Du Toit, Jessica
From: Sheraine Van Wyk
Thank you Jessica for the report. I am of the camp that believes that the upgrade should not go ahead until the need is more pressing and that the resources rather be spent on the section of the R43 further east where we have a number of accidents annually and the road is dangerous. I am strongly opposed to any reduction or degradation of wetland and nature reserve area and also opposed to the altering of the urban area of Eastcliff one of the premier neighbourhoods in Hermanus. Furthermore I feel that the impact of a bypass road on the borders of the two schools is undesirable.
I have done frog and wetland heath monitoring in the golf course and look forward to read the various environmental assessment reports going forward.
Regards Sheraine van Wyk
On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 2:58 PM, Du Toit, Jessica
Dear Sir / Madam,
The Provincial Government Western Cape: Department of Transport and Public Works (WCDTPW) proposes to construct a bypass road approximately 3 km long, to the north of the Hermanus Central Business District (CBD), abutting Mountain Drive, past the Hermanus Sports Complex and along Fairways Avenue, in Hermanus in the Western Cape.
SRK Consulting (South Africa) Pty Ltd (SRK) has been appointed to undertake the Scoping and Environmental Impact Reporting (S&EIR, also referred to as EIA) process required in terms of the National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998, as amended (NEMA).
You are registered as a stakeholder for the above EIA process.
We would like to inform you of the availability of the Final Scoping Report for public comment.
The Scoping Report released earlier this year was updated to reflect and address comments received from stakeholders to produce the Final Scoping Report, which is being re-released to stakeholders before it is submitted to DEA&DP together with all comments received.
Please find attached the Executive Summary of the Final Scoping Report.
1 Du Toit, Jessica
From: Gail Rosslee
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged
Dear Madam/Sir,
I have reviewed the report sent out by yourselves.
I think that the proposed Southern Alignment would have less negative impact on all concerned. I still believe that the bypass is not necessary but if it is inevitable then choose the Southern Alignment.
Many thanks,
G Rosslee [email protected]
1
Du Toit, Jessica
From: Michael Green
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged
Dear Ms. du Toit,
Proposed Hermanus CBD bypass.
Further to my previous comments made awhile ago about the proposed bypass, please note the following points.
I am in favour of the alignment that runs to the North-west i.e. the alignment that is on the mountain side of the Cemetery and the mountain side of the Sports Fields.
The reasons for this are:
• If the South-eastern alignment is chosen, it shall send a clear indication to Hermanus that the Provincial Government shall, in time albeit a long time from now, extend the bypass in future through the Hermanus Gold Course by probably expropriating the fairways on the North-western side of the Golf Course. • The Cemetery is a “Place of Interest”. The South-eastern alignment shall place the Cemetery more on the fringe and essentially cut it off from the rest of Hermanus. • It makes no sense to have a Provincial Road run close to the Senior School due to: o Noise that shall be detrimental to scholars learning. o Exhaust fumes that are detrimental to scholars and staff health. • Construction costs of a pedestrian underpass or underpasses or a pedestrian overpass or overpasses. Note that people often ignore pedestrian overpasses.
Although those in opposition to the bypass maintain that "only 7%” of Hermanus road traffic passes through Hermanus:
• There is no doubt that the volume of traffic is increasing fast in one of the fastest growing urban municipal areas in RSA i.e. Overstrand including Greater Hermanus. • A far greater percentage of traffic than “only 7%” travels along Royal Street and Main Road to reach the suburbs of Voelklip (a large suburb), Hermanus Heights, Fern Kloof and the eastern side of Eastcliff. The fixation with the term “only 7%” is, in my opinion, a red herring and should be treated as such. • The new Whale Coast Mall that is due to begin construction during 2016 shall stimulate and increase in the current growth rate of people and traffic in Hermanus. • The new Whale Coast Mall shall attract traffic from the eastern side of Hermanus and the surrounding districts as far away as Bredasdorp, which shall add incrementally to local traffic. • Based on new CEM passenger car registration changes of approximately 150 vehicles per month (mainly from Gauteng and Natal), Greater Hermanus alone is currently receiving a conservative
1 estimate of 70 new families per month. This is likely to increase during 2016 due to people moving to this part of South Africa. This migration is because Overstrand Municipality is recognised as being the best managed municipality in South Africa of 178 municipalities assessed by Municipal IQ.
Many thanks,
Michael Green 082 212 5116 Anytime 24/7
2 VOGELGAT NATURE RESERVE (PTY) LTD South African Natural Heritage Site No 5
Tel 028 3141411 Fax 0866932708 · P O Box 2115 · Hermanus 7200 South Africa · Email [email protected]
13th January 2016
DEA & DP 16/3/1/2/E2/15/2124/14 Proposed New CBD Bypass Road
Comments on Final Scoping Report
To whom it may concern
Thank you for your final scoping report. I would like to place my comments on record with regards this proposal.
As mentioned in your report; Fernkloof Nature Reserve is a small yet important biologically speaking in this region. Due to this clear fact no attempt should be made to alter this near-pristine natural system.
The South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI) highlights the significance of the area north of Mountain Drive as deemed as a Critical Biodiversity Area (CBA). The whole of Fernkloof is regarded as a critically endangered mountain fynbos and is considered of high importance for biodiversity conservation (your report page 4). Due to these 2 important points above this bypass should not be developed along or through this stretch of Hermanus.
Page 4 in your report states that the wetland in the Hermanus Golf Club is of ecological support area and in this case no bypass should be built over or through this area.
In your section 7 Alternatives there is no mention of the suggestion of improving signage on the N2 to direct traffic through Caledon to Bredasdorp on route 316. This route is a quicker alternative than travelling through the Hermanus CBD and would thus alleviate any potential traffic into Hermanus.
There is no mention of the ongoing discussions between Overstrand Municipality and major role players (IDP) of the notion to develop a local transport system.
Board of Trustees J M Williams D S Morrison M M Fouchè A D van Hoogstraten There is no indication of the impact that the new mall in Sandbaai may have on the traffic flow into the Hermanus CBD. The movement of key commercial businesses to this mall will definitely reduce the volumes of traffic entering Hermanus itself. The residents of Mt Pleasant, Sandbaai, Onrus, Vermont, Hawston and Fisherhaven will certainly travel to this point and no further to carry out their daily errands.
I find your comments misleading, that the existing road network in Hermanus is “close to capacity”. Your own research has detailed that there is only a total of 25%; 21% through Hermanus. This does not constitute close to capacity.
In your point 5.3 – Increase in demand for traffic calming? I find that the proposed road will in fact do the opposite. At present there are calming zones on Mountain Road. The proposed 80km speed limit next to places of worship and schools will increase the risk of pedestrian impact, noise and air pollution. Where is the calming that this new road proposes to enhance?
In your report a statement “create liveable environment in the CBD”. Surely this is out weighted by the adverse impacts on the liveable environment on residential, places of worship and learning institutions in the immediate areas of the proposed bypass. This proposal will transfer the suggested CBD problems into the quieter residential areas. Another of the statements mentions “the bypass road will primarily benefit residents”. Where is this impression gained from? As from the public participation processes and the over 500 respondents that you have had to this proposal I would hardly imagine that the road benefits the residents. I would argue that the majority of residents are against this bypass road as it has negative influences on their daily living environment.
The traffic circle at the junction of Hermanus Private School would have a likely negative effect on the risk of scholar pedestrians. Again the calming that the road proposes to have is in fact having the opposite effect i.e. safety issues with young pre-school pedestrians etc.
In your map there is no mention (numbered) of the likely impact on places of worship in this area.
There is a mention that the costs of creating a road through the existing CBD is costly. I propose that scientific studies be carried out to quantify the long term costs in loss to Hermanus and its inhabitants in environmental system services. E.g.water and air quality, health and spiritual benefits. The report cannot be biased on the so called tangible costs of expropriating land etc costs. Environmental system services has become an important facet to quantify when considering any new development. In November 2015 at Stellenbosch an International conference was held to discuss these issues. It has been estimated by Costanza that the value of global ecosystem services is US $145 trillion per year. Twice the output of the global economy.
Consider the following;
Die Bos dam capacity 6.3 million cubic litres. Cost of water to residents … plus 1.6 million cubic litres from ground water abstraction. The 2016 municipal water tariffs are; usage from 0-6Kl = R4.13/Kl and the top end above 60Kl R44.95/Kl. Therefore the value of water contained in De Bos dam can be calculated to between R26 million to R283 million, plus R6.6 Million to R72 million for ground water abstracted. Fernkloof nature reserve therefore plays a vital role in supplying water to the town of Hermanus. Therefore Fernkloof Nature Reserve has a tangible value.
Research has pointed out the health benefits to humans in spending time in natural areas improves their mental health.
I agree with the public comments: Motivation for bypass inadequate Traffic will increase noise and air pollution Negatively affect the sense of place. Closure of the Market an important regional attraction Impact on property values Damage wetland
Section 9 I agree with your comments:
Find the areas in Fernkloof Nature Reserve to be botanically sensitive Reduction in size of Fernkloof significantly. Route is one of the last stands of lowland fynbos in Fernkloof
In conclusion
Due to the comments above:
No to this proposed bypass road. No development on, in, at or through Fernkloof Nature Reserve. Develop signage to direct traffic to Bredasdorp via Caledon on the R316. Quantify traffic reduction into CBD with the new Mall. New traffic regulations close to schools will prohibit any road of 80km/hr. Quantify Environmental system services.
Thank you for the opportunity to voice my opinions.
Giorgio Lombardi MSc (Rhodes) Warden Vogelgat Nature Reserve
Submission by CH Schonborn Pr Eng on the : EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – FINAL SCOPING REPORT PROPOSED NEW CBD BYPASS ROAD IN HERMANUS DEA&DP Reference Number: 16/3/1/2/E2/15/2124/14 Heritage Western Cape Reference Number: 14112403AS1203E
15th January 2016 Extracts of the above report are listed below and my comments added to each extract in Italics. Writer is an interested and affected party as owner of Erf 1062 , 11 Fairways Ave Hermanus. This submission is in support of a NO GO alternative as my initial submission for a Phase 1 bypass would seem to have been “screened out” by persons unknown.
The R43 (Trunk Road 28) is a provincial road connecting Wolseley and Ceres in the Witzenberg Municipality to Bredasdorp in the Cape Agulhas Municipality. Surely this is a very outdated concept as anyone travelling from the Witzenberg area to Bredasdorp would use the Bot River-Caledon-Bredasdorp road, being the N2 from Bot River to Caledon and the R316 from Caledon to Bredasdorp.
According to the Road Classification and Access Management system, the R43 should be a Class 2 Major (Urban) Arterial in Hermanus in terms of its route continuity and regional mobility functions; Agreed if this is referring to the Bot River – Caledon route, but not the route through Hermanus which needs accessibility , otherwise the cost of the bypass would hardly justify catering for the 7% of the traffic passing through Hermanus. It is not conceivable that the R43 (Hermanus) should become a “mobility” road for a mere 7% of the traffic. direct access to properties, traffic calming and parking is generally not permitted on such routes. Why would the R43 through Hermanus not need direct access to properties, otherwise it is a sterile high speed road linking West to East.
This is at odds with the accessibility requirements in the Hermanus CBD, and the R43, together with the CBD Relief Road, performs a dual function as urban collector and regional mobility route. Agreed, so why make it a Class 2 Major Arterial Road when it needs to serve the predominantly West to the Central Business District, CBD, of Hermanus traffic.
Three associated trends are anticipated to trigger the need for the Hermanus CBD Bypass: The word “anticipated” is correct. There is no concrete evidence right now.
1. Increase in traffic bypassing or driving through the CBD, typically generated by local residents travelling between the eastern and western areas of Greater Hermanus and exceeding the capacity of the CBD road network and/or of lower-class residential roads used as de facto bypasses. This statement is misleading, as there is no real traffic study showing this to be the case. The definition of a Bypass according to the COTO, Committee of Transport Officials – South African Road Classification and Access Management Manual is a - high standard mobility road with limited access designed to carry traffic which does not have a destination in the urban area which is bypassed. These roads are treated as rural roads for the purposes of functional classification and access management. The major portion of the Hermanus traffic is from West to East and needs to deposit traffic in the CBD, the schools, the Morning Market and then return this traffic to the West. The Phase 1 suggestion made last year in a submission will do exactly that and a “Bypass” as defined above will not solve this problem. The “local” traffic from East to West will not be able to make use of the bypass if it is purely for mobility.
A number plate survey and modelling studies show that ~25% of traffic entering town could reasonably be expected to use a CBD bypass (consisting of ~21% of traffic through, but not to, the CBD and ~7% of traffic through Hermanus). This is exactly the point being made by the businesses of Hermanus, if you go to town you will probably shop there. Where is the 21% going to?
Traffic counts also indicate that a number of vehicles already avoid the CBD area by using Mountain Drive, Fairways Avenue and other smaller detour roads that serve the residential areas and schools to the north of the CBD area; This “number” is seasonal, 16th December to the 12th January and cannot justify the cost of a bypass.
2. Increase in traffic destined for the CBD, which reduces the capacity of the CBD road network to accommodate through-traffic. Why drive away consumers from the CBD by making them “through- traffic” . The new shopping mall in Sandbaai will reduce this flow. Again the through traffic is seasonal.
Long-term spatial plans call for residential densification in central Hermanus and a larger number of residents and visitors will sustain more businesses in the area, (Not if there is a bypass) including the Hermanus CBD; and
3. Increase in demand for traffic calming and safer pedestrian precincts in the town centre, with emphasis on access, parking and non-motorised transport. However, such measures do not comply with the requirements of a Class 2 Major (Urban) Arterial and can thus not easily be implemented in the CBD while the R43 retains the status of a provincial road. The Sandbaai mall will allow more work to be done on the CBD roads.
Specifically, the implementation of the Hermanus CBD Bypass aims to: ility route for through traffic between the eastern and western parts of Hermanus that complies with the necessary standards for a Class 2 Urban Arterial; Too expensive a concept to cater for a very short holiday season. (Probably 16th December to 12th Jan)
Current traffic flow, accessibility and safety is first class. How can a Class 2 Urban Arterial improve on this.
- motorised access; a Class 2 Urban Arterial CBD Bypass would not enable business development.
(and) Create a more liveable and economically viable CBD environment. The business affected parties want feet on the ground, not bypassing Hermanus.
It is expected that the bypass will primarily benefit residents and the commercial sector in the greater Hermanus urban area, as the majority of traffic on the bypass is expected to derive from vehicles commuting between the eastern and western parts of Hermanus. Again, Too expensive a concept to cater for a very short holiday season. (Probably 16th December to 12th Jan)
The road will function as a regional route and consist of a single carriageway with one 3.7 m wide vehicle lane in each direction and a 1.8 m wide shoulder in each direction within a road reserve of approximately 25 m, with two-way traffic. The proposed speed limit is 80 km/h, although this may be reduced to 60 km/h in the proximity of intersections. A combined 3 m wide pedestrian walkway and cycle path is proposed on the southern side of the road. It is proposed that all retaining structures are constructed with natural sandstone rock. This description is for a very, very busy road. Not a rural through road. The francolin and guinea fowl population of the wetlands will be compromised.
Variations of the bypass alignment, including: and screened out. By who’s authority were these variations “screened out”?
- Aligning the bypass further away from Mountain Drive (which requires more FNR land); Yes it would need more FNR, but it would leave Mountain Drive as an access road, with calming, and make a very effective fire break to the North of Mountain Drive.
- Sinking the bypass along Jose Burman Drive (which presents water management and connectivity challenges and is more costly); Must be too costly.
- Aligning the bypass along Lord Roberts Drive (which presents direct access conflicts and only addresses a portion of the R43 through the CBD); This is the IMPORTANT section of the R43, the part that would handle about 80% of the traffic from West to East of Hermanus. A large traffic circle at Jose Burman Drive would cater for the schools and the Saturday morning market who would egress from the circle and ingress after dropping of children. This was my Phase 1 proposal. Cannot understand why it was “screened out”.
- Aligning the bypass along Fernkloof Drive (which presents direct access conflicts without addressing noise concerns in the area). Fernkloof Drive should remain the access road. As suggested in the submission summary it should be tarred to the West to encourage some local users to egress that way to the Beaches and reduce the load on the R43 Main Road past the golf course.
The No Go alternative will be considered in the EIA in accordance with the requirements of the EIA Regulations, 2010. The No Go alternative entails no change to the status quo, in other words the bypass will not be constructed and traffic between the eastern and western portions of Hermanus will continue to use the R43 through the CBD, the CBD Relief Road or roads in residential areas north of the CBD. The No Go alternative may have a constraining effect on land use and improvements to accessibility and non-motorised transport in the CBD in the region to protect the mobility the existing route. Please see attached a spreadsheet summary I have made of all the submissions made to SRK from interested and affected parties in June/July 2015 . In essence: 74% of respondents said NO to the Bypass. 6% said YES 7% Commented as in local Government submissions 13% made alternative suggestions. It would seem that there is a resounding No Go to the bypass from the Interested and affected parties.
The bypass will remove traffic from the CBD and cause a decline in CBD retail activity, in conjunction with the development of a new regional mall; The fact that the new regional mall is now becoming a reality should reduce the traffic density figures from West to East of Hermanus in the future.
(and) The bypass is too expensive. Of interest is that the cost factor of the road is raised in the summary at a time when the cost of education is becoming prohibitive and the demands on the fiscus would suggest spending money on education and less on infrastructure.
The eastern portion of the route encroaches on a wetland feature adjacent to the Hermanus Golf Course that is ecologically sensitive and classified as an ESA. It is also possible that a number of threatened animal species may occur in the project area. Please see attached pictures of bird life on Fairways Ave. which certainly would not survive the kind of speed limit envisaged.
The following key environmental issues – potential negative impacts and potential benefits – have been identified: These environmental issues are well documented by all the respondents in their submissions as summarised in the attached spreadsheet.
Terrestrial and wetland ecology – potential negative impact on threatened species and habitats and the flow regime of ephemeral drainage lines along Mountain Drive and wetlands along Fairways Avenue;
Visual (or sense of place) – potential compromising of the visual quality and the sense of place of the area;
Heritage – possible impacts on heritage (notably archaeological and paleontological) resources;
Noise and air quality – possible increase in noise and air emissions in residential areas and near schools;
Socio-economic – potential negative impact on existing land uses, including the Hermanus Private School, through expropriation and concern about nuisance impacts, safety, property values, impacts on the recreational opportunities associated with the FNR and continued viability of the Hermanus Country Market, coupled with economic opportunities in the CBD through de-proclamation of the R43 in the CBD; and Road safety – possible interference with current movement of scholars and residents who access areas north of the bypass, including the FNR, farmers’ market and educational and sports facilities, coupled with possible improvement in CBD road safety with reduction of through-traffic, implementation of traffic calming measures and improvement of pedestrian facilities.
To address the potential issues and impacts identified thus far, the following specialist studies are proposed: These specialist studies are all requested by the respondents in the spreadsheet summary attached.
Terrestrial Ecology Impact Assessment;
Socio-economic Impact Assessment;
sment. Specialists will be required to provide detailed baseline information and to identify and assess the potential impacts of the proposed project within their particular field of study. In addition, specialists will be required to identify practicable mitigation and optimisation measures to avoid or minimise potential negative impacts and/or enhance any benefits. SRK’s standard impact rating methodology will be employed in the assessment of impacts. Once specialist studies have been completed, the results will be collated into an EIA Report and EMP. The EIA Report and EMP will be released for public comment through notifications to registered Interested and Affected Parties (IAPs). Key authorities will also be consulted as part of the process. All comments received will be incorporated into a Comments Report which will be appended to the EIA Report. The EIA Report and EMP will be submitted to DEA&DP for their consideration in decision- making.
SUMMARY OF THE HERMANUS BYPASS submissions - COMMENT ON THE DRAFT SCOPING REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED HERMANUS CBD BYPASS - dated June 2015 (by CH Schonborn) Yes Y /No N Name Alternative Reason /Alternative A [email protected] A Overpass Migration of wildlife [email protected] N I believe that the impact of this thoroughfare will be substantial [email protected] N NO VALID REASON as to why this project should be undertaken [email protected] N pristine nature reserve is of far greater value to humanity [email protected] N It will completely alter the peaceful nature and atmosphere of this area [email protected] A Phase 1 Most traffic from West needs to enter Hermanus Village Giorgio Lombardi N Presently only 7% of traffic going through Hermanus goes out towards Stanford and beyond [email protected] A Phase 1 Most traffic from West needs to enter Hermanus Village [email protected] N all the options have not been well thought through [email protected] N money can be better spent on housing for our poorer communities, [email protected] N prohibit the development of the proposed golf lodges in Precinct 4. Hermanus Golf Club Wetland Committee N proposed bypass road cuts through the lower portion of the wetlands on Fairways Avenue [email protected] N I do not see a need as the new routes and traffic circles in Hermanus already work well and traffic flows well [email protected] N We are not in favour of the bypass as it will end our job creation project for adults with intellectual disabilities. [email protected] N Noise and inconvenience, pollution during construction. Negative effect on the schools, village market. [email protected] N hermanus Country Market one of the leading markets in SA. To many people this is their sole income and it will be disastrous to destroy the market. [email protected] N will result in the destruction of property value and have a negative impact on the whole of Hermanus [email protected] N It is a huge waste of money with many negative impacts and absolutely no positives [email protected] N I was appalled to hear of the future plans regarding the bypass road,The major success of our business so far is in fact due to the Hermanus Country Market [email protected] A Only 2 Access Points CBD Bypass has only marginal impact, as there are only two access points after Mountain drive. [email protected] A Borehole conflict potential conflict in the proposed layout of the CBD Bypass Road and the position of the Gateway Borholes GWE06, GWP01 and the delivery pipeline [email protected] A Phase 1 Province would not nominate the current bypass road as a Provincial Road because of the curves and access roads in and off it. [email protected] A Future Extension Northerly Alignment it also more flexible in consideration of an extension of the bypass, should this prove necessary in the future denise delport N We don't need a bypass, everything is working as is! [email protected] N The proposed bypass is a waste of money and unnecessary. The funds should be invested in the township and existing infrastructure. Dr P van Niekerk - Onrus Y Alt A necessary for long term traffic flows. T Sterginaos Main Road Y Increase in traffic flows along Main Rod has made bypass a necessity. [email protected] N To sum up: I think there are just too many negatives to this expensive proposal which is surely unnecessary if one considers it is really designed to meet a through traffic "nuisance" of just 7% of the traffic coming in to Hermanus. David Worral Y Will take 8-10 years to build and funds are available. K Verburg N Will mess up our cricket club, fynbos, village market, schools - PD Le Roux Y But no access from existing Mountain Drive, Noise a concern, In favour of proposed bypass road. Carin Verburg N Rather upgrade existing relief Road. Jan du Toit N No need proven, Unwanted, Unnecessary, Destroying Property Values A Smith N Decrease in property value, Why is Fernkloof off the table, Ratepayer and do not want to foot the Bill, Do not need or want a bypass for 7% of traffic. Pat Bagnall N Trucks need refreshments in Town, Will severely affect tourism, Loss of Country Market, Not Cost effective, Negatively affect Village and ambience of Hermanus. JJ Faure A Phase 1 Least disruptive to owners, existing road, neither appropriate for only 7% of traffic. [email protected] N New Mall will alleviate traffic, PnP & Checkers traffic will not benefit from bypass, CBD traffic adjacent to R43, Upgrade Hawston to Swartdam, P&G Gordon N Neither route acceptable, Funds should be for upgrade of Hermanus to Stanford, Preference is Southern alignment if project proceeds. [email protected] N why this bypass is required. Creating it to hand Hermanus Municipality Main Road is simply not a reason when two alternate bypasses exist. Death of the Village: [email protected] A Behind Cricket Club Route behind cricket club will have least impact and still give access to Hermanus Heights. [email protected] A Southern Route Building of new School Hall will affect the Northern Route Judge JH Conradie N Wait and see, all the mall developments in the West will affect the traffic patterns to Hermanus. Decision by MEC must take all factors in to account otherwise will not survive Judicial Scrutiny. [email protected] A No Go Option Why spoil the uniqueness and beauty of this incredible place. Hermanus has no equal, have lived in 7 countries and visited 50. J Metz N Expensive properties will be negatively affected. Project will do little to improve traffic flow and cost too high. Huge Public resistance. Better option the Hermanus Stanford Road. [email protected] N Noise will affect value of property. Will be dangerous road. No benefit to Hermanus which is haven of peace and quiet. Overstrand Conservation Foundation N Proposal is policy driven, not needs driven, Environmentally Insensitive, Socially irresponsible use of scarce funds, Transparency and objectivity. [email protected] N The very idea of this by-pass is a shocking disgrace – sensitive, and irreplaceable: wetland, nature reserve, school sports ground, residential peaceful living environment, all to be lost forever. [email protected] N Geen pad of boubedrywighede in 'n natuurreservaat! maklike roete vir inbrekers om maklik en vinnig weg te kom. Hele groep wat beswaar aanteken. C.P. Burgers N Ten sterkste beswaar teen die beoogde CBD Verbypad. Al die probleme soos uiteengesit in die verslag. Geen belang in huise op Mountain View Drive. [email protected] N A resident of Eastcliff.I live three houses away from the proposed road. I am a widow who supports four people and the market value of my house is of extreme importance to me. [email protected] N Proposed bypass aims already serviced by existing CBD Relief Road. 800 metre R43 improvement at cost of R300m is non-sensical. Schools will be affected. Destruction of Wetland opposite SPAR barbaric. [email protected] N To sum up, my husband and I are very much against the proposed by-pass altogether, and would like to register a "NO" vote. [email protected]> N I wish to exercise the strongest possible criticism of proposals put forward for a by-pass road. Having been involved with Hermanus since 1970,I trust that my views may carry some weight. [email protected] N One does not want the visitors to by-pass Hermanus but rather to attract them to enter and to stay in Hermanus. Not responsible to use resources on the proposed Bypass road rather on the Hermanus Stanford Rd. Bob Stanway - Hermanus Ratepayers Assoc. N Planning Context-should be based on need. Out of alignment with all current relevant statutory transport, land use or municipal plans. Province to explain why this is now a priority project. The official support of the proposed Hermanus CBD Bypass by the Overstrand Municipality as reported in the Scoping Study is questionable. The HRA requests that the project be submitted to the Overstrand Municipal Council before it goes any further to find out whether or not there is Municipal support for this project or not. The HRA requests that a scenario approach be applied to the future trasffic forecasts – including that of substantially improved public transport. Alternative Alignments - A simple qualitative list motivating the exclusion of an alternative by the proponents of a different alternative is simply not good enough. The HRA therefore requests that Alternative 3 (Upgrade CBD Relief Road + adjacent sections from Gateway to Eastcliff Spar) be added for further thorough analysis. Lynn Hartzenberg N The bypass will only cover a small area of Hermanus. Insufficient to make a real difference to traffic levels and to warrant the huge expenditure planned. With so many areas within the Hermanus Municipalility needing improvement, we cannot understand how you can consider spending the vast sum of money mooted to serve such a small percentage of the population. The only people who will benefit slightly will be the people who are in any event passing through and are not stakeholders in the municipality. Jenny Janczik N Proposed Bypass via Fernkloof Nature Reserve: This IS a Nature Reserve. Proposed Bypass via the cemetery and the schools: a danger to the pupils of the school. Hermanus is not a city. This proposed bypass would also have a negative impact on the many people who trade at the Market. We have a super Traffic Department who control traffic. It may serve us well to look at the immediate needs and near-future requirements of the local residents first.
