From: Alvin Cope To: Amy Hill Subject: RE: Stakeholder Comment Period: BAR for the Proposed Redevelopment of the River Club in Observatory - JN 11912 Date: Tuesday, 14 January 2020 11:37:32 Attachments: image002.png image003.jpg

Hi Ms AH,

The views of this Branch remain as stated in our e-m to you of 8 June 2019.

Thanx

Regards.

A

Alvin L Cope WCG 9 Dorp Street P O Box 2603 Cape Town 8000 Road Network Management – Room 3-36 +27 21 483 2009 (Tel) [email protected] cid:[email protected]

From: Amy Hill Sent: Monday, January 13, 2020 4:08 PM To: Amy Hill Subject: Stakeholder Comment Period: BAR for the Proposed Redevelopment of the River Club in Observatory

Dear Stakeholder Notice of Stakeholder Comment Period on Basic Assessment Report and Tabling of Heritage Impact Assessment Supplementary Report at Heritage Western Cape Impact Assessment Committee: Proposed Redevelopment of the River Club in Observatory, Cape Town DEA&DP Reference Number: 16/3/3/6/7/1/A7/17/3217/19 HWC Case Number: 15112504WD1217E DWS Reference Number: WU9026 River Club and 16/2/7/G22/A/11 The Liesbeek Leisure Properties Trust (“the LLPT” or “the proponent”) operates the River Club in Observatory, Cape Town which, together with portions of adjacent properties, is collectively referred to as the site. The River Club is currently operated as a commercial facility, mainly for recreational (golfing) activities and conferencing. The LLPT is proposing to redevelop most of the site for residential, commercial, institutional and associated uses (the project or the development). The majority of the site is owned by the proponent. SRK Consulting (South Africa) Pty Ltd (SRK) was appointed to undertake the environmental process required in terms of the National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998, as amended (NEMA) in support of applications for Environmental Authorisation (EA), Heritage Approval and Water Use Authorisation. The application for EA was submitted to the Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning (DEA&DP) on 6 January 2020, and the revised Basic Assessment Report (BAR) is now being released for a post-EA-application round of public review. If you have received this notice directly you are registered as a stakeholder for the above environmental processes. We would like to inform you of the availability of the revised BAR for stakeholder comment. The revised BAR can be accessed electronically on the SRK website at the following link: https://www.srk.co.za/en/za-river-club-redevelopment-bar . The report will also be available for public review and comment at the River Club in Observatory, the Observatory Public Library and the offices of SRK Consulting in Rondebosch, Cape Town from 13 January 2020. Issues raised by stakeholders on the pre-EA-application BAR have been summarised and responded to, and the BAR has been revised taking stakeholder comments into account where appropriate. All comments are appended to the revised BAR. Stakeholders are now invited to submit comments on the revised BAR and/or send relevant details (see below) so that SRK can register you on the project database if you are not registered already. Noting that issues already raised are documented and responded to, we encourage stakeholders to submit comments relating to issues that have not yet been raised during the engagement process. Stakeholders must submit comments to the contact person on or by 14 February 2020. Submissions should refer to the DEA&DP, HWC and DWS reference numbers (listed above), and must include your name, contact details (specifying the preferred method of notification, e.g. e-mail), and an indication of any direct personal, business, financial or other interest which they have in the application. To submit any (new) comments on the BAR or for further information please contact Amy Hill at SRK Consulting: Tel: (021) 659 3060, Fax: (021) 685 7105, or Email: [email protected]. We look forward to your input and response to the document. Also note that Heritage Western Cape (HWC) Impact Assessment Committee (IACom) will table a Heritage Impact Assessment Supplementary Report on 28 January 2020 at 10h00 on the First Floor of the Protea Assurance Building, Green Market Square (refer to correspondence to stakeholders from SRK dated 6 December 2019). As a stakeholder you have a right to be present at the HWC IACom meeting, and to make representations when the matter is considered should you wish to do so. Kind regards Amy Hill BSC (Hons)(Biodiversity and Ecology) Environmental Consultant

SRK Consulting (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd.

The Administrative Building, Albion Spring, 183 Main Road, Rondebosch, 7700 Post Net Suite #206, Private Bag X18, Rondebosch, 7701 Tel: +27-(0)21-659-3060; Fax: +27-(0)86-530-7003 Mobile:+27-(0)81-461-7590; Direct: +27-(0)21-659-3063 Email: [email protected]; Skype for Business: [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. P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

"All views or opinions expressed in this electronic message and its attachments are the view of the sender and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of the Western Cape Government (the WCG). No employee of the WCG is entitled to conclude a binding contract on behalf of the WCG unless he/she is an accounting officer of the WCG, or his or her authorised representative. The information contained in this message and its attachments may be confidential or privileged and is for the use of the named recipient only, except where the sender specifically states otherwise. If you are not the intended recipient you may not copy or deliver this message to anyone."

SPATIAL PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT

R. Clarke and S Hustwick Environmental & Heritage Management

t. 021 400 6534 [email protected]

14 February 2020

Postnet Suite 206 P Bag X18 Rondebosch 7701

Attention: Amy Hill [email protected]

Basic Assessment Report (BAR): Proposed Redevelopment of the River Club, Observatory, DEADP Ref. No. 16/3/3/6/7/1/A7/17/3217/19, Prepared by SRK Consulting, Report No. 478320/04, January 2020

The City is concerned that the BAR is circulated for public comment while it contains certain factually incorrect assumptions, such as the City endorsing the infilling of the historic Liesbeek river and floodplain areas. The City states upfront that no endorsement has been given for any proposals / work on City land nor infilling of the Liesbeek River, ecological buffers and floodplains, or for the applicant to apply for Environmental Authorisation on the City’s behalf.

