of that person to compile a specialist report including a curriculum vitae Section 1.2 – refer to Appendix B A declaration that the person is independent in a form as may be specified by the competent authority Page 2 of the report An indication of the scope of, and the purpose for which, the report was prepared Section 1.1 The date and season of the site investigation and the relevance of the season to the outcome of the assessment Section 5 A description of the methodology adopted in preparing the report or carrying out the specialised process Section 3 The specific identified sensitivity of the site related to the activity and its associated structures and infrastructure Section 3.2, 4.1- 4.2 An identification of any areas to be avoided, including buffers Not applicable A map superimposing the activity including the associated structures and infrastructure on the environmental sensitivities of the site including areas to be avoided, including buffers; Section 2.1 A description of any assumptions made and any uncertainties or gaps in knowledge; Section 1.3 A description of the findings and potential implications of such findings on the impact of the proposed activity, including identified alternatives, on the environment Section 5 Any mitigation measures for inclusion in the EMPr Section 6 Any conditions for inclusion in the environmental authorisation Section 6 Any monitoring requirements for inclusion in the EMPr or environmental authorisation Section 6 A reasoned opinion as to whether the proposed activity or Section 6 portions thereof should be authorised and If the opinion is that the proposed activity or portions thereof should be authorised, any avoidance, management and mitigation measures that should be included in the EMPr, and where applicable, the closure plan A description of any consultation process that was undertaken Not applicable. A public consultation process was during the course of carrying out the study handled as part of the EIA and EMP process. Not applicable. To date no comments regarding A summary and copies if any comments that were received during heritage resources that require input from a any consultation process specialist have been raised. Any other information requested by the competent authority. Not applicable. HIA – Thornhill Housing Development Project vi CONTENTS Page 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 10 1.1 SCOPE OF THE STUDY .............................................................................................................................. 10 1.2 SPECIALIST QUALIFICATIONS ..................................................................................................................... 10 1.3 ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS ............................................................................................................... 11 1.4 LEGISLATIVE CONTEXT ............................................................................................................................. 11 1.5 TERMINOLOGY AND ABBREVIATIONS .......................................................................................................... 12 2 TECHNICAL DETAILS OF THE PROJECT ............................................................................................... 17 2.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................................. 17 2.2 SITE DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................................... 22 3 ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................................... 23 3.1 METHODOLOGY FOR ASSESSING HERITAGE SITE SIGNIFICANCE ........................................................................ 23 3.1.1 Site Significance ............................................................................................................................... 24 3.2 METHODOLOGY FOR IMPACT ASSESSMENT .................................................................................................. 25 3.2.1 Significance Assessment ................................................................................................................... 26 3.2.2 Spatial Scale ..................................................................................................................................... 27 3.2.3 Duration Scale .................................................................................................................................. 28 3.2.4 Degree of Probability ....................................................................................................................... 28 3.2.5 Degree of Certainty .........................................................................................................................