1of 6 John Cowan I have strong objections to the proposed bypass. that the traffic volumes are sufficiently heavy to warrant the enormous expense. improved public transport (buses etc) . Speeding vehicles should be kept away from schools. Unacceptable for portions of a nature reserve and also endangered wetland areas to be built upon. upgrading of the existing Relief road to Provincial Road status is a far better option. [email protected] Dr N The Hermanus Botanical Society (HBS) has been caring for the Fernkloof Nature Reserve (FNR) for almost 60 years. The society has serious objections to both proposed routes for a new provincial road to the north Dianne Marais of Hermanus through a portion of the Fernkloof Nature Reserve. Bypass will impact severely on: critically endangered vegetation, important buffer zone for these endangered vegetation types, richest portion of the Chairperson Hermanus Botanical Society Fernkloof Nature Reserve, botanically. Being assessed as a World Heritage site. Biodiversity corridor. Visual splendour of the mountainside. Easy access to the FNR paths above Northcliff. Hermanus is attractive to tourists because of its tranquil beauty. Established that the south-western corner of Mountain Drive (area of proposed bypass) contains some of the last remaining remnants of coastal fynbos. This area is too vulnerable and too special botanically to be touched by any further road development. Attached is a comprehensive list of 343 fynbos plants which could potentially be destroyed by the proposed bypass. David Dicey: Chairperson : Innesbrook Village N The owners of lnnesbrook Village are strongly opposed to the proposed bypass road. • Who is considering and why consideration is being given to the building of the R43 (Bypass) through pristine Fynbos covered POA Willem 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 300 million rand road will provide easy flow Skeen: Chairperson Fairbanks Village POA for 7% of the traffic that travels through Hermanus in the direction of Stanford. The current bypass may be congested for around 1% of the year, which makes the consideration of buildingthe proposed bypass road incredulous. trevena jr@mweb. co.za N It is strange that two bypasses already in place are being ignored. The one is the Council's bypass past Standard Bank and the other is the southern route proposal which is effectively already a bypass [email protected] N We look forward to hearing the progress regarding this decision. I actually went and had a good look at the Northern proposal route; it will be very destructive not only to the vegetation but will be very high up the front of the mountain which will be a massive physical eye sore to our town and will seriously effect the flying of about 50% of the mountain. I have all faith that this proposal has been nothing but a good designing excersise for some engineers but also a fabulous waste of time and money. Bevan Pope N With regards to paragliding in Hermanus. The suggested Northern alignment, both our landing zones will be subject to the danger and hazard of large and high speed moving vehicles while with the Southern alignment our largest and therefore most regular landing zone will not only be reduced in size, but will be in threat of total loss to us. Although not a common occurrence, it does happen that new students can get things very wrong by landing short and in bushes and trees, which we consider a lot safer than in front of a moving vehicle. We have a large number of visiting pilots from Europe who tour South Africa. I now strongly oppose the bypass proposal for the following reasons: - a. Destruction of the landscape, natural vegetation and large number of well established trees that stand in the proposed path. - b. Destruction of wet land and wild life habitat. - c. Close proximity to numerous schools and churches. - d. Close proximity to long standing homes of retired people with little option to relocate. - e. Close proximity to recently built expensive homes which mean drop in property values. - f. Loss of revenue to shops, restaurants and accommodation establishments. Suggest "they" start with the road between Hermanus and Stanford which has a high accident rate due to the increase in traffic on this narrow, poorly marked and undulating road surface. [email protected] N Fynbos: The proposed route of the bypass road is through the southern portion of the Fernkloof Nature Reserve densely vegetated with Critically Endangered mountain fynbos. Heritage: Various heritage features of the site merit consideration. Schools, children and other pedestrians: The area the bypass would run through and exit has many educational and other child-centred facilities, such as schools, school sports fields, crèches, play parks and a Sea Scout hall. The building of the bypass at great cost and with many negative side effects on the basis of these suggested trends is frivolous and fruitless expenditure of public funds. The existing Mountain Road and other routes off the Main Street are adequate for traffic wishing to avoid the centre of Hermanus. Thoughtless densification will destroy the very elements that are the charm of Hermanus . The traffic circles are working very well, and have also had the benefit of aesthetic consideration with good landscaping. Further use of such measures will improve safety and good flow, within the limitations of the Provincial Road status and without a new bypass road.The suggested speed limit of 80 km/h is far too high. It poses great danger to pedestrians, and the resulting traffic noise would be very problematic. The road between Hermanus and Stanford is inadequate, degraded and the site of many and fatal road accidents. These are far greater problems than those motivating the building of the Hermanus bypass. Jones, Sharon N I oppose the Bypass options also as a member and Vice Chair of the Hermanus Botanical Society. Our Chairperson, Dr Di Marais, has made a strong comment against the bypass proposals. We support her unanimously. Our retirement suburb of Eastcliff will be impacted upon and our peaceful and tranquil life style will be, compromised for ever! Michael Green B.Sc B.Com (Hons.) MBA (UCT) Y By far my first choice is for the Bypass to be the full 1970’s proposal of a proper bypass along the top (west) of the residential areas of Northcliff, Eastcliff, the Sports Complex, Hermanus Heights, Fern Kloof suburb across the Mussel River and above Voelklip to rejoin Main Road to the east but south of Vogelgat Nature Reserve. This bolder proposal shall obviously be faced with other complications such as a greater extent of fynbos disturbance, the requisite for wildlife corridors under the road and not least of all, require far greater investment than the current proposal. The writer’s opinion is that these challenges may be more easily overcome due to the large scale of the bold project than the niggles of the much smaller scale of the current proposal. Rationale for scrapping the current bypass proposal in favor of a far bolder bypass. 1. Press reports suggest that the Bypass shall cost between R91m and R350m. Overstrand Municipal Area includes approximately 27,000 people living in poverty. The amount budgeted for the Bypass shall be far better invested in housing for the poor and indigent than on a mini- Bypass, which is essentially a costly luxury. The rationale to construct the current version of the Bypass is academic and flawed. 13. The report specifically states that the Bypass in question does not preclude other Bypasses in future. The western alternative of the two Bypass routes is preferred. The Bypass proposal is accepted. [email protected] Y On reading my submission again, I have not been completely clear. To make the point totally clear, the Conclusion is that I accept the proposal BUT prefer the alternative which is West of the Cemetery [email protected] N I’m hereby also sending my disapproval and vote AGAINST the proposed bypass in Hermanus. The proposed bypass will literally change forever (and entirely eradicate) the beautiful, unspoiled, peaceful nature of South Africa’s best town. Is that what you want?!?!?!?!? [email protected] N We would like to raise our objection to the "Northern Alignment" which we feel will detract heavily from the desirability and value of our plot with the close proximity of the bypass road. The plot has an excellent position with direct golf course access and views in front and the Fernkloof nature reserve behind. The close proximity of the proposed road will increase the traffic noise and impact air quality and impinge more on the ecologically sensitive Fernkloof Reserve. For the 7% of through traffic that it would serve it seems excessive to impinge on so many areas especially with the Northern route option. [email protected] N I strongly object to the proposal for the following reasons amongst others: 1 The road will be adjacent to a well developed sensitive established residential area 2 There are several churches adjacent to the road area and could be effected by the concentration of traffic and noise pollution and also the proximity of a cemetry nearby 3 The existing schools in the area will be subjected to a reduction in traffic safety for the pupils 4 The wetlands in the area will be adversely effected and the preservation of valuable green areas 5 The Fernwood Reserve should be preserved for its botanical value and its importance to Hermanus 6 The traffic volume which goes through Hermanus is relatively small {7 per cent} and does not justify the construction and cost of a major bypass 7 The expenditure for the road compared to other financial benefits to the Hermanus area seem far from being justified for example the construction of additional housing and the maintenance of public services. [email protected] N I am therefore not in favour of this proposal, not only from my home situation view point but also for the other reasons mentioned below. In point of fact I am not in favour of a CBD bypass at all . then I would suggest spending the minimum amount now. We then live with it until such time it becomes necessary to build a proper town by-pass as opposed to an expensive CBD only bypass. For me this would mean reverting to the original plan routing behind the town along the mountain with entry only at the East and West ends and perhaps one further centralised access. This would not only be a scenic drive with wonderful sea views for visitors and bypassing traffic but act as a fire break and a clear access path for fire fighting vehicles when necessary. [email protected] N The use of provincial funds to build a road that will “solve” what is essentially a municipal traffic problem is inappropriate. Scholar transport is best served by dedicated or partially dedicated transportation systems rather than building extra road capacity. Both the proposed alignments represent a truncated version of the original proposal of a bypass along the northern edge of the town from Northcliff to Voëlklip, which was rejected. Neither of the proposed alignments is acceptable. These proposed alignments will both cause severe damage to (inter alia) the following: 1. The natural environment. 2. The built environment: 3. The social environment: 4. Sense of place: If the Checkers relief road is used as the provincial bypass road, none of the adverse impacts summarised above will apply. I therefore strongly recommend that the two alignments proposed are rejected as unsuitable and that a full, comprehensive study is undertaken into the potential of the Checkers relief road for this purpose. [email protected] Comment Thank you on behalf of all of us on the FAB (Fernkloof Advisory Board) and, indeed, all who value the unique environment that surrounds us and that makes Hermanus such a special place to visit and in which to live, for the time and effort you have put into drafting the FAB comments. We support them entirely. 2of 6 Duncan H.W. Heard (Cert. Sci. Nat.) (Member N The proposed bypass is of significant concern to FAB members for the following reasons: CapeNature is investigating the possibility of including FNR in the next expansion phase of the Cape Floral Region World IAIAsa) Heritage Site – a step that would underpin the global environmental value of the reserve as well as the region and will also hold significant benefit for the eco-cultural tourism industry of Hermanus and the Overstrand. • The bypass road alternatives may be a relatively easy solutions to predicted traffic congestion but in terms of sound protected area planning principles and community environmental values, it is an incompatible land use and a worst case scenario. The bypass will seriously and permanently impact or destroy these desirable features which are greatly valued by the local community and tourists to Hermanus. No amount of mitigation willbe able to significantly restore this and it will be forever lost to present and future generations. Pope Francis’s Encyclical on the Environment is directed to everyone describes a relentless exploitation and destruction of the environment,which he blames on apathy, the reckless pursuit of profits, excessive faith in technology, and political short-sightedness. It is of concern that the Western Cape Department of Transport and Public Works (WCDTPW) would appear to be only interested in a focussed ‘road solution as soon as possible’ to the projected traffic congestion build up in Hermanus over the long term and at great cost. The technical requirements and standards of a provincial road would appear to be the main driver – at any cost? The bypass proposal is clearly not the result of an integrated problem solving approach and in all likelihood premature. The predicted trend of congestion cannot forecast the effect of various future developments such as additional shopping malls in the western areas of Hermanus will have on traffic flows. It ignores the thorough investigation of the use of a subsidised and efficient public transport system which could dramatically ease traffic congestion. The ecological integrity of the globally important FNR will be impacted directly. It must be noted that in order to construct the bypass on FNR, the affected portions of the nature reserve will have to be legally excluded as part of nature reserve – a process including a public participation process prescribed by Section 7(7) of the Nature Conservation Ordinance, 1974, read with Sections 24, 32 and 33 of NEMPAA and cognizant of Section 3 (2) (b) of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (Act 3 of 2000). FAB cannot support the two alternatives for the proposed bypass road as either option will irrevocably impact on and degrade the globally significant natural heritage and biodiversity protected by the reserve while forever degrading the surrounding urban area set aside for community recreation, schooling and worship as well as seriously impact on property prices of affected residents that have specifically invested in the area for its urban edge values never expecting that a regional road will ever be proposed next to their properties. FAB recommends the following new alternative: That the present bypass proposal be placed on hold overthe medium term (approx. 10 years) and be considered only as an absolute last resort. In the interim, the predicted traffic congestion problem can be investigated .
Ms. Liezl Bezuidenhout Comment The Fernkloof Nature Reserve is immensely valuable to the local and international community in terms of its biodiversity, recreational and aesthetic value. The Environmental Management Section (EMS) is tasked Senior Manager: Environmental Section with the management of FNR according to the purposes for which the Nature Reserve was declared. The EMS must make informed decisions when advising Council as to any proposed course of action. Accordingly, Directorate Infrastructure and Planning the Environmental Management Section has examined the Scoping Report and wishes to deliver the following comments: The Scoping Overstrand Municipality Report has omitted certain key pieces of Legislation: 1. The National Environmental Management: Air Quality Act, 2004 2. The National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act Regulations for the Proper Administration of Nature Reserves (2012) 3. The National Environmental Management: Waste Act (Act 59 of 2008) 4. The Western Cape Nature Conservation Ordinance (Ordinance No 19 of 1974) 5. The National Veld and Forest Fire Act (Act 101 of 1998) 6. The Municipal Finance Management Act 7. The Municipal Property Rates Act It is requested that these pieces of legislation should be included in the Final Scoping Report as they are key to the environmental and economic aspects of the management of Fernkloof Nature Reserve. It should be noted that the location of the bypass within the boundaries of the Fernkloof Nature Reserve will constitute the de-proclamation of certain portions of the Nature Reserve. The de- proclamation of the Nature Reserve will by default, in terms of the NEM: EIA regulations, trigger a subsequent assessment and authorisation process. The Scoping Report quotes the relevant sections of The Western Cape Spatial Development Framework (2014) which are relevant to the growth potential of towns and the requirements for transport purposes, but does not provide the relevant sections pertaining to Biodiversity Conservation, Climate Change, Waste Management or Pollution. The Scoping Report is regarded as incomplete. In Section 2.2.4 the Scoping Report quotes the Overstrand Local Municipality Integrated Development Plan (2012- 2017) in terms of economic growth and the associated transport plans. Section 2.2.4 indicates that the IDP appears to support the development of the Bypass Road. However, Section 2.2.4 is somewhat incoherent with respect to the Spatial Proposals for Hermanus East (Plan 21: Greater Hermanus (East). A more accurate assessment of the spatial proposals for Fernkloof Nature Reserve can be obtained from the „Draft Integrated Management Plan for the Fernkloof Nature Reserve 2014 -2019 (Withers Environmental Consultants in association with Urban Dynamics Western Cape – 2014)". The Scoping Report does not identify the impacts that the Bypass Road will have on the day to day management of the Fernkloof Nature Reserve. The impacts are listed for further investigation:• Loss of access to hiking trails• Relocation of the existing firebreaks along Mountain Drive• The bypass with its increased traffic flow can lead to more frequent wildfires• An increase in the degree of alien invasive species as a result of the disturbance of the soil profile • Security problems if access has to be provided by means of underpasses• Increased solid waste pollution • Light pollution due to more lights moving of Eskom power lines and current underground water pipes and electricity cables •further flooding within an urban environment already facing storm water challenges. Linear infrastructure such as roads should not be placed in ecotones, due to the severe impact that such infrastructure has on diverse and species-rich areas. EMS requested the inclusion of a detailed ecological and economic resource study as one of the specialist studies but it is not clear from the Specialist TOR‟s in the Scoping Report that this has been included. A detailed ecological and resource economics study is required: Terrestrial Ecology Specialist Study: Assessment of Cumulative Impacts: Noise impacts from the road will be pronounced at higher elevations on the contour hiking trails as well as from the various viewpoints on the ridge above Hermanus. Property Value Specialist Input: The financial indicators of each aspect should be combined to depict the total resource - based value of the asset and the results should be included in the scoping report for public participation purposes and will have to be presented to Council and to the Provincial MEC for Environment and Development Planning. [email protected] Comments RECOMMENDATIONS:TakeFollowing is the Department's cognizance provisional of legislation comment as having on the a draftbearing SR on and the must management be addressed of the Fernkloofin the final Nature SR: Comments Reserve. Specialist from, but Assessments: not limited Botanical to, the following Assessment, relevant Invertebrate authorities & Entomological must be obtained Issued by during the Public Participation Process ("PPP") and included in the final SR submitted to the Department: Directorate • Overstrand Municipality; Western Cape • CapeNature; and Govt. • Department of Water and Sanitation Development Regulation 28 ( 1 ) (c) stipulates that a Scoping Report must contain a description of any feasible and reasonable alternatives that have been identified. The draft SR currently includes various alternatives. It is, however, noted that at this stage these alternatives have not been informed by comprehensive specialist assessments. The Department therefore notes the likelihood that Management - additional alternatives may be presented as the environmental application process progresses and the proposal evolves. For reference purposes, the Department requests that all iterations of the Region 2 proposed development are included in future reports to enable adequate consideration of the application. In addition, although it is acknowledged that additional discussion will be included in the Environmental Impact Assessment ("EIA") phase, please ensure, in terms of Regulation 28 ( 1} (j), that both the advantages and disadvantages of the alternative alignments of the eastern portion of the bypass ( as detailed in section 3.5.5.2) are outlined at this stage. The Department notes that some potential socio-economic impacts have been identified relating to the proposed bypass. However, these potential impacts, in addition to others that have not been mentioned (with the exception of property values), have not specifically been highlighted to be addressed through specialist input during the environmental application process. Regulation 28 ( 1} (i) requires a description of the need and desirability of the proposed activity. Cognisance is taken of the contents of Chapter 3, specifically sub-section 3.4, in this regard. However, it is noted that the data, analysis and discussion provided relies heavily on the "Overstrand Transport Plan (EFG and iCE (2014)} " document that is not appended to the draft SR or available for review. Based on the significant nature of the proposal and the level of stakeholder engagement, it is the Department's recommendation that this document, or extracts thereof. is included with the reports during future consultation, to provide substantiating proof relating to the need and desirability of the proposal. Application may be required to the Department of Water and Sanitation in terms of Section 21 of the National Water Act, 1998 (Act 36 of 1998) for a Water Use Licence proof of submission of such an application to the Department of Water and Sanitation along with the WULA assessment information must be provided to this Department with the draft EIA. Reference to the potential requirement for affected areas of the Fernkloof Nature Reserve to be de-proclaimed. Please provide additional clarity on whether this requirement is likely, and if so, the approximate extent of the reserve that would be de-proclaimed. The description of the receiving environment notes that a number of ephemeral drainage lines cross the proposed alignment of the bypass. In light of the fact that Activity 18 of Government Notice ("GN") No. R.544 is triggered, and similarly Activity 19 of GN No. R. 983, and future maintenance related work may be required within watercourses. the Department recommends that consideration is given to the inclusion of a Maintenance Management Plan ("MMP"). . Please note that the activity may not commence prior to an Environmental Authorisation being granted by the Department. It is an offence in terms of Section 49A of the NEMA for a person to commence with a listed activity unless the Department has granted an environmental authorisation for the undertaking of the activity. Failure to comply with the requirements of Section 24F and 49A of the NEMA will result in the matter being referred to the Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Directorate of this Department for prosecution. A person convicted of an offence in terms of the above is liable to a fine not exceeding R 10 million or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding 10 years, or to both such fine and imprisonment.
3of 6 [email protected] Comments Following is the Department's provisional comment on the draft SR and must be addressed in the final SR: Comments from, but not limited to, the following relevant authorities must be obtained Issued by during the Public Participation Process ("PPP") and included in the final SR submitted to the Department: Directorate • Overstrand Municipality; Western Cape • CapeNature; and Govt. • Department of Water and Sanitation Development Regulation 28 ( 1 ) (c) stipulates that a Scoping Report must contain a description of any feasible and reasonable alternatives that have been identified. The draft SR currently includes various alternatives. It is, however, noted that at this stage these alternatives have not been informed by comprehensive specialist assessments. The Department therefore notes the likelihood that Management - additional alternatives may be presented as the environmental application process progresses and the proposal evolves. For reference purposes, the Department requests that all iterations of the Region 2 proposed development are included in future reports to enable adequate consideration of the application. In addition, although it is acknowledged that additional discussion will be included in the Environmental Impact Assessment ("EIA") phase, please ensure, in terms of Regulation 28 ( 1} (j), that both the advantages and disadvantages of the alternative alignments of the eastern portion of the bypass ( as detailed in section 3.5.5.2) are outlined at this stage. The Department notes that some potential socio-economic impacts have been identified relating to the proposed bypass. However, these potential impacts, in addition to others that have not been mentioned (with the exception of property values), have not specifically been highlighted to be addressed through specialist input during the environmental application process. Regulation 28 ( 1} (i) requires a description of the need and desirability of the proposed activity. Cognisance is taken of the contents of Chapter 3, specifically sub-section 3.4, in this regard. However, it is noted that the data, analysis and discussion provided relies heavily on the "Overstrand Transport Plan (EFG and iCE (2014)} " document that is not appended to the draft SR or available for review. Based on the significant nature of the proposal and the level of stakeholder engagement, it is the Department's recommendation that this document, or extracts thereof. is included with the reports during future consultation, to provide substantiating proof relating to the need and desirability of the proposal. Application may be required to the Department of Water and Sanitation in terms of Section 21 of the National Water Act, 1998 (Act 36 of 1998) for a Water Use Licence proof of submission of such an application to the Department of Water and Sanitation along with the WULA assessment information must be provided to this Department with the draft EIA. Reference to the potential requirement for affected areas of the Fernkloof Nature Reserve to be de-proclaimed. Please provide additional clarity on whether this requirement is likely, and if so, the approximate extent of the reserve that would be de-proclaimed. The description of the receiving environment notes that a number of ephemeral drainage lines cross the proposed alignment of the bypass. In light of the fact that Activity 18 of Government Notice ("GN") No. R.544 is triggered, and similarly Activity 19 of GN No. R. 983, and future maintenance related work may be required within watercourses. the Department recommends that consideration is given to the inclusion of a Maintenance Management Plan ("MMP"). . Please note that the activity may not commence prior to an Environmental Authorisation being granted by the Department. It is an offence in terms of Section 49A of the NEMA for a person to commence with a listed activity unless the Department has granted an environmental authorisation for the undertaking of the activity. Failure to comply with the requirements of Section 24F and 49A of the NEMA will result in the matter being referred to the Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Directorate of this Department for prosecution. A person convicted of an offence in terms of the above is liable to a fine not exceeding R 10 million or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding 10 years, or to both such fine and imprisonment.
[email protected] N Please be advised that as the co-owner of 44 Luyt Street, Eastcliff, Hermanus, I wish to register my strongest objection to the proposed bypass road being sited between Eastcliff and the Hermanus Golf Course due to the effect it will have on house prices in the area, and also the traffic noise it will create ANINA LEE N The current proposal for the Bypass rests on the assumption that a legally proclaimed nature reserve can be used as “open space” to build a road. There are two basic failings in this assumption. First, it is contrary to current legislation concerning the protection of biodiversity such as contained in the Protected Areas Act. Secondly, even where the proposed road is not on a protected reserve, the proximity of the road to the reserve will violate the sense of place of Hermanus with its seamless connection with nature. It will do so by cutting off access to the reserve and by creating levels of noise that, amplified by the topography, will pervade every inch of the western part of the reserve. This proposal sets a dangerous precedent for the gradual encroachment of human development into protected areas across the country. Hermanus is an exceptional town; its residents are prepared to stand up for matters of principle. Rhett Smart. For: Comment: CapeNature would like to thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed development and would like to make the following comments. Please note that our comments only pertain to the biodiversity Manager (Scientific Services) CapeNature related impacts and not to the overall desirability of the proposed development. The proposed project entails the upgrading or construction of a new road in order to address the current traffic congestion SCIENTIFIC experienced in the central business district (CBD) of Hermanus. Several alternatives have been investigated and have been in narrowed down to three alternatives, with five alternatives screened out. The SERVICES Fernkloof Nature Reserve is a proclaimed local authority nature reserve, which according to the correspondence from the Overstrand Municipality contained in the report, is in process being expanded. The nature reserve is recognised under the National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act (Act 57 of 2003 – NEM:PAA). CapeNature supports the undertaking of the two proposed ecological specialist reports for the EIA Phase of the project, namely the terrestrial ecology and the freshwater and wetland ecology specialist reports. In terms of the impact on terrestrial ecology is should be noted that the vegetation type that will be impacted namely Overberg Sandstone Fynbos, is listed as Critically Endangered on the D1 criterion, which is for threatened species associations (more than 80 Species of Conservation Concern on the SANBI Red List). Therefore, it is recommended that the terrestrial ecological report must ensure that the impact on threatened species is adequately assessed, and the field surveys must be supplemented by data and species records from elsewhere including local conservation NGOs and SANBI, as the Fernkloof Nature Reserve is relatively well-known and studied. The construction of a road will require deproclamation of a section of the nature reserve to cater for the road and road reserve. The deproclamation would need to be undertaken by the MEC for Environmental Affairs and Development Planning and would require consultation with CapeNature. CapeNature does not support the loss of the conservation estate, particularly if the protected area can be considered of high to very high biodiversity significance. The alternatives that have been screened out include: use of regional routes; a full bypass; upgrading of the CBD relief road; upgrading of the R43 through the CBD; and upgrading of Mountain Drive for the first section of the two routes that have been selected for further investigation in the EIA Phase. In terms of the screened alternatives, a regional by-pass will not address the local traffic impacts according to the traffic studies undertaken. It is noted that a traffic specialist study is not proposed. It is recommended that the traffic studies undertaken to inform the process to date should be included in the EIA Phase to substantiate the motivations provided. The two alternatives for upgrading the existing roads servicing the CBD have not been considered further due to insufficient road reserve width and current accesses on to the roads. These options would be preferred from a biodiversity perspective as they would only impact on the urban environment. Further motivations regarding the non-viability of these two alternatives should be supplied if available. The upgrading of Mountain Drive could prevent encroachment into Fernkloof Nature Reserve, depending on the additional width of the road reserve required. This alternative has not been considered further due to the existing accesses and traffic calming measures present on the road. CapeNature recommends that this alternative is explored further. Conclusion: Although the southern option is presently preferred to the northern option, with the current information available, CapeNature cannot state that we will not object to either of the two alternative alignments. We will provide further comment following review of the EIA Report and the specialist studies. As stated above, CapeNature does not support the loss of formal protected areas. If it can be adequately motivated that every alternative and mitigation measure has been explored and that the project need and desirability is such that deproclamation of the nature reserve is required, then compensation for the loss of formal protected area would be necessary. In addition to the loss of NEM:PAA protected areas, is the loss of Critically Endangered habitat, and potentially threatened species as well. The area of the nature reserve that would need to be deproclaimed must be quantified. All attempts must be made to limit the area of the nature reserve that would be affected, which should include options of upgrading or incorporating Mountain Drive into the proposal. CapeNature reserves the right to revise initial comments and request further information based on any additional information that may be received
[email protected] A My comments on the Scoping Report are as follows: Either the status quo must be maintained or a FULL bypass road must be built extending beyond the current proposal behind Hermanus Heights to rejoin Main Road at Voëlklip Circle. This would fulfil the function of a proper bypass and be no more disruptive than the current half-baked proposal on the table. The residential area can be effectively screened by a soil berm located on the downside of the road and planted with fynbos. This will solve Hermanus’ traffic problems once and for all otherwise we will be faced with continual problems requiring further disruptive construction. I would also like to request a copy of the “Traffic Modelling” which was used to turn down the full bypass proposal. I look forward to hearing from you. [email protected] N There is no justification whatsoever for this Bypass Road and I object in the strongest terms possible. Mrs GM Miek N I go in to the Village regularly via the Lord Roberts Circle. There is seldom a congestion of traffic perhaps only during Christmas period. I do feel that a whole new costly bypass road is unneccesary. Jean Webber & Penelope Grant N No need or desirability. Indisputable negative impact on environment. Noise impact on homes. Noise impacting on tranquillity of Hermanus Schools. Langerman Family Trust N We are totally against this proposal. Spending of R300m to widen existing roads and making them 80km/h whereas existing roads are proving successful. There is no proven guarantee that the traffic will increase so alarmingly that the current roads will not cope. Hemel and Aarde and Bot river roads are viable bypasses to Hermanus traffic. This highly motivated Council drive for change will impact irrevocably what is now a precious open and natural area. Your proposed bypass will be a huge intrusion in to the residential areas with increased car fumes and noise. We need to find a bypass that will accomodate the needs of a failing CBD without destroying the attractions of our town. Mrs G Specht N Absolutely No to any Bypass Road in Hermanus. Let us keep a small town charm. Spend money wisely. Langerman Family Trust N We have yet to see traffic impact projections to justify R350m investment in a bypass. Impact study requires emphatic disclosure of traffic increases, if not forthcoming then I infer that other interests are influencing the ex-post-facto justification of the bypass. Mark Lakay , Western Cape Government, Comment Regional and Local Economic Development.
Sammy K Nyweburu, Economic Freedom Fighters N The money to be spent on this new CBD bypass can be used to benefit the people of Greater Hermanus - especially the disadvantaged, Matriculants in all the Schoolks in the Overstrand can be given bursaries or Wards Branch Chairman. Bosko study loans. We cannot have a bypass near schools. There will be more traffic usning and passing through our town. I believe the bypass won't benefit the people of Hermanus and it will be costly to maintain such a Christian School structure. The Overstrand Municipality must start to listen to the residents.
4of 6 Gcobisa Mtebhele Bosko N NO Christian School
Lindiwe Bosko N Christian School I'm against this. A freeway next to a School is total wrong unsafe for our children. WHY THERE? Is the Main Road not enough to go through those places. This is unfair and unnecessary. Alice Mbali Bosko N I see no need of this new CBD bypass because the existing one is still in order. It is a waste of money for this in urban area. They must use it in rural areas where they are suffering of this. The road R43 to Stanford is Christian School too small where they can extend it. I say No No No to this new CBD bypasss road. Monica Nana Bosko N I am afraid that we are against this bypass road as it seems that it will put our childrens lives at risk. Christian School Anakha N NO Bosko Christian School [email protected] N We agree with your proposal to look at the Checkers relief road as the provincial bypass road (if it is in fact absolutely necessary to have a provincial bypass road in Hermanus – which we seriously question), and unreservedly object to the two alignments proposed. Kallie Saayman. (Voormalige Adjunk-direkteur- N Na my mening is 18 dae werklik te min tyd om sinvol oor so 'n belangrike kwessie te besin en ek versoek u dus DRINGEND om ook my onderstaande kommentaar in oorweging te neem. Hierbenewens het ek 'n generaal: Departement van die Wes-Kaapse fundamentele belang by doeltreffende owerheidsdienslewering. In hierdie verband verwys ek graag na my ononderbroke Staatsdiensloopbaan van bykans 40 jaar by die Ouditeur-generaal, die Premier) Staatsdienskommissie en die Wes-Kaapse Provinsiale Regering. Verder het ek ook vir 5 jaar gedien op twee onafhanklike Ouditkomitees van die Overstrandse Munisipaliteit. Aangesien daar in hierdie stadium slegs 'n BEGINSELBESLUIT rakende die beoogde pad geneem moet word, volstaan ek hieronder vir die huidige met die volgende breë sieninge omtrent die voorgestelde pad: 1. Die huidige provinsiale DA-Regering het BELOWE dat daar nie 'n verbypad bokant Hermanus gebou sal word nie!! Die voormalige Minister van Vervoer, Robin Carlisle, het tydens die verkiesingsveldtog in 2011 in die Sandbaaisaal(Hermanus) baie driftig en kragdadig BELOWE dat die Provinsie NOOIT so 'n pad sal bou nie. Die hele gehoor asook die aanwesige raadslede het gejuig toe hierdie omstrede kwessie finaal deur die Minister afgesluit is. As daar voortgegaan word met die pad, sal dit beteken die DA-Regering het GELIEG vir die Overstrandse kiesers!! 2. Die nuwe pad sal 'n massiewe inkeping in die hang van die pragtige berg bokant Hermanus vereis!! 3. As die Provinsie R 300m. beskikbaar het om padprobleme op te los, spandeer dit asb. op die swak, smal, ongelukgeteisterde en gevaarlike pad tussen Hermanus en Stanford. Dan sal die hele Overstrandse gemeenskap die Provinsiale Regering se inisiatief steun. 4. Die interne verbypad wat enkele jare gelede gebou is en met verkeersirkels die motoriste verby die dorpskern lei, werk uitstekend!! Hoekom 'n nuwe pad van R300m. ++ gebou moet word om die 7% van die inkomende verkeer wat Hermanus direk wil verlaat te akkommodeer, gaan die verstand te bowe. 5. Ek het 'n wesentlike probleem daarmee as SRK Consulting verantwoordelik is vir die vertolking van die gemeenskap se opinie oor die beoogde pad en insgelyks ook die R 300m. padkontrak sal uitvoer, sou daar voortgegaan word met die bouprogram. Na my mening is hier wesentlike subjektiewe en botsende belange op die spel. Daarom oorweeg ek dit tans om hierdie kwessie ook onder die aandag van Dr Ivan Meyer, provinsiale Minister van Finansies, te bring. 6. Volgens die HT (p 5, 2 Julie 2015) is die R43-pad 'n verbindingspad tussen Wolseley en Ceres na Bredasdorp en in "…Hermanus it leads through the entire length of the town." Hierdie argument hou absoluut geen water nie, aangesien geen motoris deur Hermanus sal ry op die vermelde roete nie. Enige regdenkende mens sal die korste, reguit roete via Caledon na Bredasdorp reis i.p.v. 'n reuse draai deur Hermanus te ry! Van besondere belang is die sieninge van mnr Duncan Heard(Voorsitter: Fernkloof Natuurreservaat Adviesraad) - kyk p. 4, Hermanus Times van 30 Julie 2015. Mnr Heard is 'n baie bekende, gerespekteerde en vakkundige inwoner van Hermanus en u kan gerus van sy ernstige bedenkinge rakende die verbypad kennis neem Samevatting Ek is in beginsel gekant teen die bou van die beoogde verbypad. As 'n gereelde plaaslike padgebruiker weet ek dat die bestaande en betreklik nuwe sirkelroete-verbypad slaag baie effektief daarin om die verkeer deur Hermanus te laat vloei. Met beperkte en skaars hulpbronne sal dit 'n vermorsing van die belastingbetaler se geld wees om honderde miljoene Rand te bestee om hierdie pad deur 'n natuurskone bewaringsgebied te grawe. Die Wes-Kaapse Regering kan werklik sy prioriteite beter bereik deur hierdie geld elders aan te wend.
PHAKAMANI BUTHELEZI Chief Executive Comment Both alternative alignments - northern and southern route - border the NFEPA at the golf course. Please see attached map drawn from the Cape Farm Mapper tool of the Department of Agriculture. Officer . Breede Gouritz Catchment This is one of the key environmental issues raised on P.93 of your report. How would this NFEPA and other wetland features along the proposed bypass road be protected both during construction Management Agency. and after construction? All relevant sections and regulations of the National Water Act, 1998 (Act 36 of 1998) regarding water use must be adhered to. o No pollution of surface water or ground water resources may occur due to any activity on the property. o No storm water runoff from any premises containing waste, or water containing waste emanating from industrial activities and premises may be discharged into a water resource. Polluted storm water must be contained. o The minimizing of waste must be promoted and alternative methods for waste management must be investigated. o No permanent structures maybe constructed within the 100-year flood line of any watercourse (seasonal or permanent river,stream, etc). Please be advised that no activities may commence without the appropriate approvals/authorizations (where needed) from the responsible authority. The onus remains with the registered property owner to confirm adherence to any relevant legislation that such activities might trigger and/or need authorization for. Also be advised that the comment provided is in the interest of responsible water resource management. The BGCMA will gladly comment on any additional information provided for review. The BGCMA reserves the right to revise initial comments and request further information based on any additlonal information that might be received.
STEPHEN MiiLLER DIRECTOR: Comment We would now like to submit additional comments of a more general nature as follows: 2. Our comments on the three alternatives are as follows: INFRASTRUCTURE AND PLANNING 2.1. Northern alignment This option is preferred from a town planning and land use perspective. It will allow us to develop the Hermanus Sports Complex and the Hermanus High School as an Council of the Overstrand Municipality integrated precinct. It will also have the least impact on the Hermanus High School. It will however have a greater impact on the Fernkloof Nature Reserve, Bosko Ministries Church and School Complex and the Hermanus Private School. 2.2. Southern alignment :This option is preferred from an environmental perspective. It will have less impact on the Fernkloof Nature Reserve and the Hermanus Private School. It will have almost no impact on the Bosko Ministries Church and School Complex. It will however have a greater impact on the Hermanus Sports Complex and the Hermanus High School. 2.3. No Go We do not support this option. The Municipality is engaged with an on-going project to regenerate/revitalise the Hermanus CBD. The objectives of the project can be summarised as follows: 2.3.1. Strengthen the sense of place 2.3.2. Promote ease of access 2.3.3. Encourage economically resilient development 2.3.4. Create a vibrant public realm To realise the objectives of this project, it is essential that the provincial road be relocated and moved out of the Hermanus CBD. 3. The Council of the Overstrand Municipality will take a final decision on the matter once all the investigations and studies have been completed. RE Berry Comment The Maps of the proposed bypass are too small to read. [email protected] N We formally object to the implementation of the proposed bypass road in any form. This proposal cannot be justified for the minimal amount of through traffic that it is being considered for, in relation to the negative effects that will ensue. Specifically I wish to comment on the following negative effects of the proposed road: 1. Any percentage of traffic that is removed from the CBD will negatively affect our, and most other businesses situated there. This in turn will lead to unemployment and degradation of the CBD. 2. Damage to the sensitive environment of the Fernkloof nature reserve - this is a vitally important area for both fauna and flora, and these will be negatively affected. 3. Damage to the mountain landscape/view of Hermanus 4. Damage to extremely sensitive wetland area adjacent to Fairways avenue. 5. Negative effect (value erosion) on all properties close to the proposed road 6. Negative effect of having a large road pass either the High School, town rugby club, future sports complex, Bosko School and Montessorri School.
[[email protected] Comment I feel if one drives through a town one usually stops, if you bypass it, business is lost
5of 6 72 N 74.2% 6 Y 6.2% 7 Comment 7.2% 12 Alternative 12.4% 97 100.0%
6of 6
Du Toit, Jessica
From: Shreeve
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged
COMMENT ON THE SCOPING REPORT
The proposed bypass would appear to be something that upsets a number of different people; by my count the people who are upset at the concept are as follows:
1. The property owners in Mountain Drive who do not want a major road passing close to their houses.
2. The Hermanus Botanical Society which is very concerned about the encroachment into the delicate fynbos of the Fernkloof nature reserve.
3. The Sports Complex committee which is planning the design of a multi-sport complex and will have to take into consideration a major road running close to or perhaps even right through the complex.
4. The Hermanus High School which does not want a major road passing within metres of its ground and which might even lose some ground to the road reserve.
5. The residents of the eastern section of Eastcliff, a quiet, tree-lined suburb who certainly do not want a major road passing right in front of their houses.
6. The majority of residents of Hermanus who fail to see the need/use/necessity of a bypass which seems to them to be designed to appeal to the few residents’ of Stanford and Gansbaai who on occasion drive through Hermanus when the traffic is heavy.
Quite apart from the proposed routing of the road, if the proposed bypass is designed to cause unhappiness and indignation then it certainly is succeeding. Most of us residents see it as a solution designed by someone who is desperately looking for a problem to pin it to. Even the scoping report fails to define the problem.
Convince us that - if it not built - there is (or is going to be) a problem we are more likely to give it sympathetic consideration.
Right-click here to download pictures. To This email has been sent from a virus-free computer protected by Avast. help protect your privacy, Outlo ok prevented automatic download of this picture from the In ternet. www.avast.com
1 Du Toit, Jessica
From: Arabikaz
My community and I are HUGELY affected by this proposed plan,
My child is in the Montessori school which will be next to a high way!!! I have a stall at the market where I earn Money as well as employ 13 people from the local community..
I care for the Plants that grow on this mountain which grows nowhere else on this planet !!!!! Sorry if you don’t!!!!! Take your time and think about that!!!!! It is a nature reserve!!!!! Should be a world heritage site!!!! Take your time and think about that!!!!!
We do not need it… We need other stuff… Like jobs and houses and play grounds and potholes fixed… I could go on…
Thank you Elaine Bayer 082 954 6113
1 Du Toit, Jessica
From: Kavanagh Diamonds
Good day,
As a business owner (Kavanagh Diamonds and Jewellery, Shop 3 Ocean View, 87 Marine Drive) in Hermanus, we often have day trippers who stop for a lunch and walk around on their way through to Knysna etc. If you have a bypass road, you will destroy so many of our little businesses and more people will become jobless. We need to bring more people into Hermanus … not drive them further away.
Regards,
Shelley Kavanagh Kavanagh Diamonds and Jewellery Shop 3 Ocean View 87 Marine Drive Hermanus 7200
Tel: 028 312 2804
1 Du Toit, Jessica
From: Pine P.
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged
As an interest party I wish to state the following:
I am 80 years old, trying to exist on a government pension. The Hermanus market gives me an opportunity to supplement the totally inadequate pension. The income I derive from the market is what keeps me and my wife alive. Moving the market to some mystery site will spell the end of the income I derive from it, and will effectively be a 'death sentence' . The bypass is an abomination as has been shown by many submissions to yourselves. Please do not route the bypass through our market.
J.G.Pienaar
1 Du Toit, Jessica
From: nicole du toit
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged
I am apposed to the bypass road in Hermanus that runs on the mountain and then down through the Hermanus Country Market grounds and over the cricket field and the Hermanus Montessori School, as well as the Hoërskool Hermanus High School's field.
We have a growing community with young families who do not have allot of community based places.
Sincerely, Nicole du Toit
1 Du Toit, Jessica
From: Heather Cowell
Hi.
Thanks for receiving this email.
Im a local, we do not need a by pass road, not in any way shape or form.
This december was the busiest ever since i moved here in 2007 and thanks to our traffic circles the traffic flowed just fine.
We love our mountain, our reserve, our farmers market is the hub of the weeekend, our children need their school field and our school district needs to maintain its quietness.
Please shelf this rediculous idea.
Thanks Heather 0834108800
1 Du Toit, Jessica
From: Standfast Consulting
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged
Dear Sir/Madam
I would like to make my objection to the road running through Hermanus Heights. It will be an absolute travesty for our community to have a screeching highway running through that pristine area of our town. There is all manner of wildlife including tortoises and baboons that will be affected and the nature reserve is also on that road. Please consider that this is NOT in the best interests of the people and animals of Hermanus. There is nothing wrong with the road running through town and it is sufficient. I live in 8 th Street in Voelklip and I would rather have traffic outside my window rather than spoil an absolutely beautiful part of our town.
Thank you for taking the time to note my objection.
Kind regards
Nikki Wilson 204 8 th Street, Voelklip, Hermanus. 7200
Right-click here to download pictures. To This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. help protect your privacy, Outlo ok prevented automatic download of this picture from the In ternet. www.avast.com
1 Du Toit, Jessica
From: djsteele007
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged
I absolutely object. Only an imbecile would consider this. And when the decision maker's term is up what a legacy to leave. Shoot this idea down !!!
Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.
1
Du Toit, Jessica
From: Troy Seaman
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged
To whom it may concern Please do not build a road through Hermanus Country Market. It is my only income and many pensioners rely on the market. Beyond that it a unique community that allows families to come together in a way that is very rare in this world. Regards Troy Seaman
Sent from my iPhone
1 Du Toit, Jessica
From: Sue Hodson
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged
Dear Sir/Madam,
I object very strongly to the proposed bypass in Hermanus. I don't believe it is that necessary and will have a negative impact on the lives of people living here. It will go right through what is , at the moment, a thriving Country Market, which provides jobs for many people in Hermanus, as well as attracting visitors from many parts of the country and the world. It will also mean that a large road will be near sports fields and a schools and will seriously affect the safety of learners. There must surely be another option. We are already having to watch our beautiful town fall foul of so-called, modernisation and all it is doing is destroying the natural vegetation and ambience that make our town what it is.
Sincerely,
Sue Hodson
1 Du Toit, Jessica
From: James Storbeck
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed
Jessica,
Please find attached an email dated 2/2/2015 and my objections, since we are the only property with direct access onto Fairways Avenue.
Kind regards, James C Storbeck On behalf of JC & P Trust IT 2834/98 P O Box 349, Hermanus, 7200 E-mail: [email protected] Fax: +27 86 619 7818 Cell: +27 79 646 5466
From: Du Toit, Jessica [ mailto:[email protected] ] Sent: Monday, December 14, 2015 2:57 PM To: Reuther, Sue < [email protected] > Subject: Hermanus CBD Bypass: Release of Final Scoping Report
Dear Sir / Madam,
The Provincial Government Western Cape: Department of Transport and Public Works (WCDTPW) proposes to construct a bypass road approximately 3 km long, to the north of the Hermanus Central Business District (CBD), abutting Mountain Drive, past the Hermanus Sports Complex and along Fairways Avenue, in Hermanus in the Western Cape.
SRK Consulting (South Africa) Pty Ltd (SRK) has been appointed to undertake the Scoping and Environmental Impact Reporting (S&EIR, also referred to as EIA) process required in terms of the National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998, as amended (NEMA).
You are registered as a stakeholder for the above EIA process.
We would like to inform you of the availability of the Final Scoping Report for public comment. The Scoping Report released earlier this year was updated to reflect and address comments received from stakeholders to produce the Final Scoping Report, which is being re-released to stakeholders before it is submitted to DEA&DP
1 together with all comments received.
Please find attached the Executive Summary of the Final Scoping Report. Copies of the complete report are available for download on SRK’s website at http://www.srk.co.za/en/hermanus-cbd- bypass-eia and for public review at: • Hermanus Library; • Mount Pleasant Library; • Zwelihle Library; and • Hawston Library.
Appendix F of the Final Scoping Report provides the Comments and Responses Table that reflects issues raised by stakeholders and responses thereto, and/or how these were or will be addressed in the EIA process.
All comments submitted to date are included in the Final Scoping Report that will be submitted to DEA&DP. Please ensure that any additional comments reach SRK no later than 5 February 2016 to be also included in the submission to DEA&DP.
Once the Final Scoping Report has been submitted, the EIA Report will be compiled and released for public review and comment.
Best regards,
Jessica du Toit BSc (ConsEcol), PGD (Env Mgmt) Environmental Scientist
SRK Consulting (South Africa) Pty Ltd The Administrative Building, Albion Spring, 183 Main Road, Rondebosch, 7700 Postnet Suite # 206, Private Bag X18, Rondebosch, 7701
Tel: +27-(0)21-659-3060; Fax : +27-(0)21-685-7105 Mobile : + 27-(0)76-133-9776; Direct : +27-(0)21-659-3083 Email : [email protected] www.srk.co.za
This transmission is intended for the sole use of the addressee, and may contain information that by its privileged and confidential nature is exempt from disclosure under applicable law. You are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or duplication of this transmission by someone other than the intended recipient or its designated agent is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to this transmission, or by collect call to the above phone number. Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail .
2 Du Toit, Jessica
From: James Storbeck
Larissa,
Further to the public meeting held on the 8 th of December at Hermanus High School, my opinion and questions:
• I note that the speed proposed is not 60km/h but it was mentioned, “similar to Hawston where the speed is reduced to 80km/h”. Therefore we presume that the speed bumps will be done away with. Currently the speed limit is 60km/h, but some drivers does much more between the speed bump in front of the holiday flats in Fairways Avenue towards the corner of Moffat Street, in both directions. With a speed of 80km/h and no speed bumps, Fairways Avenue will become a high speed death zone. • Currently a walkway makes provision for pedestrians and school children. High speed traffic will endanger pedestrians making use of the walkway. • Property Values are affected by this ongoing discussions. What are the project team/provincial government/local government doing to compensate residential property owners for this inconvenience? We cannot sell our property and will be negatively affected if this road is build. No consideration is given from local government on our property values and or rights. • The increased heavy traffic and noise pollution will have a serious effect on the quiet suburb of Eastcliff. • How long will the actual road work take, since our only access to our home is from Fairways Avenue? • Why should the residents of these areas be held to ransom for 7% (130 vehicles) of 1850 vehicles traveling through towards Stanford? • The actual width of the road in front of 15 Fairways Avenue is as follows: From our boundary wall to the road 5 meters, actual road 8 meters, pedestrian walkway 1 meter, sidewalk towards fence of wetlands 7 meters. Total 21 meters. Where are you going to get the additional 4 meters? If this 21 meters are used we will never be able to get our motor vehicle from our garage. Provision will have to be made for a pedestrian walk way. • Structural defects will be caused to our property by heavy duty machinery, since the original portion of our house is more than 100 years old. • We have a 100 year old tree situated 2 meters from the road that will have to be demolished.
We have no alternative but to vigorously object to the proposal and will have to ensure that the project does not proceed.
Alternatively the project team or provisional government or local government (anyone in charge of the project) can purchase our property for R 5,500,000.00. This offer is only available until the 1 st of May 2015.
Kind Regards,
James C Storbeck On behalf of JC & P Trust IT 2834/98
1 Du Toit, Jessica
From: Delwyn Stoltz
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged
Good day Jessica
I’m sure I’m already registered with you in this regard, but just want to reiterate again my objection to this ridiculous proposal.
Hermanus is not really “on the way” to anywhere on a major route. Anyone who is going on to Stanford, Gansbaai or other small towns further on is well aware that these are all smaller, slower, mostly retirement or holiday destinations. For this reason nobody would expect a faster, more direct route in order to avoid a little place like Hermanus. The road around the top of Hermanus (Mountain Drive) already enables anyone wishing to miss the CBD to do so. The whole objective of those living or holidaying in Hermanus and other nearly small towns/villages, is to enjoy a quieter, slower lifestyle. We do not want to encourage more traffic than necessary by making it easier and quicker for vehicles to go through.
Furthermore people taking a route through Hermanus to another destination would almost always stop in the town centre to admire the beauty, have a look around and probably have some refreshment/meal. A bypass would enable and encourage visitors to the area to miss the CBD from a congestion point of view, but also result in losses for all businesses, as well as visitors missing out on a large portion of the beauty and character of our wonderful town.
Added to this - travellers already have the option to go further along the N2 and through Caledon as an alternative route if they choose to travel on major roads.
The impact on the mountain and Fernkloof nature reserve is an unacceptable consequence of the proposed bypass. These areas should be protected from any further development especially for something as unnecessary as this proposal.
My feeling is that Province should rather spend the money on a bypass around Knysna – which is on a major route, can’t be avoided along the Garden Route, and is much more congested than Hermanus.
I strongly object to this proposed bypass and hope that Hermanus residents/owners will do all in their power to make the relevant authorities realise that this is unwanted and unnecessary – not to mention the huge waste of money that could be put to much better use and where there is real need.
Yours faithfully Mrs D N Stoltz Trustee The Allandel Trust
1 27 January 2016
C.J. & M.M. van Dyk
1 Hoy Street
Hermanus 7200
Email – [email protected]
Cell – 082 881 7055
SRK Consulting
Postnet Suite #206
Private Bag X18
Rondebosch 7701
Attention : Jessica du Toit (email : [email protected])
COMMENTS ON FINAL SCOPING REPORT : PROPOSED CBD BYPASS IN HERMANUS
Dear Sirs
My wife and I have been the owners of Erf 4765, being 1 Hoy Street Hermanus, since 1990. During 1995 we built and occupied our dream house, which subsequently became our retirement dwelling.
We SERIOUSLY OBJECT to the Proposed CBD Bypass road in Hermanus, since the proximity of the Proposed Bypass to Erf 4765 will have a detrimental and damaging effect on firstly our present life style, and secondly the value of our property. This will be due to the negative visual impact of a highway carved into a pristine mountain nature reserve, as well as the vehicles on it, and lastly the horrible effect of hundreds of halogen highway lights switched on nightly to light up the entire mountain, similar to that along the R43 from Onrus to Mt Pleasant. The loss of privacy will be devastating, as will be the decline in the value of property along Mountain Drive.
Regarding the Final Scoping Report, we have comments on 3 fatal flaws :-
1. The planning of the Proposed Bypass does not comply with the relevant planning provisions in the National Land Transport Act, 2009(no. 5 of 2009) and its Regulations, because it is not an approved part of either the Western Cape Provincial Land Transport Framework & Provincial Spatial Development Framework, or the Overberg Integrated Transport Plan & Integrated Development Plan, nor the Overstrand Integrated Transport Plan & Integrated Development Plan. 2. The Final Scoping Report implies that the Overstrand Municipality is in support of the Bypass. This is factually incorrect, as the Executive Mayor confirmed on 15/12/2015 that the Municipality has never indicated its support for the Bypass. 3. The Proposed Bypass does not address the highest traffic need on the R43 in Hermanus. In the Executive Summary of the Overstrand Transport Plan, the 2035 traffic forecasts indicate that, according to Province’s own forecasts, the section of the R43 between Onrus and Sandbaai, as well as the Sandbaai intersection area, has a much higher upgrade priority than the Proposed Bypass.
We also have 2 personal comments :-
4. The Proposed Bypass will create a permanent pedestrian barrier between the village and the mountain. Currently Northcliff and Fernkloof are the only areas left with pedestrian access to the mountain, since the residential developments in Hermanus Heights and Voelklip have eliminated those areas. 5. The Proposed Bypass will permanently scar the Raed-na-Gael mountain, no matter what amount of rehabilitation is applied. The worst affected section will be at the current intersection of Mountain Drive and Impala Street, where an outcrop of the mountain is very near to Mountain Drive. With the effective Bypass width being at least 20,0m wide, and same Bypass being a clear distance above Mountain Drive, the cutting into the mountain here will be at least 50m high. The visual impact will be horrific, and will not be able to be disguised in any way whatsoever.
Lastly, the Proposed Bypass is a complete waste of taxpayers money, since the traffic surveys, carried out on behalf of Province, clearly showed that only 7% of traffic entering Hermanus passes through to Stanford and beyond. The money should rather be spent on relieving the congestion on the R43 from Vermont to Mt Pleasant, which is a huge daily problem, and not seasonal. The existing Relief Road through Hermanus has done wonders for the traffic flow in the CBD, and if necessary in the future, this Relief Road may be upgraded at a fraction of the cost of the Proposed Bypass.
Yours faithfully
Johan & Martie van Dyk
28 January 2016
J.F. Reynell & E.N. Huysamen 3 Hoy Street HERMANUS 7200
Email: [email protected] Cell: 082 452 3780
SRK Consulting Postnet Suite #206 Private Bag X18 RONDEBOSCH 7701
Attention: Jessica du Toit Email: [email protected]
COMMENTS ON FINAL SCOPING REPORT: PROPOSED CBD BYPASS IN HERMANUS
Dear Sirs
Our family have been the owners of Erf 4808, being 3 Hoy Street Hermanus, since the early Sixties.
We SERIOUSLY OBJECT to the roposed CBD Bypass road in Hermanus, since the proximity of the Proposed Bypass to Erf 4808 will have a detrimental and damaging effect on firstly our present lifestyle, and secondly the value of our property. This will be due to the negative visual impact of a highway carved into a pristine mountain nature reserve, as well as the vehicles on it, and lastly the horrible effect of hundreds of halogen highway lights switched on nightly to light up the entire mountain, similar to that along the R43 from Onrus to Mt Pleasant. The loss of privacy will be devastating, as will be the decline in the value of property along Mountain Drive.
Regarding the Final Scoping Report, we have comments on 3 fatal flaws:
1. The planning of the Proposed Bypass does not comply with the relevant planning provisions in the National Land Transport Act, 2009 (No. 5 of 2009) and its Regulations, because it is not an approved part of either the Western Cape Provincial Land Transport Framework & Provincial Spatial Development Framework, or the Overberg Integrated Transport Plan & Integrated Development Plan.
2. The Final Scoping Report implies that the Overstrand Municipality is in support of the Bypass. This is factually incorrect, as the Executive Mayor confirmed on 15/12/2015 that the Municipality has never indicated its support for the Bypass. 3. The Proposed Bypass does not address the highest traffic need on the R43 in Hermanus. In the Executive Summary of the Overstrand Transport Plan, the 2035 traffic forecasts indicate that , according to Province’s own forecasts, the section of the R43 between Onrus and Sandbaai, as well as the Sandbaai intersection area, has a much higher upgrade priority than the Proposed Bypass.
We also have 2 personal comments:
4. The Proposed Bypass will create a permanent pedestrian barrier between the village and the mountain. Currently Northcliff and Fernkloof are the only areas left with pedestrian access to the mountain, since the residential development in Hermanus Heights and Voelklip have eliminated those areas.
5. The Proposed Bypass will permanently scar the Raed-na-Gael mountain, no matter what amount of rehabilitation is applied. The worst affected section will be at the current intersection of Mountain Drive and Impala Street, where an outcrop of the mountain is very near to Mountain Drive. With the effective Bypass width being at least 20,0m wide, and same Bypass being a clear distance above Mountain Drive, the cutting into the mountain here will be at least 50m high. The visual impact will be horrific, and will not be able to be disguised in any way whatsoever.
Lastly, the Proposed Bypass is a complete waste of taxpayers money, since the traffic surveys, carried out on behalf of the Province, clearly showed that only 7% of traffic entering Hermanus passes through to Stanford and beyond. The money should rather be spent on relieving the congestion on the R43 from Vermont to Mt Pleasant, which is a huge daily problem, and not seasonal. The existing Relief Road through Hermanus has done wonders for the traffic flow in the CBD, and if necessary in the future, this Relief Road may be upgraded at a fraction of the cost of the Proposed Bypass.
Yours faithfully
John Reynell & Liz Huysamen Du Toit, Jessica
From: David Beattie
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged
Dear Ms. duToit,
Comments on the Final Scoping Report Proposed New CBD Bypass Road in Hermanus
As an Interested and Affected party, I wish to submit the following comments concerning the Final Scoping Report.
1. There seems to be a disconnect between the reasons for a bypass and the various Overberg and Overstrand Management Plans. On page 14 of the Scoping Report the aims of the proposed bypass are: ° To prevent traffic delays through and in Hermanus ° Future congestion may inhibit expansion and development of the town centre and hinder tourism ° The objective of the bypass is to support economic growth and tourism development ° Overall travel times will be reduced But these aims do not tie in with the Overberg District Management Plan (2012 – 16) ref point 2.2.2; or the Overberg District Spatial Development Framework (2014) ref. point 2.2.3; or the Overstrand Local Management IDP (2012 -17) ref. point 2.2.4; or the Overstrand Local SPD ref. 2.2.5 as I read them.
2. Because almost all delivery vehicles (food chain stores, petrol stations, other shops and hotels, etc.) deliver in Hermanus before proceeding to Stanford, Die Kelders, Gansbaai, Pearly Beach etc. they will still have to enter the Hermanus CBD. The bypass will not reduce delivery vehicle traffic by any significant amount.
3. Similarly, business staff (shops, hotels, etc,) must still enter the CBD as must shoppers. A bypass would not serve any purpose for them.
4. The majority of tourists must still enter the CBD as that is where most hotels and the large majority of other tourist establishments – guest houses, B&B’s, etc. are located. We do not want day visitors to bypass the Hermanus CBD.
5. The Scoping Report acknowledges the crucial importance of the fauna and flora that exist on the proposed bypass route, including the golf course wetland, yet much would of necessity have to be destroyed to accommodate the bypass. The Overstrand Municipality lists as key objectives in its Spatial Development Framework:
1 ° Conservation of sensitive natural and heritage resources and ° Tourism The proposed bypass would negatively affect these objectives
6. The report claims that the bypass will give the town a northern urban edge, yet Mountain Drive already defines our northern urban edge. We surely do not need to destroy many hectares of the Fernkloof Nature Reserve to create a further urban edge.
7. Finally, as already stated by a number of people, there is no reference in the report to the most obvious solution which is to encourage Stanford, Die Kelders, Gansbaai and Pearly Beach residents and any direct deliveries to these destinations to use the already existing and quicker route via the N2 to Caledon and then the R316 and R326 to Stanford. While this route might be slightly longer it is, in fact, faster. Is it really worth multi millions and the destruction of protected habitats for the sake of perhaps 7% of people who pass through Hermanus, when they could be using another quicker route at virtually no extra cost to the Province?
Yours sincerely,
David Beattie
2 HERMAN US BOTANICAL SOGIETYupc / *$_N Postnet suite 167 Private Bag X16 Hermanus 7200 tffi, e-mail: botsochef [email protected] Tel : 028 313-0819 Fax: 086 544-6305
30lanuary 2016
SRK Consulting Postnet Suite #206 Private Bag X18 Rondebosch 7701
Attention: Jessica du Toit (email: [email protected])
Dear Sir / Madam COMMENT ON THE FINAL SCOPING REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED NEW CBD BYPASS ROAD IN HERMANUS
DEA&DP Ref erence Numbe': 16 /3 / 1 /2lE2hs /2I2a / ra Heritage Western Cape R€ference Number 14112403451203E
I am registered on your database of interested and Affec{ed Parties (l&AP) as an interested and affected party in the environmental impact assessment process for the proposed new CBD bypass road in Hermanus, referenced in the header above. My participation relates tg
my concem for environmental impact. I have no direct business or financial interest in the EIA process or its outcome. I have seen, read, understand and fully support the contents of the submissions made by the
Hermanus Botanical Society in the attached document. I agree wholeheartedly with the cgntents thereof and hereby give instructions that this submission be registered as my own submission on the final scoping report. Kindly confirm receipt and acceptance of the instruction of the contents of this email. Yours faithfully,
5
Dr Dianne Marais Chairpefson Hermanus Botanical SocEty 1
HERMANUS BOTANICAL SOCIETY COMMENTS ON THE FINAL SCOPING REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED NEW CBD BYPASS ROAD IN HERMANUS
DEA&DP Reference Number: 16/3/1/2/E2/15/2124/14 Heritage Western Cape Reference Number: 14112403AS1203E
1. AIMS, OBJECTIVES AND PRINCIPLES: DISSONANCES AND CONTRADICTIONS
The Final Scoping Report contains many references to aspects such as aims, objectives and guiding principles that are intended to set the ethos of the project and ensure that it is in line with various other plans that it will affect.
An examination of these aspects reveals that in very many instances this is not the case; aims and objectives are ill thought-out and frequently the project is in direct contradiction to the guiding principles of related plans.
1.1 Aims and objectives:
The aims and objectives of the project are vague; particularly the latter should be specific and measurable.
Page 9 states that “The construction of the CBD bypass aims to prevent traffic delays through and in Hermanus…the objective of the bypass construction is the support of economic growth and tourism development.” This vague statement has clearly been made in order to align the project with the Provincial Spatial Development Framework (SDF), which is quoted on page 11 as stating that “The Overstrand coastal belt is considered a significant leisure, lifestyle, holiday and retirement economic centre (see Figure 2-1). The Provincial SDF also classifies the growth potential in both Hermanus and the Overberg District Municipality as very high”. Current economic conditions contradict this optimistic view (see 4.1).
Aims and objectives are listed again on page 53 in a long, messy and woolly fashion. They refer twice to supporting the CBD regeneration framework (it does not – see 7.1), twice to providing a Class 2 route as a new R43 and twice to “improving” the CBD, firstly in terms of traffic and secondly by making it “liveable” and economically viable. They also refer to providing improved access to the schools, sports fields, farmers market etc. along Jose Burman Drive and reducing traffic on local streets currently providing access to this recreational node. The bypass will in fact make access much more difficult than at present, and local streets in this area are far from congested.
1.2 Principles relevant to EIA process and principles relevant to the project
Page 22 notes the principles relevant to the process and the project as including:
Principles relevant to the EIA process: Adopt a risk-averse and cautious approach; Anticipate and prevent or minimise negative impacts; Pursue integrated environmental management; Involve stakeholders in the process; and Consider the social, economic and environmental impacts of activities.
Principles relevant to the project: 2
Ensure development is sustainable, minimises disturbance of ecosystems and landscapes (and) achieves responsible use of non-renewable resources
The proposal to utilise protected areas for building a road for which need has not been proven is reckless; preliminary approval of this concept through the selection of alternatives for further investigation that does exactly that, contradicts the principles stated above.
1.3 Project needs analysis principles
Page 49 states that need and desirability must place emphasis on justification in terms of (inter alia) financial viability and opportunity cost of development. This has not been done – no opportunity cost consideration has been given of the land in Fernkloof to be used for the chosen alternatives, nor has any assessment been made of its cost-effectiveness.
Recommending that portions of a protected nature reserve consisting of endangered and critically endangered vegetation types be used for the construction of a road contradicts these principles totally.
1.4 Provincial SDF environmental principles
Proposing to construct the bypass in portions of Fernkloof Nature Reserve is in clear contradiction of the Provincial SDF which states that “the safeguarding of the biodiversity network and the functionality of ecosystem services are prerequisites of the agenda to improve the sustainable use of the Western Cape’s spatial assets” (page 11).
1.5 Overstrand Municipality Integrated Development Framework (IDF) principles
This document envisages “an environmentally sustainable and resilient Overstrand”; proposing to use part of the Fernkloof Nature Reserve for the construction of a road clearly flouts this vision. The chart replicated on Page 18 giving the key policies directing future management and development in Greater Hermanus states under Special Places that “the Fernkloof Nature Reserve should be preserved and the mountain interfaces protected” – it would appear from predation by the very authorities that have undertaken to protect it.
2. TRANSPORT LEGISLATION NON-COMPLIANCE
The proposed Bypass does not comply with the relevant transport planning provisions in the National Land Transport Act, 2009 (No. 5 of 2009) and its Regulations (NLTA). This Act provides for National, Provincial and Municipal transport plans – the latter being integral parts of Municipal Integrated Development Plans (IDPs). This non-compliance with transport legislation in a transport project is astounding.
In the Final Scoping Report an extensive analysis is presented of South African legislation impacting on the project and the EIA process - a major omission however is that of the relevant transport legislation, namely the NLTA.
The NLTA provides for transport plans at all three spheres of Government. As minimum requirements to be contained in these plans have not yet been prescribed by the Minister, those prescribed in terms of the National Land Transport Transition Act, No 22 of 2000, apply to the proposed bypass. The proposed bypass does not appear as an approved plan in any of the 3
prescribed plans, despite attempts in the Final Scoping Report to create the impression that it is included in them.
The prescribed plans are:
2.1. PAWC: Provincial Land Transport Framework (PLTF 2011/16)
The main thrust of this plan is public transport. No mention is made of the Hermanus CBD Bypass but “the R43 incoming to Hermanus during peak tourist season” is mentioned as an example of areas that experience seasonal congestion problems.
2.2 PAWC: Provincial Spatial Development Framework
The main principles are spatial justice, sustainability and resilience, spatial efficiency, accessibility and quality and livability. Private vehicle travel is dampened and denser development with public transport is promoted.
2.3 Overberg Municipality ITP (March 2013 update)
There is no mention of Hermanus CBD Bypass. The comprehensive needs assessment covers mostly public transport and non-motorised transport. A further update is in process.
2.4 Overberg Municipality Integrated Development Plan (IDP) (2015/16)
There is no mention of Hermanus CBD Bypass.
2.5 Overstrand ITP (March 2013 Revision)
This contains a generic needs assessment and lists some problematic intersections along R43. It lists the Hermanus CBD Bypass as one of a number of provincial projects.
2.6 Overstrand IDP (2015/16)
Mention is made that the current ITP will be reviewed in 2015/16 and also that Province is investigating a bypass together with a brief description, and that an EIA has started.
3. MUNICIPAL SUPPORT FOR BYPASS PROPOSAL - INCORRECT
The fact that the proposed bypass does not appear in the prescribed plans has been addressed in the Final Scoping Report through a number of disingenuous attempts to show that the proposal is in line with various plans which therefore can be said to support and approve the concept, and that the Overstrand Municipality approves the project. This is incorrect. A project initiated and supported by some Municipal officials does not equate to support by the Overstrand Municipality. It should be noted that as recently as 15 December 2015 the Executive Mayor of the Overstrand confirmed in a public meeting that the proposal had yet to come before the Municipal Council and that the Municipality has thus never indicated its support (or otherwise) for the proposed bypass.
4 NEED: TRAFFIC AND GROWTH – NOT PROVEN
4
4.1 Traffic into Hermanus
A clear need for the proposed bypass in terms of forecasted traffic based on traffic counts and growth projections is not proven.
Data on traffic coming into Hermanus shows a steady decline and then a recent upswing. Page 31 notes a regional decline in peak holiday traffic between 2007 and 2012 ascribed to economic stagnation and a depressed property market. Page 33 notes that traffic volumes were up 6.15% between 2012 and 2015 with peak holiday traffic growing at close to 6%. (Page 52 reiterates that figures from provincial station 5017 show a renewed moderate increase, exceeding 2007 figures for first time in 2013.)
These increases are likely to be a blip, given the current economic conditions. South Africa may well even be heading for recession later in 2016 for reasons that include; predictions of GDP growth of less than 1%, the exchange rate collapse (growth in foreign tourism because of this is to date only a fraction of what it should be), the extreme and prolonged drought, raised interest rates in a highly indebted population and raised inflation. The economy will not recover to previous levels for a long time – if ever.
4.2 Settlement growth and public transport
Page 34 anticipates growth of 1.5% pa, which will be mostly to the west of the town centre. Page 35 gives what is likely to prove to be an optimistic prediction of growth in the east - holiday homes may well be sold as the economy takes continuing strain.
Transport modelling results note that most trips originate in the west and are destined for central Hermanus and as growth is clearly to the west, it is predicted that this situation will continue, leading to increasing congestion. On page 38 the report notes that as these trips “would take up all or most of the road capacity in the CBD” the situation makes a strong case for a CBD bypass that would improve capacity in the CBD by some 25%.
On the contrary – this is a weak case for bypass, but a strong one for a simple linear bus system that would address the 75% of traffic going from the west to the CBD (see 7.2).
It should also be noted that the description of the land use in the areas that will be affected by the proposed bypass (page 42) makes no mention of the three churches a synagogue that are in the area.
4.3 CBD congestion
Although a bypass is predicted to improve road capacity in the CBD by 25%, the report also says (page 38) that the CBD will remain congested “due to expansion of CBD that would not have been possible without the bypass.” If the bypass makes no difference to the congestion it aims to solve, it would seem to be a good reason not to proceed with it.
4.4 Schools traffic
Page 57 notes that school traffic (particularly to Hermanus High School) is expected to significantly contribute to predicted (2035) figures of 1500ph in peak (combined) on the bypass. No mention is made of whether capacity constraints of the school/s in question have been considered - if and when the school is at capacity can alter the figures considerably. No consideration is given to the 5
impact of school transport systems – these should be encouraged to promote the efficient use of resources. Page 53 notes that Mountain Drive without the bypass is expected to go from 700 to 900 vph combined in 2035. In terms of a cost-efficiency assessment (not done), the bypass would therefore cater for the difference, i.e. 600 vph combined.
4.5 Highest traffic needs
Page 6 of Appendix J (Executive Summary of Overstrand Transport Plan) summarises the key findings of traffic modelling to 2035 as being:
dualling the R43 from Hawston to Sandbaai relieving traffic conditions on the R43 between Onrus and Hermanus through the proposed parallel link road in Sandbaai immediate dualling of Sandbaai Main Road between the R43 and Bergsig Street the proposed bypass (called the Fairways Relief Road) as a viable alternative to the original bypass proposal, which cannot be justified.
It is clear from Figure 4.9 of the full plan (page 76) that the R43 between Onrus and Sandbaai, and the Sandbaai intersection area, should receive priority. Although the Executive Summary states that the proposed bypass is “essential” to relieving CBD congestion, this is not proven by the figures.
5. URBAN EDGE
The creation of a new urban edge is mentioned more than once as a justification for the proposed bypass. For example page 15 states that it “will serve as an urban edge to the north of Hermanus” and page 16 acknowledges that “portions of the proposed bypass fall outside of the urban edge and would function as the urban edge for this section of the town.” Figure 2-3 on page 17 from Draft IDF shows a new urban edge within the Critical Biodiversity Area (i.e. in Fernkloof Nature Reserve) and following the proposed northern alignment. This shows that there is a clear awareness that there is already an existing urban edge for the northern part of Hermanus – the boundary of the Fernkloof Nature Reserve. It should be respected.
Page 16 notes the Overstrand IDP’s contention that urban sprawl threatens the long term sustainability of the Overstrand environment. Eating into an already existing urban edge – i.e. the boundaries of the Fernkloof Nature Reserve – is an example of this, proposed by the very people who are supposed to contain it.
6. BIAS AND A PREDETERMINED OUTCOME
A predetermined outcome of a road that will be built and bias towards the selection of the northern alignment is clear throughout the report.
There is an attempt to show a history to the current proposal for a bypass to justify the fact that it does not appear in any of the planning documents. However, past attempts to introduce a bypass to Hermanus have all been rejected as unnecessary and/or unaffordable.
Page 27 states that “a bypass around Hermanus has been under consideration for many years.” A sketch of a pre-1970 bypass proposal (date not visible on the sketch) is included; this proposal was later abandoned. Despite this, the statement is made that “This bypass nevertheless remained a 6
viable long-term option”. The early 1971 Fernkloof Nature Reserve proclamation made reference to a proposed new national road; this was in fact a Government Strategic Road envisaged as running as far as Agulhas to give fast access to the missile testing site at de Hoop. The 1971 proclamation thus reduced the original Fernkloof boundaries from those intended but not defined in the 1957 proclamation. This was rectified in the 2000 proclamation because by this time the idea of the strategic road had been abandoned. However, the statement is made that the concept now “requires a realignment of the original bypass proposal to avoid this now built up area” (the golf estate precinct south of the Fernkloof Nature Reserve).
Page 53 refers to a desire to “Secure a future road alignment at an early stage…a bypass alignment could have and should have been proclaimed at least 20 years ago…” Transport planning has moved on from the approach held 20 years ago, but clearly not in this study. Building roads to cater for (largely) private vehicles in urban areas where there is potential congestion is an outmoded, expensive and highly inefficient approach.
Bias towards the northern alignment is evident throughout the document. Page 76 notes that “Based on initial discussions with the Overstrand officials, representatives of the Hermanus High School and the Hermanus Sports complex, preference was given to the northern alignment with the exception of the Environmental officials who supported the southern alignment.” This is hardly surprising, given that the southern alignment would cut through the High School and Sports Complex. The Municipality’s Environmental Department has consistently voiced its concern for the protection of Fernkloof Nature Reserve and its boundaries against encroachment, and of the two proposed alignments, the southern alignment would encroach less than the northern one.
In this regard it should be noted that the organisational structure of the Overstrand Municipality houses the Environmental Department under that of Infrastructure; although not within the purview of this study, the implications of this questionable governance situation for the protection of the natural environment in the Overstrand are evident throughout this report.
The northern alignment is essentially a truncated version of the earlier proposal for a full bypass. It can thus be seen as a foot in the door for a full bypass, despite the study having clearly shown that it is not viable and will not be even in 20 years’ time (see 5 above). Page 57 refers to the bypass in terms of a western and eastern section, noting that school traffic will be the major contributor to the western section (currently proposed) and that traffic volumes between Hermanus and Stanford would have to increase substantially to justify construction of the eastern section.
Despite the proposed bypass not appearing in the requisite planning documents, it is nevertheless in the provincial budget with a scheduled start in 2019. This is a clear indication of a predetermined outcome.
7. SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVES - QUALITATIVE, SUBJECTIVE AND BIASED
The methodology used to screen alternatives and thus arrive at a preferred option is qualitative and subjective. Reasons for rejecting an alternative are merely listed. Other methodologies are available that use quantitative screening through scoring techniques, such as the Goals Achievement Matrix approach. An approach such as this could usefully involve interested and affected parties in the selection and weighting of goals and criteria. This would be far more transparent and the results more objective.
7
As it is, the process of selecting alternatives pays lip service to the principles of the project and makes a mockery of the public participation.
7.1 Relief road
The reasons given for screening out the relief road option (page 56 Table 3-2 and page 59 expanded) do not stand up to scrutiny.
Page 59 states that “upgrading the Relief Road to emphasise its mobility function would be in conflict (with) the Hermanus CBD Regeneration Framework.” This is factually incorrect. The use of the Relief Road as the new alignment for the R43 through Hermanus would be perfectly in line with the CBD Regeneration Framework, which specifically supports this road as a high order mobility route. On page 53 the Aims and Objectives of the Hermanus CBD Bypass state (inter alia) that it will “support the Hermanus CBD Regeneration Framework currently investigated by Hermanus Municipality”. Rejecting the Relief Road option is itself in contradiction with the CBD Regeneration Framework - the proposed bypass is immaterial to it, but the CBD Regeneration Framework supports the use of the Relief Road.
The high cost of expropriation is given as a further reason for rejecting this option in favour of the chosen alternatives of either the northern or southern alignments. Costing of the latter alignments does not however include any value of the land in the Fernkloof Nature Reserve and the costs involved in its expropriation.
7.2 Public transport
The reasons given for rejecting the public transport option also do not bear up to scrutiny and reflect clear bias. Page 56 states “It is considered doubtful that public transport would sufficiently reduce the traffic…relatively limited number of potential passengers. A major shift would require…” A major shift to public transport is not necessary - a simple linear bus system from the west into the CBD would make a significant difference to the projected congestion figures in the CBD, which are given as the main reason for the proposed bypass.
In addition, a schools bus system catering for schools traffic from the west would also make a major difference to the projected traffic to be catered for by the proposed bypass.
The subjective nature of assessment of alternatives is clearly evident in the statement on Page 56 that “Based on experience….the Joint Venture considered it unlikely that the general public will find such solutions palatable.”
It appears that no cognisance has been taken of the Overberg Mobility Strategy (Overberg District Municipality: Mobility Strategy Concepts (Vol. 1) 31 May 2012) prepared by a different section in the WCDTPW. This project has investigated and proposed an Integrated Public Transport Network for the Overberg and its municipalities – including the Overstrand. Inter- and inner-town bus routes for the greater Hermanus area have been investigated and are proposed. This mobility strategy is highlighted in the draft Overberg Integrated Transport Plan of June 2015 – again, prepared by the WCDTPW.
Building a road before first considering a more efficient use of existing roads is a lazy and costly solution indicating a predetermined outcome. The public transport option has clearly been screened out because the proposed bypass is to be funded by the WCDTPW Roads Infrastructure - so it is a road or nothing if that section is going to pay for it. 8
7.3 No Go alternative
Although the No Go alternative has not been considered in detail on the basis that it will be considered further on in the process, an unintelligible statement is made on page 74 that would seem to indicate a bias against it: “The No Go alternative may have a constraining effect on land use developments and improvements to accessibility and non-motorised transport in the CBD in the region to protect the mobility the existing route (sic)”
7.4 Selection of preferred alternatives for further consideration: the northern and southern alignments.
The two alternatives selected as the only ones for further consideration – i.e. the northern and southern alignments – are in fact the very ones that should have been screened out from the beginning on the grounds that the land necessary for their construction is not available for development.
Both alignments entail encroachment on land in Fernkloof Nature Reserve, a protected area of critical environmental importance. In addition, the northern alignment requires even more land to be used in the Fernkloof Nature Reserve for the bypass; of all the considered alternatives, the northern alignment is the one that is least beneficial.
No value has been ascribed to this land to be used for these alternatives, thus making these alternatives the most attractive from the point of view of cost. This “costing” is misleading and malicious.
8. ENVIRONMENTAL DESTRUCTION
Fernkloof Nature Reserve is recognised as an area of critical biodiversity importance both nationally and internationally. Building a road through the most vulnerable portion of this reserve will cause massive and irreversible environmental destruction. That this proposal should be initiated and supported by the authorities charged with the protection of this reserve is concerning in the extreme, and amounts to dereliction of duty.
Hermanus is bordered on its mountainous northern side by Fernkloof Nature Reserve. This small reserve also encompasses the well-known cliff paths edging the sea to its south, Hoy’s Kopple, and parts of the Klein River estuary. It has an astonishingly high level of biodiversity; six of the seven endemic plant families of the Cape Floral Kingdom are present in the reserve and many species are endemic to and grow only within Fernkloof. New species, and species previously not recorded in Fernkloof, continue to be recorded regularly in the reserve.
The reserve is easily accessible from the town and is much valued and appreciated by locals and foreign tourists who visit it. The proposed bypass will significantly affect this ease of access; page 76 refers to “the possible creation of a limited number of safe pedestrian underpasses to link the urban area to hiking trails in the FNR. “
Hermanus has lost much of its natural habitat to human settlement and associated infrastructure, and continues to do so as privately-owned land is built on. Species known to have occurred in the area have been lost forever, as have those still to have been discovered on these areas. Natural areas in the town are dwindling rapidly. The foresight that led to the original proclamation of 9
Fernkloof Nature Reserve is to be applauded, as is the concern of the under-resourced Environmental department of the Overstrand Municipality for its preservation. Sadly, this concern is not matched by those decision-making officials in the Municipality who are promoting the use of parts of Fernkloof Nature Reserve for the construction of the proposed bypass.
This priceless asset should be seen as belonging to all the people of Hermanus in trust for the future. Clearly, by proposing that it be used for the bypass, those officials responsible view it merely as derelict and unused land of no value. This is borne out by the fact that no value is ascribed to land in the costing of the various options (see 6.4 above).
The boundaries of Fernkloof Nature Reserve should be respected. Land within the nature reserve should not be available under any circumstances for consideration for development. This point was made consistently and vehemently supported during public meetings on the project, but has equally consistently been ignored.
8.1 Nature of land to be destroyed
Page 84 notes that “Fernkloof Nature Reserve conserves and protects at least seven different vegetation types, of which Overberg Sandstone Fynbos is the main type” and on page 85 that “natural terrestrial vegetation and habitats occur along the proposed Hermanus CBD Bypass route adjacent to Mountain Drive and north of the sports complex, (and) which fall inside the southern boundary of the Fernkloof Nature Reserve. The proposed bypass is located in Overberg Sandstone Fynbos at the ecotone with Hangklip Sand Fynbos and Agulhas Limestone Fynbos”.
The irreplaceable nature of this vegetation is acknowledged in Table 4-1 on page 84; Overberg Sandstone Fynbos is classified as Critically Endangered, Hangklip Sand Fynbos as Endangered and Agulhas Limestone Fynbos as Vulnerable. The areas along the west-east route of the proposed alignments have also been designated as Critical Biodiversity Areas by the South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI), and the wetlands adjacent to Fairways Avenue, which will also be destroyed should the road be constructed, as an Ecological Support Area.
It is unconscionable that the alignments selected as the only ones for further consideration should be those that will irretrievably destroy these vegetation types and habitats. The Final Scoping Study should have excluded both the Northern and Southern alignments from consideration, rather than actively proposing their destruction.
8.2 Vulnerability of the area under consideration
Fernkloof Nature Reserve is shaped somewhat like a kite, with a long thin “tail” extending to the west. This shape of this tail naturally means that the species in this area are particularly vulnerable to habitat destruction. It is precisely this part of the reserve that is targeted for the longest stretches of the two selected options, i.e. that along Mountain Drive.
8.3 Biodiversity in the area under consideration
The area of Fernkloof Nature Reserve adjacent to Mountain Drive is studied and documented regularly by the Hermanus Botanical Society. In 2008 fire covered this area; this provided an opportunity to record post-fire growth and compare it with past records. This post-fire documentation is updated regularly. Even within the extremely high biodiversity levels of Fernkloof Nature Reserve as a whole, this area is one of particularly rich biodiversity.
10
Sample plots documented in 2015 confirmed that the area continues to support a high level of biodiversity, with area to the west demonstrating particularly high levels. In addition, this area houses many species on the latest Red Data List.
It should be noted that Fernkloof Nature Reserve is currently being assessed for inclusion in the Cape Floristic Region World Heritage Site listing.
8.4 Ecological corridors
The porous borders and “soft” boundaries of Fernkloof Nature Reserve – by which is meant that there is minimal interference between the reserve and adjoining land - mean that some ecological corridors can still function as such. In the area under consideration the corridor between the reserve and Hoys’ Koppie, which is also part of the reserve, as well as that between the reserve and Little Hoy’s Koppie, are examples. Small mammals and reptiles regularly use these corridors and traverse between these areas freely.
The proposed bypass will cut off these corridors. Apart from the barrier of the road itself, page 72 refers to the erection of “some form of barrier (e.g. a low stone wall) (that) may be constructed to restrict access by pedestrians and animals.”
8.5 Fire implications
The implications of the bypass for fire management in the affected area have not been considered in the report. Fire is an essential requirement for fynbos regeneration; this ancient vegetation type has evolved in a fire-prone environment and needs fire to survive. The optimal period between fires is around 15 years; fires that are too frequent are harmful to the survival of certain species, and if fire is not allowed to run through fynbos at all this will severely jeopardise its survival. It can be expected that the presence of the bypass will negatively affect fire management in this portion of the reserve; fires are likely to be extinguished as they occur rather than risk damage to a very expensive road.
8.6 Eskom power lines
Eskom power lines that have been in place for many years run in the same area proposed for the bypass. If the road is built these power lines will have to be moved. This will entail still further massive disturbance to this very vulnerable area. The swathe of destruction that will be caused by building the proposed bypass through Fernkloof Nature Reserve will thus be far wider than the 25 metres wide road reserve stated on page 74.
These power lines and the implications of the road on their placing are not considered in the report. This is a major omission, which also has important cost implications.
8.7 Fernkloof Advisory Board opposition
The opinion of the Fernkloof Advisory Board regarding the proposed bypass is not covered in the Final Scoping Report. The Fernkloof Advisory Board is a statutory body appointed in terms of the Western Cape Nature Conservation Ordinance of 1974 to advise the Municipality on the management of the nature reserve. Between them, the current ten members represent the Cliff Path Management Group, the Hermanus Botanical Society, the Hermanus Bird Club, Vogelgat Nature Reserve, University of Cape Town Botany Department, Hermanus Heritage and Aesthetics 11
Committee, the Hermanus tourism community, Cape Nature, the Vermont Conservation Trust, the Overstrand Municipality Environmental Department, and Wards 3 and 13.
With the exception of the Ward 3 Councillor, who recused herself from the vote, the members voted unanimously in opposition to the proposed bypass using either of the selected alignments at a Board meeting held in July 2015.
It should also be noted that the proposed bypass is not mentioned in the Fernkloof Nature Reserve Integrated Management Plan.
8.8 Aesthetic and tourism impact
Page 98 notes that “while landscapes within the urban fabric of Hermanus are deemed to be of moderate significance, the mountain landscape immediately above the location of the proposed Hermanus CBD bypass is considered highly significant.” The bypass will impose a marked visual scar on this landscape.
Visitors, both local and international, do not come to Hermanus to marvel at the sight of buildings and roads. The town is justly renowned for its natural attractions, and the spectacular environment surrounding it is punted within the tourism industry as a major attractor.
International ecotourism is a significant factor of Fernkloof Nature Reserve. The impact of the knowledge within this fraternity that the authorities charged with the protection of Fernkloof Nature Reserve are prepared to destroy it to construct a road can be expected to be extremely negative.
9. COST-EFFECTIVENESS: MISUSE OF PUBLIC FUNDS
The Final Scoping Report costs the construction – at the cheapest option, that of the Northern alignment - at over R109 million. This costing is in itself misleading (see 7.4 above). Well over R109 million is proposed to be spent on three kilometres of road for which there is no clearly proven need, either current or future.
The proposed road may make a minor improvement to traffic within the CBD in the future, assuming optimistic forecasts of growth come to pass and that no interventions to encourage more efficient use of existing road infrastructure are made.
However, building the proposed road will cause massive and irreversible damage to a protected natural environment recognised nationally and internationally as an area of critical biodiversity importance.
Under no stretch of the imagination can constructing the proposed bypass using the either of the selected alignments be considered cost-effective. It represents a flagrant misuse of public funds, particularly within a context of economic contraction, widespread and growing poverty and genuinely pressing infrastructure needs.
Du Toit, Jessica
From: Yvonne Kotze
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged
87 Seventh Street Voelklip Hermanus 7200
Date:30 January 2016
SRK Consulting Postnet Suite #206 Private Bag X18 Rondebosch 7701
Attention: Jessica du Toit (email: [email protected] )
Dear Sir / Madam COMMENT ON THE FINAL SCOPING REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED NEW CBD BYPASS ROAD IN HERMANUS DEA&DP Reference Number: 16/3/1/2/E2/15/2124/14 Heritage Western Cape Reference Number: 14112403AS1203E
I am registered on your database of Interested and Affected Parties (I&AP) as an interested and affected party in the environmental impact assessment process for the proposed new CBD bypass road in Hermanus, referenced in the header above. My participation relates tomy concern for environmental impact.I have no direct business or financial interest in the EIA process or its outcome.
I have seen, read, understand and fully support the contents of the submissions made by the Hermanus Botanical Society in the attached document.I agree wholeheartedly with the contents thereof and hereby give instructions that this submissionbe registered as my own submission on the final scoping report.
If tourism in the Overstrand was really a priority the authorities should have prioritised the connection between Gansbaai and Hermanus.
1 This road with no shoulder on either side, no proper bridges to stop rivers from flowing over the road should be a priority!
Figures are available that will account for many lives lost and terrible accidents!
This road leaves much to be desired for. Why is it that authorities fail to grasp the long awaiting need for a so called R43 from hermanus to Stanford and Gansbaai.
Kindly confirm receipt and acceptance of the instruction of the contents of this email.
Yours faithfully
David & Yvonne Kotze
2 Du Toit, Jessica
From: Diana Parker
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged
As a long term resident of Hermanus and Stanford and an equally long term member of the Hermanus Botanical Society, I have very firm objections to the proposed by pass, deeming it an exceptionally costly, hugely damaging and totally unnecessary project. I believe it is aimed at making Hermanus a through route to the proposed Bantamsklip Nuclear site, to which I also have objections, for the same reasons as the by pass.
I am already registered on the I & AP database as far as I know.
1 39 West End Street Sandbaai 7200
Date 31st January 2016
SRK Consulting Postnet Suite #206 Private Bag X18 Rondebosch 7701
Attention: Jessica du Toit (email: [email protected])
Dear Sir / Madam
COMMENT ON THE FINAL SCOPING REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED NEW CBD BYPASS ROAD IN HERMANUS DEA&DP Reference Number: 16/3/1/2/E2/15/2124/14 Heritage Western Cape Reference Number: 14112403AS1203E
I am registered on your database of Interested and Affected Parties (I&AP) as an interested and affected party in the environmental impact assessment process for the proposed new CBD bypass road in Hermanus, referenced in the header above. My participation relates to my concern for environmental impact and also for the disastrous effect it would have on the Hermanus Country Market..
Kindly confirm receipt and acceptance of the instruction of the contents of this email.
Yours faithfully
P M Harvey
01 February 2016
SRK Consulting Postnet Suite #206 Private Bag X18 Rondebosch 7701
Attention: Jessica du Toit (email: [email protected]) & Sue Reuther (email: [email protected])
Copy to: Dear Sirs, Henri Fortuin Director: Development Management (Region 2) Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning 2nd Floor, Utilitas Building 1 Dorp Street Cape Town 8001
(email: [email protected])
Dear Sirs,
COMMENTS ON THE FINAL SCOPING REPORT: PROPOSED NEW CBD BYPASS ROAD IN HERMANUS (DEA&DP Ref: 16/3/1/2/E2/15/2124/14)
Your email dated 14th December 2015 informing us of the release of the above report for comment refers.
Below please find our summarised comments on the Final Scoping Report supported by our detailed comments in the attached document entitled “HRA’s Detailed Comments on the Final Scoping Report”.
1. Non-compliance with Transport Legislation
The planning of the proposed Bypass does not comply with the relevant transport planning provisions in the National Land Transport Act, 2009 (No. 5 of 2009) and its Regulations, that provide for National, Provincial and Municipal transport plans – the latter being integral parts of Municipal IDPs. This non-compliance with transport legislation in what is a transport project is considered to be a fatal flaw. 1
In the Final Scoping Report itself, an extensive analysis is presented of South African Legislation impacting on the project and the EIA process; a major omission is that of the relevant transport legislation, namely the National Land Transport Act, 2009 (No. 5 of 2009) and its Regulations.
2. Incorrect Statements that the Overstrand Municipality is in Support of the Bypass
There are a number of statements in the Final Scoping Report that imply that the Overstrand Municipality is in support of the Bypass and this is factually incorrect. It is disingenuous to imply that the project has municipal approval as a project supported by certain officials within the Municipality does not equate to approval by the Overstrand municipality.
3. Incorrect assumption of no monetary value of Fernkloof Nature Reserve land
The costing of the various alternatives mistakenly assumes no monetary value of the land that will need to be taken from the Fernkloof Nature Reserve, and, as a result, the screening out of an Upgraded Relief Road based partly on some R78m of property expropriation costs versus no Fernkloof Nature Reserve land costs for the Northern & Southern alternatives is patently incorrect.
4. The Screening of Alternatives is Qualitative & Biased
The screening of alternatives has been undertaken on a qualitative and biased basis, rather than on a quantitative and objective basis and this is a fatal flaw.
The quantitative and objective screening of alternatives should be undertaken using well-established matrix-type scoring techniques such as a “Goals Achievement Matrix” which considers how well the alternatives score in achieving goals, objectives or criteria such as technical performance, operational performance, environmental performance, financial and economic performance, etc.
The advantage of such techniques is that the selection and weighting of the goals, objectives or criteria can be done by both the project proponents as well as by interested and affected parties, thereby eliminating bias.
2
5. Incorrect Interpretation of what Municipal Support for the De- proclamation of Main Road means
In summarising the recent report on the CBD Regeneration Framework, an incorrect conclusion is drawn that Municipal support for the de-proclamation of the existing CBD Main Road as a Provincial Road necessarily equals support for a Provincial bypass through the Fernkloof Nature Reserve. In fact, de-proclamation of the Main Road through the CBD could equally take place with the alternative of a substantially-upgraded Relief Road and be in alignment with the CBD Regeneration Framework.
6. The Proposed Hermanus Bypass does not address the Highest Traffic Need on the R43 in Hermanus
In the Overstrand Transport Plan (Summary is in Appendix J), the 2035 traffic forecasts indicate that the worst traffic congestion is predicted to occur on the R43 just to the west of current proposed Bypass, in the vicinity of the Sandbaai intersection. The requirement of demonstrating need is therefore not satisfied, as based upon the Province’s own traffic forecasts; the proposed Bypass is not the highest priority need on the R43 in Hermanus.
7. Sensitive Land Uses have been Omitted
The most notable land uses adjacent to the Northern & Southern alignments are identified; however there is the significant omission of the cluster of three churches and the synagogue close to the cemetery and to Hoy’s Koppie.
Kindly confirm receipt of our comments and feel free to contact us should you wish to discuss any of the above in more detail.
Yours sincerely,
R A Stanway CHAIRMAN
3
PO BOX/PO 134 • HERMANUS • 7200 TEL : 071 507 5893 FAX/FAKS: 086 544 8682 E-MAIL/E-POS: [email protected] WEBSITE/WEBWERF: www.ratepayers.co.za
HRA’s DETAILED COMMENTS ON THE FINAL SCOPING REPORT
1. Non-compliance with Transport Legislation
Among other things, the National Land Transport Act, 2009 (No. 5 of 2009) and its Regulations (NLTA) provides for transport plans at all three spheres of Government, and as the Minister has not yet prescribed minimum requirements to be contained in these plans in terms of the NLTA, the minimum requirements prescribed in terms of the National Land Transport Transition Act, No 22 of 2000, apply to this Hermanus Bypass1.
The diagrammatic representation below from the Regulations indicates the various statutory transport plans and their interrelationship with one another and especially with the municipal Integrated Development Plans (IDPs) for both district and local municipalities.
This legislation prescribes this interlinking and co-ordination of policies and projects across spheres of Government in the transport sector. This Bypass project completely contradicts this legislation. Not only is it out of alignment with Western Cape Provincial Land Transport Framework & Provincial Spatial Development Framework but it is also out of alignment with the Overberg integrated Transport Plan & Integrated Development Plan as well as the Overstrand Integrated Transport Plan & Integrated Development Plan.
1 Government Gazette 30506 dated 30th November 2007
1
Each of these plans has been examined to check whether the Hermanus Bypass is an approved part of these plans and there is absolutely no evidence of this – despite the disingenuous attempts to prove otherwise viz.
PAWC: Provincial Land Transport Framework (PLTF 2011/16) - No mention of Hermanus CBD Bypass but mention that in addition to the City of Cape Town, there are other areas that experience seasonal congestion problems, including “the R43 incoming to Hermanus during peak tourist season”. Main thrust is public transport, including “Fully Integrated Public Transport Networks (IPTN) in the rural regions of the province”
PAWC: Provincial Spatial Development Framework – Main principles are Spatial Justice, Sustainability & Resilience, Spatial Efficiency, Accessibility and Quality & livability. To achieve this private vehicle travel is dampened and denser development with public transport is promoted. In particular, IPTN (BRT) is promoted – linking to the Overberg Mobility Strategy and Overberg Integrated Transport Plan.
Overberg Municipality ITP (Update March 2013) - No mention of Hermanus CBD Bypass. Comprehensive needs assessment but limited mostly to public transport and Non-motorised Transport issues. Link to Overberg Mobility Strategy in terms of priority direction. Current ITP update in progress but draft has similar emphasis on IPTN (BRT).
Overberg Municipality IDP (2015/16) - no mention of Hermanus CBD Bypass.
Overstrand ITP (March 2013 Revision) - Needs assessment very generic, lists some problematic intersections along R43 and lists the Bypass as a provincial project.
Overstrand IDP (2015/16) - Mention is made on p 40 that the current ITP will be reviewed in 2015/16 and also that Province is investigating a Bypass together with a brief description and that an EIA process has commenced.
2. Incorrect Statements that the Overstrand Municipality is in Support of the Bypass
In Final Scoping Report there are a number of disingenuous attempts to illustrate that the Overstrand Municipality supports the proposed bypass.
On p15 of the Final Scoping Report there is an unsuccessful attempt to illustrate that the proposed bypass is in alignment with the Overstrand IDP, where the bypass is simply listed in the IDP as a Provincial project. The Final Scoping Report states “as such the construction of the Hermanus Bypass is deemed to be consistent with the Overstrand IDP” and this does not represent the support of the Overstrand Municipality for the project.
2
On p29 of the Final Scoping Report the following statement is made, clearly to imply the investigation is being undertaken with the support of the Overstrand Municipality “Noting that the CBD Relief Road would not be suitable for proclamation as a provincial road, in 2008 the WCDTPW indicated that, with the support of Overstrand Municipality, they would pursue a new bypass route on the urban edge of the mountainside of Hermanus to serve regional traffic…”
On p30 of the Final Scoping Report the following statement is made which is intended to demonstrate that the Municipality supports the bypass “On 8 October 2008 the Overstrand Municipality initiated an investigation into the proclamation of a bypass along the mountainside of Hermanus. Work undertaken by the Overstrand Municipality culminated in an Initial Assessment Report dated May 2009 that supported the proposed 1970s bypass.” A project initiated and promoted by officials does not equate to Municipal support.
The Executive Mayor has confirmed as recently as 15th December 2015 that the Municipality has never indicated its support for the bypass.
3. Incorrect assumption of no monetary value of Fernkloof Nature Reserve land
As can be seen from the extract below from Figure 3-48 on p79 of the Final Scoping Report, no monetary value has been allocated to the Fernkloof Nature Reserve land that would need to be used for the bypass.
3
4. The Screening of Alternatives is Qualitative & Biased
On p56 of the Final Scoping Study Report (Table 3-2) alternatives considered are tabulated together with reasons for screening out all but the Norther & Southern alignments. The reasons for screening out the alternative of upgrading the Relief Road are listed as being
“insufficient road reserve/width available Intersection spacing too close Direct accesses in conflict with demand for mobility High expropriation costs Does not sufficiently address predicted future congestion Does not align with Hermanus CBD Regeneration Framework”
Just presenting a list (which itself contains inaccuracies) of some elements deemed to be insurmountable hurdles from the point of view of the promoters of the project cannot by any stretch of the imagination be accepted as sufficient justification for excluding an alternative.
The quantitative screening of transport alternatives (other than a full Benefit/Cost Analysis) should be undertaken using well-established scoring techniques such as a “Goals Achievement Matrix” which consider how well the alternatives score in achieving goals, objectives or criteria such as technical performance, operational performance, environmental performance, financial and economic performance, etc. (see simplified example below).
The advantage of techniques such a Goals Achievement Matrix is that the selection and weighting of the goals, objectives or criteria can be done by the project proponents as well as by affected and interested parties, thereby eliminating bias.
HERMANUS CBD BYPASS - GOALS ACHIEVEMENT MATRIX FOR SCREENING ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1 - Alternative 2 - Alternative 3 - C B D G oals Weight Northern S outhern R elief R d Alternative n - E tc s core* total s core* total s core* total s core* total 1 Technical P erformance 15 7 105 6 90 4 60 2 Operational P erformance 15 7 105 6 90 5 75 4 E nvironmental P erformance 30 2 60 4 120 7 210 5 Trading E ffect on CBD Businesses20 4 80 4 80 7 140 6 C os t 20 5 100 6 120 7 140
TOTALS 100 450 500 625 0
* scores are between 1 and 10 therefore the maximum score = 1000
4
5. Incorrect Interpretation of what Municipal Support for the De- proclamation of Main Road means
Municipal support for the de-proclamation of the existing CBD Main Road as a Provincial Road does not in any way preclude the substantial upgrading of the Relief Road, and its proclamation as the new Provincial Main Road (R43) through Hermanus. Furthermore this would in fact be perfectly in alignment with the CBD Regeneration Framework.
On p20 of the Final Scoping Report it is stated that “The report also makes reference to the investigation by the Provincial Roads Engineer into a bypass road to assume the regional mobility function currently performed by Main Road, and the subsequently intended de-proclamation of the relevant section of Main Road to enable the Overstrand Municipality to adapt the road environment to fulfil the function of an activity corridor.”
On p59 of the Final Scoping Report, it also states that “Increased emphasis placed on the accessibility function of the existing CBD Relief Road to the CBD in the Hermanus CBD Regeneration Framework. Upgrading/widening the CBD Relief Road to emphasise its mobility function would be in conflict with the Hermanus CBD Regeneration Framework. Upgrading the CBD Relief Road to a mobility route would also result in ongoing conflict between the needs to provide mobility, direct access, pedestrian and cyclist movement and safety and parking.”
This latter statement is factually incorrect as the CBD Regeneration Framework specifically supports the Relief Road as a “high order mobility route” – see the proposals extracted directly from the Framework – where the five priority areas proposed for upgrading are all within the collar of the Relief Road, namely; the Taxi Rank & Municipal Precinct; Swallow Park; Mitchell Square; Lemm’s Corner and the Old Harbour precinct.
6. The Proposed Hermanus Bypass does not address the Highest Traffic Need on the R43 in Hermanus
In Appendix J (Executive Summary of Overstrand Transport Plan), the transport modelling, current traffic volumes as well as future traffic forecasts to the year 2015 are summarised. The forecasts are focussed mainly on the R44 and R43, the main Provincial roads in the Overstrand stretching from Pringle Bay to Pearly Beach.
On p6, it is stated that “The following were the key findings of the modelling:
Future developments along the Hermanus-Hawston corridor will generate significant commuter traffic, which will ultimately require the dualling the R43 from Hawston to Sandbaai.
5
The proposed Class 4 parallel link road is vital for accommodating further development in Sandbaai, and will certainly relieve traffic conditions on R43 between Onrus and Hermanus. Sandbaai Main Road between the R43 and Bergsig Street will require immediate dualling to support further developments in the Sandbaai area. The proposed Fairways Relief Road is essential for accommodating the long- term development and traffic growth in and around the Hermanus CBD and could be considered as a viable alternative to the original Hermanus Bypass proposal. The original Hermanus Bypass proposal cannot be justified in terms of current traffic predictions.”
Figure 4.9 on p76 of the full Overstrand Transport Plan (extract below) indicates future need even more clearly by means of volume/capacity plots in different colours. It can be seen that according to the Province’s own forecasts, the section of R43 between Onrus and Sandbaai, as well as the Sandbaai intersection area is a much higher need than the proposed Hermanus Bypass.
6
7. Sensitive Land Uses have been Omitted
The most notable land uses adjacent to the Northern & Southern alignments are identified; however there is the significant omission of the cluster of four churches and cemetery close to Hoy’s Koppie.
On p42 Land Uses Surrounding the Bypass Route have been identified with the most notable ones being plotted in Fig 3-16 – see below. A significant omission is the cluster of four churches and the cemetery, namely;
The Hermanus Catholic Church, The Hermanus Synagogue, The Hermanus Church of England, and The Hermanus Seventh Day Adventist Church.
7
8
overstrand conservation foundation, trading as
2016-01-27
SRK Consulting Postnet Suite #206 Private Bag X18 Rondebosch 7701
Attention: Jessica du Toit (email: [email protected])
Dear Sir / Madam
COMMENT ON THE FINAL SCOPING REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED NEW CBD BYPASS ROAD IN HERMANUS DEA&DP Reference Number: 16/3/1/2/E2/15/2124/14 Heritage Western Cape Reference Number: 14112403AS1203E
The Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping process is intended to determine the nature and extent of the environmental impact assessment that will inform decisions by the environmental authorities on whether a proposed project will be given environmental authorisation and under what conditions. The scoping report for the proposed CBD bypass road fails to achieve this purpose because important issues are being side-lined by the two Joint Venture engineering companies that have been appointed by the Western Cape Provincial Department of Roads.
The scope of specialist investigations needs to be extended for the environmental impact assessment to become credible.
1 Vested Interests of SRK, EFG Engineering and iCE Group
It is of particular concern that the true interests of the engineering consultants EFG Engineers and iCE Group in the EIA process and subsequent construction work, should environmental authorisation be granted, are not clearly stated in the opening paragraphs of the Scoping report. The Statement of SRK Independence given is entirely inadequate. EFG and iCE stand to benefit substantially in the event that construction of the proposed bypass goes ahead. SRK will benefit from conducting specialist
TEL +27 28 316 2527 FAX 086 695 0046 CELL +27 72 185 5726
E-MAIL [email protected] WEBSITE www.whalecoastconservation.org.za
Green House, R43 (opposite Lynx Rd turn off to Vermont), Hermanus PO Box 1949 Hermanus South Africa 7200
PBO 18/11/13/4541 NPO 020-717
studies listed in the scoping report. The exact extent of the potential benefit to each of these three parties needs to be declared.
The issue of vested interest was raised (ref C&R schedule item 10) and dismissed with the response: “The need for the bypass was independently identified by the WCDTPW and the Joint Venture of EFG Engineers and iCE Group was appointed based on their professional consulting expertise.” In fact, establishing the need for the bypass formed part of the work to be performed by the Joint Venture and the need for the bypass is a serious point of dispute requiring independent confirmation. The data collected by the Joint Venture, in the opinion of respected experts, has not proved the need for the proposed bypass exists. Failure to subject the need for the bypass to thorough independent investigation will be grounds for review of a decision to proceed without such an investigation.
2 Interested and Affected Parties’ (I&AP) Issues are not adequately dealt with
The scoping report clearly reflects the views and designs of SRK, EFG and iCE. SRK will benefit from the specialist studies proposed to be done in the scoping report, and EFG and iCE will substantially benefit from the engineering and construction of the road should environmental authorisation be granted for the proposed road. The interests of the I&APs, however, are treated dismissively, often by the expression of opinion by roads engineers who are not specialists on the issues raised.
Tables 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4 list 164 written comments received from I&APs during the public participation process. In addition, verbal input was given at public meetings. From all of that input, only 8 issues are mentioned, somewhat dismissively, in the scoping report (paragraph 7.3).
Critically important issues raised by stakeholders, including several people and organisations with expert knowledge, are summarily dismissed in the Comments and Responses section (C&R) of the report (Appendix F). Several of these should be recognised in the scoping report as important to decisions about transportation in and around the Hermanus CBD, and to the economic wellbeing of the community. Provision needs to be made for independent specialist studies to address these important issues raised by I&APs.
2.1 Need for the Bypass needs to be independently established
Key among the issues requiring independent specialist review is the need for the proposed bypass in the first instance. It is strongly contended (refer C&R Schedule items 35 and 39) that there is a serious misalignment between Western Cape Provincial Roads Department policy and practice with overarching policy within the Western Cape Provincial Spatial Development Framework (PSDF) and with strategic statements found within the Western Cape State of the Environment Report (WCSoER). The “need” for the proposed bypass has more to
Page 2 of 6
do with compliance with Roads Department policy and standards than with the needs of the Hermanus community.
The responses given to the comments referred to in C&R items 35 and 39 are indicative of the myopic arrogance of the roads engineers who presume that they can set aside the expertise of spatial planning specialists with the response that the policy misalignment is “perhaps as a result of insufficient consultation between all parties when policies were developed.” And dismissing the significance of Roads Department policy alignment to the PSDF with the response that “The PSDF provides overarching provincial guiding principles and spatial policies, but lacks the necessary substance and detail to deal with the complexities of specific urban transport problems.”
Since none of the engineers responsible for making the responses is a spatial planning specialist, the scope of the EIA should include a specialist study on the most appropriate solution to the transport problem in and around the Hermanus CBD in the light of the PSDF policies and strategies. The PSDF policies and strategies should not be set aside by opinions expressed by roads engineers. Unless it can be shown that the PSDF policies and strategies are not appropriate under the circumstances, Roads Department policies should be subordinate to the PSDF and be compliant with them.
The WCC contends that the Provincial Roads Department and its appointed consultants are not the appropriate authority and specialists to solve the Hermanus mobility and access challenge: they are simply addressing the symptoms of bad urban design and making less likely the implementation of the PSDF by unnecessarily increasing road capacity into the CBD.
Town planning specialists, who have embraced the vision, strategies and policies contained in the PSDF, should be engaged to propose an integrated strategy and plan that addresses the urban design problems that exist in and around the CBD. In consultation with the community, these specialists should develop proposals consistent with the PSDF, including how to address access and transportation issues for all of the community; private vehicle owners and those less privileged.
The Provincial Roads Department should be responding to the needs identified by town planning specialists and not be imposing road building solutions that do not solve the urban design and social problems.
It needs to be explored whether the interests of Hermanus will not be better served by municipal standard CBD bypass roads, as is already achieved by the Checkers bypass and will in the future be by the planned completion of the Schulphoek Road bypass. The provincial standard R43 should perhaps terminate, say, at the Schulphoek Road intersection on the west and at the eastern entrance to Voelklip and not pass through Hermanus at all. Hermanus should be viewed
Page 3 of 6
as a destination, the local business centre for the Overstrand with all roads internal to Hermanus being municipal roads. Traffic from the N2 to destinations east of Hermanus would be better routed via Caledon. This concept should be subjected to rigorous independent urban and spatial planning and transport investigation in the context of the PSDF policies and strategies.
The bypass proposals included in the EIA scoping report assume that it is acceptable to expropriate portions of a proclaimed nature reserve, and presumably also assume that this is a low-cost option because it is open, undeveloped land. The ethical and legal issues associated with this presumption by the Roads Department need independent investigation with a view to reviewing Department policy.
2.2 Alternative solutions to encroaching into the Fernkloof Nature Reserve need to be found.
Encroachment into the Fernkloof Nature Reserve should be unthinkable. Fernkloof Nature Reserve is part of the community’s natural heritage and a motivation is being developed for its registration as a World Heritage Site; its boundaries should never be compromised. On the contrary, as motivated in the PSDF for such important conservation-worthy areas, its boundaries should be secured against erosion and expanded, where opportunities arise, to add buffer areas to the core conservation area, to secure and protect ecological corridors and to allow the creation of infrastructure supporting the educational potential and tourist appreciation of the reserve.
An independent urban planning / spatial planning specialist study should identify alternative solutions to the proposed bypass that offer solutions that avoid further anthropogenic impact on the Fernkloof Nature Reserve and the fragile ecological corridors from the main Fernkloof Nature Reserve area to Hoy’s Koppie and the coastal areas of the Reserve.
2.3 Appropriate valuation of Fernkloof Nature Reserve
The bypass proposals included in the EIA scoping report assume that it is acceptable to expropriate portions of a proclaimed nature reserve, and presumably also assume that this is a low-cost option because it is open, undeveloped land. The specialist studies need to address the ethical and legal issues associated with expropriation of nature reserve land held in trust for future generations and the value of the land involved given the importance of the land as a habitat for endangered and threatened botanical species and the ecosystem services the land provides.
Page 4 of 6
3 Environmental Impact concerns and specialist studies need to be clearly defined and aligned
Specialist studies recommended in the scoping report need to correlate directly to the key issues and alternatives that require further investigation. The scoping report fails to clearly define the key issues identified during the scoping process that require specialist studies and does not correlate the studies to be performed with the issues and alternatives. By this stage of the process there ought to be a concise list of specific, well defined impact concerns, each with a corresponding recommended specialist study and terms of reference. This is absent in the scoping report. Instead there is a vague list of seven specialist report headings given in table 7.1 without any terms of reference.
It is noted with concern that three of the seven proposed specialist studies are to be performed by SRK themselves, which is unsatisfactory given the role of SRK as the independent EIA process facilitator.
4 Conclusions and Recommendation
In conclusion, WCC submits that the scoping report requires review before the EIA impact assessment process can continue. The process is not credible with the scoping report in its current form. 4.1 Statements made by roads engineers about the inappropriateness of PSDF and WCSoER policies and strategies for the Hermanus situation require investigation by spatial planning specialists and comment from DEA&DP. The dismissive stance of roads engineers is not accepted as authoritative and a truly independent review should be conducted of the C&R schedule to identify all issues that merit proper investigation by specialists. 4.2 The scoping report needs to clearly define the issues that specialist studies are required to address and give the TORs for each study. 4.3 The scoping report does not address the most serious concerns expressed by well- qualified individual and organisational I&APs that have made comment. Verifiably independent specialist studies need to be added to at least address:
The need for CBD bypass road made to provincial roads standards, with reference to the possibility of Checkers and Schulphoek municipal bypass roads sufficing, and Hermanus being viewed as the business centre of the Overstrand without a provincial road running right through it.
The insistence by EFG and iCE engineers that no alternatives exist that do not require encroachment into, and deproclamation of portions of, Fernkloof Nature Reserve.
The real value of the land proposed to be expropriated from Fernkloof Nature Reserve that is the irreplaceable habitat of endangered and threatened
Page 5 of 6
botanical species and how the community will be compensated for that in the event that expropriation is decided.
Kindly acknowledge receipt of this submission.
Yours faithfully
Rob Fryer General Manager
Page 6 of 6 Du Toit, Jessica
From: Reuther, Sue Sent: 01 February 2016 11:41 AM To: Du Toit, Jessica Subject: FW: Hermanus bypass
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged
From: Johnny Walker [ mailto:[email protected] ] Sent: 01 February 2016 11:35 To: Reuther, Sue Subject: Hermanus bypass
Hi Sue Please proceed with bypass asap Thanks J C Walker 5 Seemeeu Crescent Vermont 0837774275
1 Du Toit, Jessica
From: [email protected] Sent: 01 February 2016 11:46 AM To: Du Toit, Jessica Subject: re Proposed Hermanus Bypass
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged
Jessica , whilst the above will not impact on myself directly although it would have had it gone all the way along behind the town and join the R43 at / past 17 th Avenue , Voelklip I realise any “development “ is unfortunately going to impact negatively on some people I only hope that the relatives of those objecting do not live to see another “Knysna “ in due course when they could have had a bypass but voted against it and have now paid the price . I am not quite sure how many millions of square KMs of fynbos we have / need protecting but the present suggestion strikes me as having as small an impact as possible if it goes along behind the proposed sports ground etc . Regards , Alastair Lyle
1 Du Toit, Jessica
From: George Hill
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged
MUIZENBERG HISTORICAL CONSERVATION SOCIETY (Association Incorporated under Section 21 No 2000/0049/08) (Registered in terms of the Non-Profits Organisation Act No 71 No 009-512 NPO)
1 February 2015
For attention: JESSICA DU TOIT
Dear Ms du Toit
COMMENT ON THE FINAL SCOPING REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED NEW CBD BYPASS ROAD IN HERMANUS
The Muizenberg Historical Conservation Society wishes to object to the proposed bypass road in Hermanus, on the basis that it would be an intrusive and unacceptable intervention in the architectural and aesthetic fabric of Hermanus, which is at present a fine example of a preserved and manicured urban landscape situated in a rare seaside setting, flanked by a unique fynbos mountainside. A bypass road would be a violation of all of this.
Please register us as an Interested and Affected Party.
Yours sincerely George Hill Chairman Muizenberg Historical Conservation Society P.O. Box 158 Muizenberg 7951 [email protected] 021 788 5542
1 Du Toit, Jessica
From: Leigh Bouwer
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged
To whom it may concern
My family and I are vehemently against the proposed bypass road in Hermanus. There are a multitude of reasons why it should not go ahead. The high school needs the field that will be cut for the road. The safety of students next to a major road. Traffic sounds interrupting schoolng. I have four children so this affects us strongly. My husband is a member of the cricket club and plays rthere weekly. The proposal is devastating in that regard. The hermanus country market has become a huge part of community life and provides an income to a plethora of people. The road will destroy thatt Hermanus should not have a bypass road. Please listen to us.
Warm regards Leigh Bouwer 0727792454
Sent from my Huawei Mobile
1 Du Toit, Jessica
From: Cynthia Young
Importance: High
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged
01-February-2016
SRK Consulting Postnet Suite #206 Private Bag X18 Rondebosch 7701
Dear Madam COMMENT ON THE FINAL SCOPING REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED NEW CBD BYPASS ROAD IN HERMANUS DEA&DP Reference Number: 16/3/1/2/E2/15/2124/14 Heritage Western Cape Reference Number: 14112403AS1203E
I am registered on your database of Interested and Affected Parties (I&AP) as an interested and affected party in the environmental impact assessment process for the proposed new CBD bypass road in Hermanus, referenced in the header above. My participation relates to my concern for environmental impact. I have no direct business or financial interest in the EIA process or its outcome.
I have seen, read, understand and fully support the contents of the submissions made by the Hermanus Botanical Society in the attached document. I agree wholeheartedly with the contents thereof and hereby give instructions that this submission be registered as my own submission on the final scoping report.
I would also like to add, that I am a trader at The Hermanus Country Market which is held every Saturday morning at the Hermanus Cricket Club grounds. I sell handmade greeting cards as a source of income. I have been doing so for 5 years. And am very concerned that the proposed Bypass will dramatically influence the wonderful atmosphere that we have worked so hard all these years to create. Not to mention the loss of income to 70+ traders! No one will want to come to a Country Market next to a huge Main Road!! Yuck!
Besides this fact, the Fernkloof Nature Reserve is one of my absolute favourite places to go walking. It is completely unfathomable that the proposed Bypass will cut through it!! I am shocked!!
1 From what I understand from all the information that has been available, no one has actually made it clear WHY on earth we even need this Bypass?? As I have mentioned in a previous email, I have lived in Hermanus since 2001, and in all that time, even during the busiest Festive Seasons, I can only remember once being caught in a ‘traffic jam’, and that was only due to the freak rain storm that we had that day over Whale Festival. I live in Voelklip, and commute in and out of Hermanus CBD regularly and there is no issue with traffic at all. So, for goodness sake, please leave our beautiful town as it is! We DO NOT NEED YOUR BYPASS!!
Kindly confirm receipt and acceptance of the instruction of the contents of this email.
Yours faithfully
Cynthia Young 27 10 th Avenue Voelklip Hermanus 7200
2 Du Toit, Jessica
From: P.A.M. Bruce-Brand
Importance: High
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged
Hi, I definitely would not like to see a bypass road running through Northcliff, down through the Country Market. Those back roads are already congested with “school” traffic. It will spoil the mountain and my area NORTHCLIFF!!! I bought in this area as it is so convenient and away from the heavy traffic so why would I want to promote heavy traffic through my piece of heaven?? Once the Mall comes a lot of traffic will already be diverted that side and hopefully town will be less congested with traffic.
Regards Pam
1 JOHN KATZ
2,7tn Floor, Atterbury House 9 Fliebeeck Street Cape Town 8001 Te|.021418 5566
E rn a i | : ioh n.I!rt4tor@ iafriceg,gn
Business. Home: P.O. Box 316 "Elergzicht" CF,PE TOWN 81100 7 Chester Dlrive BITiHOPSCOUIRT Tr:l: 021 761 7350
1 February 201(i
Jessica du Toit c/o SRK Consulting
Per email: ied [email protected]
Dear Jessica,
RE: SLT TRUST (Erven 5764,& 5762) situated aft37 & 33 Sellkirk Street, llermanus Heights, Hermanus / Opposition to proposed alignment of Flermanus CBDI Bypass
| ,write to you at the instruction <>f the SLT Trust, the registered owner of Erven 5764 & 5762 Hermanus Heights, situated at37 & 33 Selkirk Street, Hermanurs ("the trust"), on which is; situated the writer's holiday hor,rse and set out below its opposition to the proposed illignment r:f the Hermanus CBD Bypass.
As a stakeholder not previously regis;tered I set out below the trust's conlact ,Cetails ian 1. Name - SLT Trust 2. Preferred method of notification - email: plhn.ltrtzno@iafrica,com 3.1 Financial and personal interest - ther trus;t is the owner of a holtday hot-lser o1'the writer and his wifer situated at 37 Selkirk Street, Flerrmanus Heights, and il:s adjoining fynbos 1;arden situated at :33 Selkirk Streret, Hermanus tleigl-tts. 3.2 I and my wife are both trustees of the trust which holiday houser we, oLtr thnee sons and their children (our grandchildren) visit usually during t'wo weekencls every five weeks and stay for a lonlEer period for approxinrately ten dilys over Easter and three ,ffeekrs over the Christrras/New Y'ear oeriod. 4. I am also a member of tlte cornmittee of tlre Hermanus Shul/Synagogue (Hermernus HebrewCongregation) urhich is situated in Joser Burman Drive, Eerstcliff, Herrnatrus, 1 of the 2 routes of the propcsed CBD bypass, which Synagogue is now registered ers a stakeholder so that it receives all literaturer in respect of this application, 5. The trust's opposition to the bypass has been urell set out on pages 1 arrd 6 of trer Herntanus Times, issue 9 dat,ad 22112115 with lvhich opposition the trust associiltes itself and requests be incorpo'ated into its oppos;itior. Would you kindly acknowledge receipt of this erreril and confirm that the SLT Tnust has been registered as a stakeholder witlr an irrterest and thrat itr; opposition to the pro;loried Flerrnarrus CBD bypass has been recorderj, Yourdi ittitrutty tl JOHN KATZ Du Toit, Jessica From: Paula Combrink Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Dear Consultants of SRK As a registered I&AP I wish to reiterate my complete and utter objection to this ludicrous road proposal despite all your investigations and paper work as this road will cause more harm than benefit to Hermanus. To mention just a few of my concerns ~ This proposed amount of money would be better spent making a dual road between Hawston to Sandbaai as way more necessary road congestion alleviator if theres money to be spent in this area. The detriment to our environment in your proposal is of huge concern and can never be repaired. The devaluing to existing residential property needs to be taken into serious account The potential harm on learners at the Hermanus High School with a major road is a complete horror Need I carry on …… I think not. My objection still stands in everyway Please recognise this email as further correspondence to this proposed bypass as a serious objector and reply by email receipt of this mail. Yours sincerely Paula Combrink 1 Du Toit, Jessica From: Andrew Thompson Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Dear Ms du Toit I am regularly resident in Eastcliff, although not for the entire year. I have been made aware of the proposed Hermanus bypass road plan by Paula Combrink and have some views to share. If these views need to be submitted in a different format, please advise, but I believe that I am a legitimate interested and affected party, and I simply want a good outcome for Hermanus. I am very sympathetic towards the conservationists, who quite rightly defend the natural areas of Hermanus against development which is inadequately justified. I also have a practical view of the proposed route as I understand it: For me the big thing is that the new road will only modestly relieve some congestion around the Hermanus CBD. This because there are already three options to get through the CBD when coming from the Cape Town side of town and heading East towards Stanford. The same is clearly the case for traffic in the reverse direction, from Stanford towards Cape Town. These are: • Into the CBD on the Main road, turning left at the traffic light in town and then through the circle past the Marine Hotel • Left at the circle at the old synagogue, behind Checkers, right at the traffic circle and then left at the circle at the Marine Hotel • Left into Mountain Road at Gateway, along the “top” of Northcliff and around Hoy’s kopje, then back to the Main road at the Eastcliff shops or at Stemmet St If these routes are congested, one can even drive via the new harbour, along Westcliff Drive, past the old harbour along the sea front and then right at the Main road, through the circle and past the Marine Hotel After all those choices of route through or past the CBD, ALL of the through traffic thus still has to converge at the Eastcliff shops, then on to Main road to the Mossel River circle, through Voelklip and to Stanford and beyond. So, independent of the unnecessary loss of natural fynbos areas on the proposed route, it simply avoids the congestion issue for through traffic, if there is one. As such, it must be a waste of money and I oppose it on that basis. Kind regards Andrew Thompson 10 Protea Rd Eastcliff 082-907-3533 1 Ian A. W. Macdonald (PhD) International Environmental Consultant Physical address: 18, Kube Yini Private Game Reserve, Bayala,KZN 3966 South Africa Postal address: P.O. Box 29 Hluhluwe 3960 South Africa E-mail address: [email protected] (PREFERRED MEANS OF COMMUNICATION) 27 January 2016 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN COMMENTS ON THE FINAL SCOPING REPORT ON THE PROPOSED NEW CBD BYPASS ROAD IN HERMANUS: DEA&DP ref 16/3/1/2/E2/15/2124/14 Dear Sir/Madam, My opinion on this matter, which is not in any way clouded by any conflicts of interest as I have no direct business, financial, personal or other interest in the application, is as follows: 1. The need for this bypass has not been well-established. There is a very real possibility that it will actually exacerbate the very problems that it is allegedly going to help solve. 2. Both the Northern and Southern alignments of the proposed Bypass Road should have been excluded as viable alternatives to the “No Go” option on the basis of the irreversible damage their construction would have done to the extremely important biodiversity conservation area, the Fernkloof Nature Reserve. 3. This biodiversity damage will be seriously amplified by (a) the realignment of the power lines that will become necessary if these bypass roads were ever to be constructed and (b) the alterations to the long-term fire regime in the areas of fynbos adjacent to the bypass for the indefinite future once such bypass road had been constructed. The above two considerations were not adequately addressed in the Final Scoping Report. 4. The public transport alternative should have been much more exhaustively investigated as part of this Final Scoping Report – there are numerous other ecological (e.g. climate- change impacts), social and economic factors that ought to have been taken into account which would have resulted in this public transport alternative being much more strongly favoured in any analysis of FUTURE impacts. 5. The economic costs of these two alternative bypass roads are massively underestimated as no costs were attributed to the loss of biodiversity and to the loss of “sense of place” that these roads would give rise to IN PERPETUITY. It is my considered opinion that neither of these two alternative bypass roads should be constructed and that alternative solutions need to be found. In particular, the introduction of an improved public transport system (very few of the users of Hermanus actually benefit from having their vehicles with them once they are in the town – a “Park and Ride” system would appear to me to be the obvious solution – making a visit to Hermanus rather similar to a visit to the currently internationally popular V&A Waterfront in Cape Town). Yours sincerely, Ian Macdonald R.G.L. STELZNER SC Koningin Victoria- Queen Victoria straat 40 Street KAAPSTAD 8001 CAPE TOWN Telefoon (021) 424-6301 Telephone Faks (021) 423-5861 Fax E pos [email protected] E-mail 2 February 2016 SRK Consulting Postnet Suite #206 Private Bag X18 Rondebosch 7701 Attention: Jessica du Toit (email: [email protected]) Dear Sirs / Madam COMMENT ON THE FINAL SCOPING REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED NEW CBD BYPASS ROAD IN HERMANUS DEA&DP Reference Number: 16/3/1/2/E2/15/2124/14 Heritage Western Cape Reference Number: 14112403AS1203E Kindly register me as an interested and affected party (I&AP) in the environmental impact assessment process for the proposed new CBD bypass road in Hermanus, referenced in the header above. My participation relates to my concern for environmental impact. I have no direct business or financial interest in the EIA process or its outcome. I have seen, read, understand and fully support the contents of the submissions made by the Hermanus Botanical Society in the attached document. I agree wholeheartedly with the contents thereof and hereby give instructions that this submission be registered as my own submission on the final scoping report. The resultant noise the traffic will generate on the proposed road, the increased fire hazard with motorists throwing their cigarettes out of the window and the detrimental effect the road will have on the value of my property at 16 Fernkloof Village, Hermanus, owned by a family trust of which I am the trustee, are further grounds for objection. The most important ground of objection for me, amongst all the others which are of equal importance and have the same validity, however, is the destruction of part of an iconic and irreplaceable piece of nature in the form of the Fernkloof Nature reserve. I cannot believe anyone will be so short sighted and do this to the residents of the town and to future generations by carving up an impeccable piece of nature which should be cherished and preserved, not torn up and abused. Kindly confirm receipt and acceptance of the instruction of the contents of this email. Yours faithfully, R G L STELZNER SC Du Toit, Jessica From: Gary Combrink Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Dear Consultants of SRK As a registered I&AP I wish to reiterate my complete and utter objection to this ludicrous road proposal despite all your investigations and paper work as this road will cause more harm than benefit to Hermanus. To mention just a few of my concerns ~ This proposed amount of money would be better spent making a dual road between Hawston to Sandbaai as way more necessary road congestion alleviator if there’s money to be spent in this area. The detriment to our environment in your proposal is of huge concern and can never be repaired. The devaluing to existing residential property needs to be taken into serious account The potential harm on learners at the Hermanus High School with a major road is a complete horror As well as the above the new road will only modestly relieve some congestion around the Hermanus CBD. This because there are already three options to get through the CBD when coming from the Cape Town side of town and heading East towards Stanford. The same is clearly the case for traffic in the reverse direction, from Stanford towards Cape Town. These are: • Into the CBD on the Main road, turning left at the traffic light in town and then through the circle past the Marine Hotel • Left at the circle at the old synagogue, behind Checkers, right at the traffic circle and then left at the circle at the Marine Hotel • Left into Mountain Road at Gateway, along the “top” of Northcliff and around Hoy’s kopje, then back to the Main road at the Eastcliff shops or at Stemmet St If these routes are congested, one can even drive via the new harbour, along Westcliff Drive, past the old harbour along the sea front and then right at the Main road, through the circle and past the Marine Hotel After all those choices of route through or past the CBD, ALL of the through traffic thus still has to converge at the Eastcliff shops, then on to Main road to the Mossel River circle, through Voelklip and to Stanford and beyond. So, independent of the unnecessary loss of natural fynbos areas on the proposed route, it simply avoids the congestion issue for through traffic, if there is one. As such, it must be a waste of money and I oppose it on that basis. My objection still stands in everyway Please recognise this email as further correspondence to this proposed bypass as a serious objector and reply by email receipt of this mail. Yours sincerely Gary Combrink 1 Du Toit, Jessica From: Gert Cloete Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Good morning, Herewith an opinion I wrote which was published as a letter in the Hermanus Times. I feel that the Scoping Report was pretty, but inadequate in that the scales of the various diagrams were too small to properly illustrate the dynamics of the project. It will be impossible for whoever has to make an informed decision to see from the diagrams the various points I have raised such as circles that are too 1 small and the extensive earthworks where some of these proposed circles will be situated, especially for instance in the area of the cemetery as well as the cuttings in the mountainside. The unavailability of contour maps in the presentation and the fact that locally the only maps available are 20 metre contours makes it impossible to see the problems of the extent of the excavations that will be made and therefore to assess the damage to the mountain. May I add that the mountain is quite unstable as can be seen from the various slides that that happened 2 after the rain storms in November 2013 and January 2014. Also, once again, although there is mention of measures to divert rainwater the mountain usually absorbs rainwater and these manifest themselves as springs in all sorts of unlikely places. so, firstly, can existing natural ducts handle the water that comes off an artificial surface, water that normally is absorbed by the mountain and secondly do the designers know where those springs are going to pop up? In Voelklip suburb whole sections of streets have had to be dug up and rebuilt because of such springs and whole blocks of streets 3 were simply washed away during the above mentioned storms because the mountainside is so unstable. This implies very expensive foundations for the proposed bypass, or continuous roadworks. It seems as if all of the above is so damning that the project should not even be forwarded for the Environmental Impact Assesment G. J. Cloete Vierdestraat, 319, Voelklip, Hermanus, 7200 Posadres: Posbus 1367 4 Hermanus, 7200 Tel: 028 314 0773 Sel: 082 9633 041 ------Forwarded message ------l and From: Hermanus Times Editor Beste mnr Cloete Dankie vir u skrywe. Dit sal in hierdie week se HT verskyn. Groete Cilene 5 From: Gert Cloete [mailto: [email protected] ] Sent: 25 January 2016 03:26 PM To: Hermanus Times Editor Subject: Proposed Hermanus Bypass. The FINAL SCOPING REPORT : PROPOSED NEW CBD BYPASS ROAD IN HERMANUS has been available at various Overstrand libraries for inspection for some time now, over the holiday period. Closing date for comment is 5 February, 2016. As an interested observer I would like to underline the following, in English for the benefit of everybody although I am Afrikaans: 1) Not a solution, only a step in the direction of the original by-pass proposal. It seems as if the proposed bypass is an incremental move towards the full bypass which was blocked by the Residents Opposed to Bypass (ROB) -movement rand others recently The so- called "CBD Relief Road" is perceived inadequate after only a few years and the proposed bypassed is termed a "Medium Term Solution", so how long will it be before the full bypass is mooted as the only solution? Thinking ahead on behalf of the engineers the northern route is preferable since it has fewer squigely little curves like the southern route allowing traffic to move more freely and when the time for the full by-pass dawns half the road is already done, Also, if one observes the improvements to the off-road parking behind the High School one can imagine that the local authority is also aware of this otherwise they will have just wasted a lot of money, which to be fair they are not usually guilty of. 2) Scarred mountain and Noise The proposal is for a road reserve of 25 metres and the Scoping Report has numerous photograghs of various areas where the bypass will be situated. From the Gateway start the mountain slope appears gentle in the photograghs but if viewed from the look- out on Rotaty Drive it obviously is anything but and extensive cuttings into the mountain side will be made, and the slope on the proposed northern route is even worse. Now since the Scoping Report diagrams indicating the proposed routes do not show contours (conveniently?) it is a guess 6 but I would think some of these may be in excess of 5 to 10 metres That is a horrible scar which nothing on earth can ever camoflage or hide The noise of traffic elevated above the town will be deafening and will be heard all over town. Imagine our biker friends screaming along all those nice curves at anytime but especially at night. 3) Slow Due to space constraints all the proposed circles will be of about the same size an the ones on the CBD Relief Road, and as we all know these are way too small and slow, and although the proposed speed limit will be either 80 km / h or 60 one can hardly think of these as feasible along any of these routes. 4) Cost ("bang for your buck" The Scoping Report states that only 7% of traffic entering Hermanus leave the town straight through BUT the Report contains various cost estimates depending on various options of route and traffic circles and the cheapest estimate is R 110 million ! Now even if province is paying that seems like an expensive way to accommodate 7% of the town's through traffic. 5) Heavy vehicles From personal observation and experience a significant portion of our traffic woes is caused by large articulated trucks who, over and above making heavy work of negotiating our circles are also the supply trucks for the various chain stores and they do not pass through the town, they first supply their shops before continuing So, for these the proposed by-pass is also irrelevant. 6) Sacrifice Engineers love challenges, solving problems., but at what cost to us the residents (victims) Even after Mr Carlisle the previous minister blocked the ppass from being built the engineers blithely went on their merry way blowing millions on plan, scoping reports etc for something which has no real benefit for Hermanus. And, as an engineer from out of town who holidays here pointed out, the real problem of traffic congestion only occurs for a limited period every year. so, as we say in Afrikaans: Is die kool die sous werd"? Gert Cloete G.J.Cloete, 319 fourth Street, Voelklip,Hermanus, Tel: 028 314 9773 7 Du Toit, Jessica From: Ronel du Plessis Importance: High Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Please PLEASE STOP THE BYPASS that cuts through the market site!!! Right-click here to download pictures. To This e mail has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. help protect your privacy, Outlo ok prevented automatic download of this picture from the In ternet. Avast logo www.avast.com 1 Du Toit, Jessica From: Judy Kirby Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged 3768 Morea Road 2-2-2016 SRK Consulting Postnet Suite #206 Private Bag X18 Rondebosch 7701 Attention: Jessica du Toit (email: [email protected] ) Dear Sir / Madam COMMENT ON THE FINAL SCOPING REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED NEW CBD BYPASS ROAD IN HERMANUS DEA&DP Reference Number: 16/3/1/2/E2/15/2124/14 Heritage Western Cape Reference Number: 14112403AS1203E I am registered on your database of Interested and Affected Parties (I&AP) as an interested and affected party in the environmental impact assessment process for the proposed new CBD bypass road in Hermanus, referenced in the header above. My participation relates to my concern for environmental and social impact. I have no direct business or financial interest in the EIA process. The proposed by-pass would create an urban style road with incumbent noise , safety issues and pollution in an otherwise quiet , country ,suburban area which also supplies much needed recreation space. Added to this there are three schools and numerous churches as well as an equipped children’s’ playground in the area. The Hermanus Country Market which will be decimated creates income for a great many locals who would face a severe if not total loss of earnings. Besides the direct loss of employment and earnings the market is an important feature on the list of attractions in the area and is featured in many tourist catalogues , guides and magazines . It’s demise would have definite repercussions to the economy of Hermanus and the Overberg. Logically the proposed by-pass should be kept well away from this entire area , however if it is at all considered the Jose Berman Drive route is an existing road with lesser impact. 1 Yours Sincerely , Judy Kirby. I have seen, read, understand and fully support the contents of the submissions made by the Hermanus Botanical Society in the attached document. I agree wholeheartedly with the contents thereof and hereby give instructions that this submission be registered as my own submission on the final scoping report. Kindly confirm receipt and acceptance of the instruction of the contents of this email. Yours faithfully 2 Du Toit, Jessica From: Barbara Kahn Importance: High Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged To whom it may Concern, I strongly object to the bypass road in Hermanus that would scar our beautiful mountain and cause great distress to all our residents in the whole Overberg area. It is unseemly, unnecessary and disgusting that the municipality can even consider defacing our mountain and our town like this - destroying the precious fynbos and the myriad of birdlife that depend upon it! NO NO NO!! NEVER IN OUR LIFETIME! BARBARA KAHN RESIDENT AND TAX PAYER STANFORD Barbara Kahn [email protected] 1 OBJECTION TO PROPOSED BYPASS BY MRS PJ GAWITH, ERF NO 329 HEC, HERMANUS Our property, ERF n. 329, is adjacent to Fairways Avenue, Eastcliff, Hermanus. Before we moved here, we contracted a company, specialising in Environmental Impact Studies, to do a study on the wetland adjacent to Fairways Ave., as the golf course was planning to build lodges along the wetland. The company's finding was conclusive that the Hermanus Golf Course was built on the majority of the wetland, and therefore, the little remaining wetland was sacrosanct as it impacted on the biodiversity of the whole area. The proposed bypass plans to run through this corner of precious wetland, now the home to many species of flora and fauna. On no account should a road or any other human investment reduce the small amount of remaining wetland surrounding the Hermanus Golf Course. I strongly object to this proposed bypass, Yours faithfully, Penny Gawith 7 Fairways Avenue Eastcliff Hermanus 7200. Du Toit, Jessica From: Annie Saayman Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Vir aandag: Jessica du Toit SRK Consulting AANVULLENDE KOMMENTAAR I.V.M. BEOOGDE HERMANUS VERBYPAD (Opsteller: J N P Saayman) Die onderstaande beredenering moet saamgelees word met en as aanvullend beskou word tot my vorige kommentaar - aan u versend op 4 Augustus 2015. U het die volgende dag ontvangs daarvan erken. Vir u gerief vat ek my vroeëre insette kortliks saam: 1. Die huidige DA-regering (by monde van die voormalige Minister v an Vervoer, Robin Carlisle) het onder groot applous BELOWE dat daar NOOIT so 'n verbypad bokant Hermanus gebou sal word nie - in 2011 in die Sandbaaisaal. 2. Die nuwe pad sal 'n amper ondenkbare en massiewe inkeping in die pragtige berg bokant Hermanus noodsaak. 3. Die Provinsie kan veel eerder die begrote R300m.++ gebruik om bv. die swak, smal, gevaarlike en ongelukgeteisterde pad tussen Hermanus en Stanford op te gradeer. 4. Daar is enkele jare gelede 'n nuwe deurroete via 3 verkeersirkels (die sg. "CBD relief road" ) gebou en dit werk uitstekend. 5. Die invloedryke plaaslike weekblad, Hermanus Times, dra die afgelope maande gereeld briewe en berigte wat toon dat die plaaslike inwoners baie ongelukkig is met die beoogde pad. Ek wil graag ook die volgende aanvullende sieninge aan u voorlê. My opregte wens is dat die finale besluitnemers oor die beoogde verbypad wel die insig en wysheid sal vind om 'n weldeurdagte besluit te maak omtrent hierdie omstrede kwessie. A: Hermanus het in 1855 as Hermanuspietersfontein tot stand gekom. Oor die afgelope ongeveer 160 jaar het dit ontwikkel tot die juweel van die Overberg en een van die mooiste dorpe in Suid-Afrika. Dit is een van die netjieste dorpe in die RSA en 'n bekende en gesogte aftreedorp en vakansiebestemming. Die etos en karakter van hierdie prentjiemooi dorp lê opgesluit daarin dat Hermanus omarm word deur 'n manjefieke groen berg aan die een kant en die blou see aan die ander kant. 1 VRAAG: # Hoekom wil die padbouers van die Wes-Kaapse Regering hierdie poskaart-prentjie vir ALTYD vernietig met 'n breë teerpad wat uitgesny word uit hierdie pragtige berg en waarop lorries en motors jaag om by hul bestemmings te kom? # Het die besluitnemers werklik al eerstehands kom kyk presies waar die nuwe, breë teerpad sal loop? Of is dit 'n papieroefening vir hulle? # Weet hulle dat daar diep in die berg in gesny sal moet word om hierdie pad te bou? # Weet hulle dat die pad teenaan kerke; die Hermanus Hoërskool; nog 'n ander skool; huise; deur bewaringsgebiede; ens sal loop? ### Neem ernstig daarvan kennis dat die inwoners van Hermanus grootliks ongelukkig is met die beoogde pad. Twee artikels in die jongste Hermanus Times (28.01.2016) skets vir u die prentjie: (a) Op bladsy 4 onder die opskrif "Botanical Society shows muscle in Bypass fight " word onder meer soos volg berig: "An amount of R100 000 has been put aside by the Hermanus Botanical Society to fight the proposed Hermanus Bypass from becoming a reality. Dr Dianne Marais of the Botanical Society stated that the preservation of the Fernkloof Nature Reserve is of the "utmost importance". So much so, she added, that it was unanimously decided at the AGM on 16 January (2016) to use the Botanical Society's funds for this cause. The funds will be used towards "halting the project in its tracks" or for meeting legal appeal costs, should the project be approved." (b) Die hoofbrief van die week(p. 10) verskyn onder die opskrif: "Proposed new CBD bypass road, more cons than pros and is it really worth all the effort?" In 'n goed beredeneerde brief meld 'n bekende inwoner van Hermanus onder meer die volgende: "2) Scarred mountain and Noise From the Gateway start, the mountain slope appears gentle in the photographs, but if viewed from the look-out on Rotary Drive it is anything but, and extensive cuttings into the mountain side will be made, and the slope on the proposed northern route is even worse. Now since the Scoping Report diagrams indicating the proposed routes do not show contours(conveniently?), a guess, but I would think some of these may be in excess of 5 to 10 metres. That is a horrible scar which nothing on earth can ever camouflage or hide. The noise of traffic elevated above the town will be deafening and will be heard all over town. Imagine our biker friends screaming along all those nice curves at anytime, but especially at night. "4) Cost ("bang for your buck") The Scoping Report states that only 7% of traffic entering Hermanus leave the town straight through, but the report contains various cost estimates depending on various options of route and traffic circles and the cheapest estimate is R110 million! Now, even if province is paying, that seems like an expensive way to accommodate 7% of the town's through traffic. "6) Sacrifice Engineers love challenges, solving problems, but at what cost to us the residents (victims)? Even after Mr Carisle, the previous minister, blocked the bypass from 2 being built, the engineers blithely went on their merry way blowing millions on plans and scoping reports for something which has no real benefit for Hermanus. And, as an engineer from out of town who holidays here pointed out, the real problem of traffic congestion only occurs for a limited period every year. So, as we say in Afrikaans: Is die kool die sous werd?" WAT IS DIE OPLOSSING VIR HIERDIE KWESSIE?? B: Daar is sekerlik altyd meer as een oplossing vir 'n vraagstuk. Ek is oortuig dat die PAWK se professionele siviele en stukturele ingenieurs alternatiewe planne kan maak, indien nodig. Die eerste vraag wat hulle sal moet beantwoord is of die verkeersvraagstuk in Hermanus sodanig is dat R300++m. daarop spandeer moet word. En die antwoord hierop is 'n onomwonde NEE! Hermanus beleef 'n skerp toename vir 3-4 weke per jaar, maar die res van die jaar is dit rustige plattelandse verkeer. Daar word nooit enigsins die verkeersdrukte ervaar soos wat elke dag op die N1 en N2 in Kaapstad afspeel nie. Dis waar die probleme is, nie op Hermanus nie! # MY VOORSTEL IS: * Behou die status quo. Moenie R300++m. belastinggeld spandeer op 'n teoretiese probleem nie. * Die bestaande(betreklik jong) deur roete via 3 verkeersirkels("CBD Relief Road") werk uitstekend. Verbeter net die doeltreffendheid daarvan deur o.a. die volgende te doen: 1. VERWYDER DIE VOETGANGEROORGANGE WAT DEEL IS VAN DIE VERKEERSIRKELS!!! Motors beweeg in die sirkels in en moet dan skielik weer rem vir voetgangers - dit belemmer die natuurlike vloei wat die sirkels bring!! Voetgangers(wat voorrang bo die motors geniet) verskyn letterlik soms 5m. voor die bewegende motor. Met 3 sirkels en 4 oorgange elk is daar dus 12 stop-en-ry punte binne die verkeersirkels - en dit belemmer die verkeersvloei ernstig!! Skuif dus die voetgangeroorgange ver weg van die verkeersirkels sodat die natuurlike motorvloei kan plaasvind. Daar is reeds 3 sulke losstaande voetgangeroorgange in Hermanus se hoofstraat en dit werk uitstekend! Die koste hieraan verbonde is minimaal! 2. SLUIT SOVER MOONTLIK ALLE INTERNE TOEGANGS- EN UITGANGSROETES van die "CBD Relief Road". Enkeles is reeds gesluit, maar meer kan gedoen word. Die koste hieraan verbonde is minimaal! Ek vertrou dat u my insette ernstig sal oorweeg. Vriendelike groete Kallie Saayman (Voormalige Adjunk-direkteur-generaal: Departement van die Wes-Kaapse Premier) 2 Februarie 2016 3 Du Toit, Jessica From: James Thom Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Please note my opposition to the planned Hermanus bypass that cuts through the area of the cricket club. Cut through farmland on the N2 rather and not destroy a beautiful town that has no need for this type of development. James Thom Sent from my Samsung device 1 Du Toit, Jessica From: Reuther, Sue Sent: 02 February 2016 03:18 PM To: Chris Hamman Cc: [email protected]; Du Toit, Jessica Subject: RE: Hermanus Bypass Scoping Report Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Hello Chris, We received a wide range of comments from stakeholders, relating to the need for the project, biophysical impacts on the fynbos and wetlands (including their ecosystem services and associated value) to social impacts on property values, noise, safety and business viability and other aspects such as sense of place. All of these have been forwarded to and discussed with the proponent, too, throughout the process to date and have been shared with the specialists, where relevant. We have aimed to make reference to all of these in the Final Scoping Report, as well as the Comments and Responses Report, and will assess them in the EIA Report. All comments we have received to date will also be submitted to DEA&DP, including those on the Final Scoping Report. We thus trust that the issues that were raised will receive further attention. DEA&DP will not take any decision regarding the environmental authorisation of the project based on the Final Scoping Report – such a decision will only be made after the submission of the EIA Report to DEA&DP. Prior to that, the EIA Report will be released for at least two comment periods to the public. As such, the EIA process is far from complete at this stage. Regards, Sue From: Chris Hamman [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 02 February 2016 14:45 To: Reuther, Sue Cc: [email protected] Subject: RE: Hermanus Bypass Scoping Report Good day Sue Thanks for coming back to me. I appreciate what you say but why do you ignore the issues in a scoping report that is a major issue here? You will most probably find that this will provide the biggest opposition to the whole idea!!! The Botanical Society is getting ready to defend their stance tooth and nail yet you ignore such a crucial issue. Why? Your statement below implies that the issue is taken up in a document: “the EIA Report will pick up the issues raised by stakeholders in more detail” so why not mention it in “less” detail in the scoping report?? A Scoping Report should highlight the issues that will have to be addressed during the impact assessment and in the EIA?? It is as if you pre-empt what you will do irrespective of??? To my mind this is a blatant ignoring the facts on the ground. You are not “warning” your client of the main issues????? This is what is going on in South Africa at an alarming 1 rate…untruth or hidden truth!! Manipulation and corruption! I am not saying this is what you guys are planning but the prevailing spirit of darkness is very apparent in many peoples hearts in government and big business!! The involved people of Hermanus are sincere and honest people who wants the best for this region. They know what is going on and what will work for Hermanus!! Government has a completely different agenda…getting traffic to Gansbaai and further as fast as possible at the cheepest price!! We never complained about the traffic to such an extent that drastic measures are required?? Please listen to me and add their concerns. If you persist then this must be taken further asap. Kind regards Chris From: Reuther, Sue [ mailto:[email protected] ] Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2016 10:10 AM To: Chris Hamman Cc: [email protected] ; Glen Smith; [email protected] ; Du Toit, Jessica Subject: RE: Hermanus Bypass Scoping Report Dear Chris, We note your concerns expressed in your email below. I trust you are aware that the scoping phase is followed by an impact assessment phase, during which an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) report will be compiled and released. While the Scoping report is ‘setting the scene’, the EIA Report will pick up the issues raised by stakeholders in more detail, present the findings of the various specialist studies and the discussion and assessment of various impacts (including those raised by stakeholders). As such I am confident that the aspects you mention below will be discussed in the EIA Report, and I am certain there will be a lively debate on it. I trust this answers your question at this time, but please don’t hesitate to contact us for clarification / discussion if required. Best regards, Sue From: Chris Hamman [ mailto:[email protected] ] Sent: 02 February 2016 10:02 To: Reuther, Sue Cc: [email protected] ; Glen Smith; [email protected] Subject: Hermanus Bypass Scoping Report Dear Sue The fact that the concerns raised at the last participating process such as the value of the fynbos and other concerns not being mentioned or considered in your report will surely derail your presentation of the final report to the Western Cape Government. It is as if you decided to ignore valid objections to suit your findings and recommendations? This 2 needs to go to the papers for sure!! I strongly request a further process where these issues may be incorporated into the report. Chris Hamman Fisherhaven 3 Dr Viola Makin Makin & Associates P3 Fairmont 26 Hof Street Gardens Cape Town Tel: 082 416 6535 4th February 2016 Ms Jessica du Toit SRK Consulting Postnet Suite #206 Private Bag X18 Rondebosch, 7701. Email: [email protected] Dear Ms du Toit OBJECTION TO PROPOSED NEW CBD BYPASS ROAD IN HERMANUS - FINAL SCOPING REPORT I refer to the proposed Hermamus CBD Bypass Road, which is outlined in the Final Scoping Report. Two planned options have been put forward: “Northern alignment: This route runs north of Mountain Drive, the cemetery and the sports complex (currently being built) then turns south to run between the cricket oval and the private school and joins Fairways Avenue and eventually Main Road. Southern alignment: This route runs north of Mountain Drive and then south of the cemetery, along Jose Burman Drive between the High School and the sports complex. It incorporates a pedestrian underpass in the eastern part, and a pedestrian and vehicular underpass in the western part of this section (which will be raised). It then runs south through the eastern edge of the High School and joins Fairways Avenue and eventually Main Road." Both of the options under consideration will entail the deproclamation of parts of Fernkloof Nature Reserve. However a 'no-go' option should also be considered; under this the status quo i.e. no bypass - will remain.” I support this 'no-go' option mainly on environmental grounds. These environmental issues were highlighted to me by the Botsoc and I quote from their views, which I support: "ENVIRONMENTAL DESTRUCTION Fernkloof Nature Reserve is recognised as an area of critical biodiversity importance both nationally and internationally. Building a road through the most vulnerable portion of this reserve will cause massive and irreversible environmental destruction. That this proposal should be initiated and supported by the authorities charged with the protection of this valuable reserve is concerning in the extreme, and amounts to dereliction of duty. The proposed road represents a shameful misuse of public funds that could and should be put to better use to address the many inadequacies in infrastructure provision in the province. A very large amount of money is proposed to be used to build a road for which no clear need - either current or projected - has been proven in an area already well served with road infrastructure." However, there are other reasons for my objection to this by-pass, such as the high cost involved. In addition, many of the aims, objectives and strategic thinking of this project seem vague. It is estimated that well over R100 million will be spent on three kilometres of road. No convincing need for this road seems to have been established, nor will any particular benefit result from its construction (except to the firms involved in its construction). Building it will, however, cause extreme and irreversible environmental damage to protected areas acknowledged internationally as irreplaceable. Nature reserves are the heritage of future generations. I have included my contact details (see above), although it is best to contact me via email: [email protected]. Yours sincerely, Dr Viola Makin 3rd February 2016 SRK Consulting (South Africa) Pty Ltd The Administrative Building, Albion Spring, 183 Main Road, Rondebosch, 7700 Postnet Suite # 206, Private Bag X18, Rondebosch, 7701 Attention: Jessica du Toit (email: [email protected]) Ref: Final Scoping Report on Hermanus Bypass received 14/12/2015 Dear Sir/Madam, Your email to [email protected], dated 14th December 2015 refers. I am registered as an interested and affected party. I am also a member of the Hermanus Ratepayers Association (Member 10706), the Hermanus Botanical Society, Hermanus Bird Club and a supporter of Whale Coast Conservation. As a concerned Ratepayer, and active conservationist, as well as a tax paying citizen of this country, I find the Final Scoping Report for the proposed New CBD Bypass Road in Hermanus a direct contradiction of many fundamental principles and legislative provisions. I reject the report on the following basis: 1) The planning of the proposed bypass does not comply with the relevant transport planning provisions in the National Land Transport Act, 2009 (No. 5 of 2009) and its regulations. This blatant non-compliance with transport legislation is of great concern. 2) It is implied by the report (received by me on 14th December 2015), a number of times, that the Overstrand Municipality supports the bypass. I attended a public meeting on 15th December 2015 where the Executive Mayor of the Overstrand Municipality indicated that the proposal had not yet come before Municipal Council. I therefore find the references made to ‘approval’ by the Overberg Municipality in the Final Scoping Report, to be disingenuous and objectionable. 3) The traffic flow studies must be undertaken by an independent specialist on the most appropriate solution to the transport problem in and around the Hermanus CBD. An integrated study should be a vital part of the Provincial Roads Department response, and all stakeholders, residents, businesses and conservationists must be included in a proper traffic flow study. It is simply inadequately presented and extremely biased in the Final Scoping Report. 4) Encroachment into the Fernkloof Nature Reserve is objectionable and potentially very destructive. This reserve is recognized as an area of critical biodiversity both nationally and internationally. This proposed bypass will cause irreversible environmental destruction by reducing the already restricted and vulnerable habitat of threatened endemic birdlife and vegetation. Changing the fragile patterns within this reserve will violate the natural corridors of existing wildlife which depend on the already fragile area. To assume that it is acceptable to expropriate portions of a world renowned proclaimed nature reserve, will set a dangerous precedent for such impunity to carry through in other pristine, threatened fragile ecosystems. I find this alarming. There is no such thing as ‘compensation’ for the loss of any proclaimed conservation area to future generations. When it’s gone, it’s gone!! 5) Misuse of public funds is of further concern, particularly as this study already appears to have rejected the inclusion of so many interested and affected parties and their qualified input. To blatantly ignore the inclusion of vital conservation groups, and to continue to present the study as ‘Final’, indicates a significant lack of true unbiased qualified research and inadequate professional consultation. I find this unacceptable. My conclusion is that the ‘Final’ scoping report is inadequately and unprofessionally presented, and the true need for this bypass is not conclusive. The report is biased and requires significant review if at all. Kindly acknowledge receipt of this submission. Yours faithfully, Pat Redford 2 Kwaaiwater Road, Hermanus [email protected] Du Toit, Jessica From: Lisa van Coppenhagen Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Att: Jessica du Toit SRK Consulting Postnet Suite #206 Private Bag X18 Rondebosch 7701 RE: DEA&DP Reference No: 16/3/1/2/E2/15/2124/14 COMMENT ON THE FINAL SCOPING REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED NEW BYPASS ROAD IN HERMANUS This year the Hermanus Country Market will celebrate its 10th Birthday. It has been a long, hard road to get the market to where it is today. We moved three times before we finally settled on the Cricket Grounds, where we have built infrastructure to cope with the growing demands from our many supporters. Here we have found a home, security of tenure, and a place to be proud of into which we have all ploughed a great deal of energy, love and hard-earned money. Our market area is not just used every Saturday morning but also through the week by the local running club, where Mums can sit down, let the kids play on the jungle gym while Dad goes for a run; many kids come to play here from the surrounding schools and many local residents bring their dogs here each evening for walks as we have fresh water available, shade and it is a safe area for women to come to alone. It is an absolute tragedy to think that the past ten years of hard work will be wiped out by a road which no-one can motivate convincingly. This bustling, vibrant, happy market fulfils an enormous amount of roles - fresh produce shop, bakery, butchery, tuisnywerheid, craft shops, coffee shop, cosmetic shop, burger joint, take-away outlet, patisserie, charcuterie, juice bar, local wine outlet, craft beer bar; it has hosted DA awareness days, local choirs & musicians, local NPO fundraisers, Ratepayers information days, animal clinics, chiropractic awareness days, all highlighting the intrinsic need for a community orientated event where information can be shared in an informal environment. There is an Internet site called Tripadvisor which has thousands of people writing reviews on places. If you look up Hermanus, you will see that Fernkloof Nature Reserve is #2 and The Hermanus Country Market is # 5 of 34 things to do in Hermanus. We have built up a following and with this a tremendous amount of goodwill which in turn, ensures a lovely atmosphere for all to enjoy. This is not made overnight, and has to be carefully nurtured and nudged by every single person involved. This is the factor which will be lost should we have to relocate and will take another many years to recreate. I do not believe that any amount of money will enable us to recreate what has been painstakingly nurtured for all these years. 1 The market is made up of 72 of us, all just average citizens trying to make an income, and here we are trying to fight a proposal that has been on the cards for years, is truly bigger than us all, in the hope that some small sense of compassion will be felt, because our livelihoods are all at stake here. We have all made our initial comments: how we rely on the income from the market; how we need to see it continue; what it means to us; what it means to our community. But these comments were looked at and dismissed as perhaps irrelevant, frivolous, or inconsequential. Now we are one step closer and what more can we do or say? Of course the market can just move again, but to where? We presently use 2500sqm of land for the market and another 2500sqm for parking. I have asked the Overstrand Municipality to help us look for an alternative site, but it is apparent that all the land with this amount of area has been earmarked for some or other development, and would perhaps only be available on a short-term lease. So we go and look in the private sector - and find that this sort of land would sell for over R5 million - certainly not affordable for us ''average Joes''. There is a very high chance that the market will not be able to relocate, in which case we would have to close down. In the meantime, we should not invest in it as it would be money wasted, and as everyone knows, we all need to continue investing in our businesses in order to keep attracting customers. So we wait in anticipation for the day we hear the news either way - and this could apparently take years - whilst our businesses slowly lose momentum and dawdle in mediocrity. This is a grossly unfair situation to be placed in, and if this road is considered progress for our little town, well it is only progress for those that need to shave 10 minutes off their trip to see the sharks or get to their weekend holiday home. Perhaps there are even bigger plans being made here, where Bantamsklip (if built) would need good roads to transport their nuclear waste; or will the residents of Bredasdorp and surrounds be driving into Hermanus in droves to support our new mall? Pray, do tell, we are all in the dark here as to the true motivation of this road. Hermanus is a small town, and yes it has grown, but we all came to live here to enjoy the simple way of life, with incredible natural beauty surrounding us, so why are we even contemplating putting a 30m wide 80km/hr road between us and the nature we so enjoy? For what - 7% of the incoming cars? So I pray that my small voice may be heard, but I know that the wheels that are turning will most probably just flatten me on that tarmac. I will not give up this fight though, as I stand to lose everything I have invested in this town for the past 10 years, as will the other 72 traders on our market, as will all of us who use the mountain for walks, the kids who thrive in the safety of their playgrounds, the young adults who would prefer fresh air to carbon monoxide whilst learning, the dogs who enjoy the freedom of walks without leashes, to the runners who enjoy their boundary-less routes, to the young mums who need some time out while the kids play in the sandpit, the retired residents who will have to swap their peaceful tree'd back yard for a busy road, the list goes on and on. If this letter fails to comply with the protocol applicable to your latest scoping report, and all my comments above are dismissed again, I will then add my voice to Bob Stanway's letter and the letter from the Botanical Society, as I am in total agreement with their salient points. Please find both attached. Thank you for this opportunity to again voice our comments. Yours sincerely, Liza van Coppenhagen Hermanus Country Market Organiser 072 8833 894 [email protected] 2 Du Toit, Jessica From: Chris Hamman Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged SRK Consulting Postnet Suite #206 Private Bag X18 Rondebosch 7701 Attention: Jessica du Toit Dear Sir / Madam COMMENT ON THE FINAL SCOPING REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED NEW CBD BYPASS ROAD IN HERMANUS DEA&DP Reference Number: 16/3/1/2/E2/15/2124/14 Heritage Western Cape Reference Number: 14112403AS1203E Kindly register me as an interested and affected party in the environmental impact assessment process for the proposed new CBD bypass road in Hermanus, referenced in the salutations below. My participation relates to my concern for environmental impact. I have no direct business or financial interest in the EIA process or its outcome. The “need” for the proposed bypass seems it has more to do with compliance with Roads Department policy and standards than with the needs of Hermanus. The need for a provincial roads standard CBD bypass needs to be established by independent specialists who do not have any vested interest in the outcome. I am extremely perturbed with the way the Scoping Report is managed as it is a crucial document that should lay the foundation for further study and underline the issues to be addressed by the client before approving the EIA. I am also far from convinced that there is no vested interest and these issues mentioned in the Whale Coast Conservation submission must be included in the Scoping Report. Issues of great importance to my mind, raised by stakeholders, issues you should have covered extensively in your report, including several people and organisations with expert knowledge, are summarily dismissed in the Comments and Responses section (C&R) of your report. I have seen, read, understand and fully support the contents the submissions made by Whale Coast Conservation. I agree with the contents of the Whale Coast Conservation submission and hereby give instructions that these submissions be registered as my own submission as well on the final scoping report. 1 Your comment to me that these issues will be addressed in the EIA is in retrospect completely unacceptable as the client must be informed (by the Scoping Report) of major issues that will impact on their decisions to go ahead and spend public funds that could be spent far more effectively elsewhere. Please confirm receipt and your acceptance of the contents and request of this email. Yours faithfully Christiaan E Hamman ID 4105225020083 No 29 Flying Dutchman Way (Plot 620), Fisherhaven 7200 PS. We are at present 26 people proceeding with the process of forming a Conservancy in Fisherhaven and we may support the Whale Coast Conservation and the Hermanus Botanical Society opposition to this project fully!! 2 Du Toit, Jessica From: James van Eijk Hermanus Country Market: Urgent request to keep the market open!! The Country Market plays a vital role in Hermanus providing an opportunity for entrepreneurs to showcase their products to a broader community in a cost effective manner. It further serves as such an important place to get together, work together, develop together and serve and enjoy the Hermanus community and build the Hermanus character. Please listen to our pleas in this regard! James van Eijk Mobile: 083-3885540 Fax: 086-6527153 1 1 P O Box 1775 Hermanus 7200 4 February 2016 SRK Consulting Postnet Suite #206 Private Bag X18 Rondebosch 7701 Attention: Jessica du Toit (email: [email protected]) Dear Jessica COMMENT ON THE FINAL SCOPING REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED NEW CBD BYPASS ROAD IN HERMANUS DEA&DP Reference Number: 16/3/1/2/E2/15/2124/14 Heritage Western Cape Reference Number: 14112403AS1203E I am registered on your database of Interested and Affected Parties (I&APs) in the environmental impact assessment process for the proposed new CBD bypass road in Hermanus. My participation relates to my concern, as a resident of Hermanus, for the local environment, both natural and social. I have no direct business or financial interest in the EIA process or its outcome. The proposed road represents a shameful misuse of public funds that could and should be put to better use to address the many inadequacies in infrastructure provision in the province. A very large amount of money is proposed to be used to build a road for which no clear need - either current or projected - has been proven in an area already well served with road infrastructure. The ballpark costing given is misleading at best. The costing for the two proposed options does not include any cost of the land in the nature reserve. Many international studies are available that put values on land set aside for natural processes, such as nature reserves. This radically alters the costing of these two options. Although technically the Municipality is the “owner” of the land, this is in the sense of custodianship. Nature reserves are the heritage of future generations and as such must be excluded from consideration for development. Fernkloof Nature Reserve is one of the most floristically diverse areas in the Cape Floral Kingdom – itself an area recognised as being of critical global importance. The area of Fernkloof proposed for the road is one of the most floristically diverse areas in the reserve, as well as being particularly vulnerable because of its narrowness. Well over R100 million is to be spent on three kilometres of road. No convincing need for this road has been established, nor will any particular benefit result from its construction. Building it will however cause extreme and irreversible environmental damage to protected areas acknowledged internationally as irreplaceable. The municipality has a legislated responsibility to protect the natural environment in its own nature reserve. This responsibility cannot be subsumed to its responsibility to ensure acceptable traffic flows in the light of possible congestion in 20 years’ time. 2 In addition, I have seen, read, understand and fully support the contents of the submissions made by the Hermanus Botanical Society in the attached document. I agree wholeheartedly with the contents thereof and hereby instruct that this submission be registered as my own submission on the final scoping report. Kindly confirm receipt and acceptance of the instruction of the contents of this email. Yours faithfully Pat Miller Dr Pat Miller Cell: 082 374-9729 Tel: (028) 313-0093 [email protected] COMMENTS ON PROPOSED NEW CBD BYPASS ROAD IN HERMANUS FINAL SCOPING REPORT 1. AIMS, OBJECTIVES AND PRINCIPLES: DISSONANCES AND CONTRADICTIONS The Final Scoping Report contains many references to aspects such as aims, objectives and guiding principles that are intended to set the ethos of the project and ensure that it is in line with various other plans that it will affect. An examination of these aspects reveals that in very many instances this is not the case; aims and objectives are ill thought-out and frequently the project is in direct contradiction to the guiding principles of related plans. 1.1 Aims and objectives: The aims and objectives of the project are vague; particularly the latter should be specific and measurable. Page 9 states that “The construction of the CBD bypass aims to prevent traffic delays through and in Hermanus…the objective of the bypass construction is the support of economic growth and tourism development.” This vague statement has clearly been made in order to align the project with the 4 February 2016 Dr RG & M du Toit 5 Hoy Street HERMANUS 7200 Email –[email protected] Cell: 082 6554233 SRK Consulting Postnet Suite #206 Private Bag X18 Rondebosch 7701 Attention : Jessica du Toit([email protected]) Dr RG du Toit COMMENTS ON FINAL SCOPING REPORT: PROPOSED CBD Dr RG du Toit BYPASS IN HERMANUS Ortopediese Chirurg OrtopedieseOrthopeadic Chirurg Surgeon Dear Sirs Orthopeadic Surgeon My wife and I have been the owners of Erf 4806, being 5 HOY STREET Hermanus since 2002. MBChB(Pret) MBChB(Pret)BSc(Med)(Hon) We SERIOUSLY OBJECT to the proposed CBD Bypass road in BSc(Med)(Hon)SportMed(UCT) HERMANUS, since the proximity of the Proposed Bypass to Erf 4806 will SportMed(UCT)MMed Ortop(Stell) MMed Ortop(Stell) have a detrimental effect on firstly our present life style, and secondly the value of our property. This will be due to the negative visual impact of a Praktyk nr: 2806525 highway carved into a pristine mountain nature reserve, as well as the Praktyk nr: 2806525 vehicles on it, and lastly the horrible effect of all the halogen highway lights switched on nightly to light up the entire mountain. The loss of privacy will be devastating, as will be the decline in the value of property along Suite 2 Mountain Drive. SuiteHermanus 18 Medi-Clinic HermanusHospitaalstraat Mediese Regarding the Final Scoping Report, we have comments on 3 fatal flaws: SentrumHERMANUS 1. The planning of the Proposed Bypass does not comply with the PosbusPosbus 12871287 relevant planning provisions in the National Land Transport Act, HERMANUSHERMANUS 2009(nr.5 of 2009) and its Regulations, because it is not an 72007200 approved part of either the Western Cape Provincial Land Transport Framework &Provincial Spatial Development Framework , or the Tel:Tel: (028)(028) 31305723130572 Overberg Integrated Transport & Integrated Development Plan. Fax:Fax: (028)(028) 31305733130573 2. The Final Scoping Report implies that the Overstrand Municipality SelSel nr:nr: 082082 65542336554233 is in support of the Bypass. This is factually incorrect, as the Executive Mayor confirmed on 12/12/2015 that the Municipality ee-mail-mail has never indicated its support for the Bypass. [email protected]@intekom.co.za InIn assosiasie assosiasie met met Dr Dr H H Coetzee Coetzee 3. The Proposed Bypass does not address the highest traffic need on the R43 in Hermanus. In the Executive Summary of the Overstrand Transport Plan, the 2035 traffic forecasts indicate that, according to Province’s own forecasts, the section of the R43 between Onrus and Sandbaai, as well as the Sandbaai intersection area, has a much higher upgrade priority than the Proposed Bypass. We also have 2 personal comments: 4. The Proposed Bypass will create a permanent pedestrian barrier between the village and the mountain. Currently Northcliff and Fernkloof are the only areas left with pedestrian access to the mountain, since the residential developments in Hermanus Heights and Voelklip have eliminated those areas. 5. The Proposed Bypass will permanently scar the Raed-na-Gael Mountain, no matter what amount of rehabilitation is applied. The worst affected section will be at the current intersection of Mountain Drive and Impala Street, where an outcrop of the mountain is very near to Mountain Drive. With the effective Bypass width being at least 20.0 wide, and same Bypass being a clear distance above Mountain Drive, the cutting into the mountain here will be at least 50m high. The visual impact will be horrific, and will not be able to be disguised in any way whatsoever. Lastly, the Proposed Bypass is a complete waste of taxpayers’ money, since the traffic surveys, carried out on behalf of Province, clearly showed that only 7% of traffic entering Hermanus passes through to Stanford and beyond. The money should rather be spent on relieving the congestion on the R43 from Vermont to Mt Pleasant, which is a huge daily problem, and not seasonal. The existing Relief Road through Hermanus has done wonders for the traffic flow in the CBD, and if necessary in future, this Relief Road may be upgraded at a fraction of the cost of the Proposed Bypass. Yours faithfully RG and Madelein du Toit Du Toit, Jessica From: Andrew Ivey Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Dear Sir / Madam COMMENT ON THE FINAL SCOPING REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED NEW CBD BYPASS ROAD IN HERMANUS DEA&DP Reference Number: 16/3/1/2/E2/15/2124/14 Heritage Western Cape Reference Number: 14112403AS1203E Please see attached letter with supporting documentation and confirm whether the bypass is intended to: 1. Improve traffic flow through Hermanus or 2. Allow for the re-routing of the R43. It seems the latter is the priority and the former is being used as a means to deregister the Main Road through the Hermanus CBD as the trunk route (to allow the municipality more control of the Main Road perhaps). If improved traffic flow is the real reason for the proposed bypass, it is outrageous that other options for improv ing flow (other than the provision of a new trunk road) are not being considered. The motivation for the bypass is flawed and must be reviewed in a transparent manner. There are other possibilities for improving traffic flow during peak times (Mountain Road could be better linked to Lord Roberts Road, and Mountain Road could be linked via a relief road below the cemetery and above Bosko Church to Hermanus Heights (and the north-east exit route from Hermanus heights could be tarred) for instance. Gravel/dust roads already exit along most of the sections mentioned above. This would not serve the purpose of rerouting the R43. Has the effect the proposed shopping centre in Sandbaai will have on traffic through the CBD? Has a park-and-ride system been considered to move shoppers/tourists into the CBD? Traffic flow through Hermanus could be improved to a most acceptable level without the need for a bypass. The R43 could remain unchanged. Kindly also register me as an interested and affected party in the environmental impact assessment process for the proposed new CBD bypass road in Hermanus, referenced in the header above. My participation relates to my concern for environmental impact. I have no direct business or financial interest in the EIA process or its outcome. 1 I have seen, read, understand and fully support the contents of the submissions made by the Hermanus Botanical Society, Hermanus Ratepayer’s Association and Whale Coast Conservation. Please see attached letters. I agree wholeheartedly with the contents thereof and hereby give instructions that these submissions be registered as my own submission on the final scoping report. Kindly confirm receipt and acceptance of the instruction of the contents of this email. Yours faithfully Andrew Ivey 2 2016-02-05 SRK Consulting Postnet Suite #206 Private Bag X18 Rondebosch 7701 Attention: Jessica du Toit (email: [email protected]) Dear Sir / Madam COMMENT ON THE FINAL SCOPING REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED NEW CBD BYPASS ROAD IN HERMANUS DEA&DP Reference Number: 16/3/1/2/E2/15/2124/14 Heritage Western Cape Reference Number: 14112403AS1203E Please confirm whether the bypass is intended to: 1. Improve traffic flow through Hermanus or 2. Allow for the re-routing of the R43. It seems the latter is the priority and the former is being used as a means to deregister the Main Road through the Hermanus CBD as the trunk route (to allow the municipality more control of the Main Road perhaps). If improved traffic flow is the real reason for the proposed bypass, it is outrageous that other options for improving flow (other than the provision of a new trunk road) are not being considered. The motivation for the bypass is flawed and must be reviewed in a transparent manner. There are other possibilities for improving traffic flow during peak times (Mountain Road could be better linked to Lord Roberts Road, and Mountain Road could be linked via a relief road below the cemetery and above Bosko Church to Hermanus Heights (and the north-east exit route from Hermanus heights could be tarred) for instance. Gravel/dust roads already exit along most of the sections mentioned above. This would not serve the purpose of rerouting the R43. Has the effect the proposed shopping centre in Sandbaai will have on traffic through the CBD? Has a park-and-ride system been considered to move shoppers/tourists into the CBD. Traffic flow through Hermanus could be improved to a most acceptable level without the need for a bypass. The R43 could remain unchanged. Kindly confirm receipt and acceptance of the instruction of the contents of this email. Yours faithfully Andrew Ivey Du Toit, Jessica From: colin baker Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Re DEA&DP Ref 16/3/1/2/E2/15/2124/14 and Heritage Western Cape 14112403AS1203E I am registered on your database as an interested and affected party. I support the submissions made by the Hermanus Botanical Society and wish to add further comment as follows. - the traffic studies have not shown any need for this road; - eating into the fynbos of the Fernkloof reserve is wholly unacceptable. I would leave a town that was so neglectful of its natural heritage. - a panoramic highway that skips around Hermanus would be bad for tourism. Walker Bay would become a tick on the tick list. - the motivation for the proposal seems to me to be Municipal folie de grandeur. Reclassification of the Provincial relief road would allow more mall development in the town centre = higher rateable value = higher Municipal salaries. Yours faithfully Colin Baker 304 Bayview Hermanus 1 Du Toit, Jessica From: Gardiner, T. (Tony) Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged 30 Camdeboo Road Fourways Gardens Johannesburg 5 February 2016 SRK Consulting Postnet Suite #206 Private Bag X18 Rondebosch 7701 Attention: Jessica du Toit (email: [email protected] ) Dear Madam COMMENT ON THE FINAL SCOPING REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED NEW CBD BYPASS ROAD IN HERMANUS DEA&DP Reference Number: 16/3/1/2/E2/15/2124/14 Heritage Western Cape Reference Number: 14112403AS1203E I am not registered on your database of Interested and Affected Parties (I&AP) as an interested and affected party in th e environmental impact assessment process for the proposed new CBD bypass road in Hermanus, referenced in the header above. I do however wish to be registered on the I&AP database and to receive further information on the bypass project. My participation does relate to my concern for environmental impact. I have no direct business or financial interest in the EIA process or its outcome. I have seen, read, understand and fully support the contents of the submissions made by the Hermanus Botanical Society in the attached document. I agree wholeheartedly with the contents thereof and hereby give instructions that this submission be registered as my own submission on the final scoping report. In addition I would also like to understand the business case on which this proposed development is based. The cost of the project both financially and environmentally reflected against the benefits presumably of traffic flow (???) is not obvious. Compared to the traffic problems of other metros in this country I have no idea how these costs and environmental destruction can be justified. I would be extremely interested to understand the basis of these arguments. Kindly confirm receipt and acceptance of the instruction of the contents of this email. Yours faithfully. 1 Dr AJC Gardiner Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlo ok prevented automatic This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. download of this picture from the In ternet. ******************** Nedbank Limited Reg No 1951/000009/06. The following link displays the names of the Nedbank Board of Directors and Company Secretary. [ http://www.nedbank.co.za/terms/DirectorsNedbank.htm ] This email is confidential and is intended for the addressee only. The following link will take you to Nedbank's legal notice. [ http://www.nedbank.co.za/terms/EmailDisclaimer.htm ] ******************** 2 Du Toit, Jessica From: Volkert Klaucke Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged To whom it may concern HERMANUS IS A DESTINATION NOT TO BE BYPASSED. THE FERNKLOOF RESERVE IS A HERITAGE TO THE CHILDREN OF THE FUTURE. 80KM/H NEXT TO SCHOOL AND PLAY/SPORTSGROUND WILL KILL. BYPASS WILL ONLY SUPPORT TRAFFIC COMING FROM STANFORD TO NEW MALL . BYPASS WILL RENDER HERMANUS CBD A SLUM AREA. #HERMANUS IS NOT TO BE BYPASSED On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 2:50 PM, Du Toit, Jessica Dear Sir / Madam, The Provincial Government Western Cape: Department of Transport and Public Works (WCDTPW) proposes to construct a bypass road approximately 3 km long, to the north of the Hermanus Central Business District (CBD), abutting Mountain Drive, past the Hermanus Sports Complex and along Fairways Avenue, in Hermanus in the Western Cape. SRK Consulting (South Africa) Pty Ltd (SRK) has been appointed to undertake the Scoping and Environmental Impact Reporting (S&EIR, also referred to as EIA) process required in terms of the National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998, as amended (NEMA). You are registered as a stakeholder for the above EIA process. We would like to inform you of the availability of the Final Scoping Report for public comment. The Scoping Report released earlier this year was updated to reflect and address comments received from stakeholders to produce the Final Scoping Report, which is being re-released to stakeholders before it is submitted to DEA&DP together with all comments received. Please find attached the Executive Summary of the Final Scoping Report. 1 Du Toit, Jessica From: Reuther, Sue Sent: 29 March 2016 07:43 AM To: Du Toit, Jessica Subject: FW: By pass Hermanus Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Can you please respond, register and save, I created a new sub-folder (08 Late comments on FSR) to save any comments that come in now before the release of the EIA Report. Thanks! Sue From: Michael Walker [ mailto:[email protected] ] Sent: 24 March 2016 15:31 To: Reuther, Sue Subject: By pass Hermanus I would like to register my strongest opposition to the proposed bypass for Hermanus as l feel it is a total waste of money to divert very little traffic an ineffectual distance. The existing mountain road by pass section is very little used as it is. I feel the proposed routes will be of negligable benefit and significantly detrimental to schools, residents, craft markets, sports clubs, reserve area and the Hermanus ethos. Mike Walker. Resident of Voelklip. 1 Du Toit, Jessica From: Stefan Potgieter Thanks Sue, Yes, to confirm we no longer support the Botanical society comments. We are in support of the proposed by-road per the latest proposal attached in my previous mail. As to your comments iro registration – thank you, I’d like to maintain the current status and keep up to speed. Regards STEFAN POTGIETER Mayfair Holdings (Pty) Ltd Tel: 021 8805700 Fax: 021 8805800 Cell: 0834095204 From: Reuther, Sue [ mailto:[email protected] ] Sent: 29 March 2016 11:29 AM To: Stefan Potgieter Cc: Du Toit, Jessica Subject: RE: Proposed Hermanus bypass road Dear Stefan, Thank you for your email. For confirmation - we understand that you no longer wish to support the comment made by the Hermanus Botanical Society on the Final Scoping Report (and did not submit an alternative comment). Regarding your registration on our database, I would like to clarify that registration thereon does not imply any specific position towards the project on your behalf, but rather ensures that you are informed of future opportunities to review and comment on documentation – the next opportunity is likely the draft EIA Report, which will be released to the public – and the decision ta ken by the authority. As such, I would like to confirm whether you really want to be removed from the database, or remain registered thereon. Regards, Sue From: Stefan Potgieter [ mailto:[email protected] ] Sent: 29 March 2016 10:42 AM To: Du Toit, Jessica Subject: FW: Proposed Hermanus bypass road Hi, 1 Please refer attached my complaint and registration as an affected party request. I had a closer look at the proposed Hermanus By-pass road and wish to reconsider my position. Please remove me from the affected party list. Thanks STEFAN POTGIETER Mayfair Holdings (Pty) Ltd Tel: 021 8805700 Fax: 021 8805800 Cell: 0834095204 From: Kasienka Heunis Sent: 04 February 2016 04:31 PM To: [email protected] Cc: Stefan Potgieter Subject: Proposed Hermanus bypass road Good day, Please find attached a letter requesting registration of affected party as well as the report and comments of the Hermanus Botanical Society. Thank and kind regards, Kasienka Heunis (on behalf of Mr Stefan Potgieter) 021 880 5700 2