The City believes that the report does not contain the necessary information to satisfy the NEMA EIA Regulations for the content of a BAR, as stated in Section 23(3) of the NEMA EIA Regulations, 2014, as amended on 7 April 2017. Hence the report is not useful or helpful to decision-making.

1. BAR circulation

1.1. The intention of this project is to redevelop “the site” (here forwards referred to as such in this comment document) (as defined in the BAR Figure 2) for residential, commercial, institutional and associated uses. 1.2. “The Site” is owned by the proponent (primarily) as well as the City of Cape Town.

1

1.3. The application was circulated for comment to internal City Departments. Comments received are attached as Annexures A-K to this comment.

City Department Comment Name of official Email address City Health Ann. A Lavinia Petersen [email protected] Biodiversity Ann. B Charmaine Oxtoby Charmaine.Oxtoby@ capetown.gov.za Climate Change Ann. C Amy Davison & Darryl [email protected] Colenbrander [email protected] Transport Planning and Ann. D Nicky Sasman [email protected] Policy Development Solid Waste Ann. E Thembelani Mandindi [email protected] Water & Sanitation Ann. F Nathan Ludlam [email protected] Electricity Ann. G Shiraaz Swartland [email protected] Heritage Ann. H Mark Bell [email protected] Catchment Planning Ann. I Ben De Wet [email protected] Spatial Planning Ann. J Simone Bergoff [email protected] Margaret Murcott [email protected] Air Quality Management Ann. K Andre Bester [email protected]

2. The Proposal

2.1. It is important to emphasise that the essence of the development proposal outlined in the BAR has not changed (from the Pre application BAR), with the following components still being central to the proposal: 2.1.1. development of two precincts with a combined total floor space of approximately 150 000m², comprising of inter alia retail, office, residential (including inclusionary housing)1, hotel and a private school; 2.1.2. developed areas of the site, including roadways, will be raised above the 100-year flood elevation (this will be done largely by constructing “super-basements”, which will raise the ground floor levels); 2.1.3. Berkley Road extension will be developed to the north of the site within an existing road reserve; 2.1.4. the existing Liesbeek Canal running adjacent to the eastern boundary of the site will be rehabilitated into a riverine corridor, while the ‘old’ Liesbeek River channel on the western edge of the site will be partially infilled and landscaped as a vegetated stormwater swale and linear park. 2.2. The applicant’s stated vision for the site is to create a lasting legacy, create job opportunities, commercial enterprises and a space for people of all cultures to live and work and which is open to the community for safe, recreational activities through the creation of a financially sustainable development. However, according to the artist’s impression, a large scale, high rise, commercial and residential development is proposed, within the low-lying floodplain at the confluence of two rivers set within the 1:10year floodplain (Special Open Space 3) which is subject to frequent inundation and parts of which are an important Biodiversity Conservation Area. 2.3. The preferred alternative replaces the historic Liesbeek River faunal habitat with a vegetated swale.

2

2.4. Application will need to be made for approval of a deviation from the Table Bay District Plan, Rezoning, Approval to construct retaining structures, Deviations from City policies: Floodplain and River Corridor Management Policy (2009) and the Management of Urban Stormwater Impacts Policy (2009), amongst others.

Proposed development

3. Technical comments

3.1. The BAR is difficult to read and no succinct summary is provided upfront setting the context of the document (what went before and what comes next) with a clear overview of the proposed development and the various alternatives and description of issues. Although the City understand that this is due to the structure of the given DEADP checklist, this reduces the ability of the public to properly engage with the report and therefore may compromise public consultation. The Executive Summary is insufficient in this regard and should outline key proposals and issues in a clear manner. For example, if one wants to read all issues around Inclusionary housing, the issue is not dealt with under one section, but referred to at various points in the set of Volumes 1-5). 3.2. There are inaccuracies in the Report w.r.t to “the site”. Reference is sometimes made to only the private property as the site (see pg. 8 of the Pre Application BAR Issues and Responses Summary) where the total size of the site is given as 14.8ha. However the total area of the site should include both privately and City owned land if these portions are all part of the development proposal. Page 6 of application checklist From page 6 of the Checklist shows total property size as 39.78 ha. 3.3. Again under “Land Use of the Site” Page 103, the applicant does not acknowledge that the Site includes a “River, stream or wetland” / a “Nature conservation area”. Again this points to an irregularity with the area that is included in “the Site” – which should include City land (on which these sensitive areas fall) as it is part of the application.

3

3.4. The Specialist Reports that contain 4 ‘reduced in size’ A4 pages on one A4 page are unreadable. 3.5. It should be stated upfront which Specialist Reports have been amended. It appears that only the “Assessment of potential biodiversity impacts - Incorporating the findings of the aquatic ecosystems (rivers and wetlands), botanical, faunal, avifaunal and groundwater specialists” document was updated from the Pre Application stage, whereas none of the specialist studies have been updated. For example, the Avifauna report is 5 years old (dated 2015) and does not address impacts of the proposed development on avifauna. 3.6. Pre application BAR Issues and Responses Summary: Authority and Institutional Comments: Firstly, the paraphrasing of comments received and secondly, grouping the comments into categories is problematic as this may lead to the fact that the gist of what is being said may be lost in translation, and some comments may not be dealt with at all. 3.7. It would be useful if the checklist document on the website under Volume 1 (parts 1-8) could include page numbers for ease of reference, e.g. that part 1 includes pages 1-34 of the checklist etc.

Parts that make up the DEADP checklist are not descriptive enough

4. Overarching Premise

4.1. The zoning of the site is Open Space 3 (Special Open Space). This allows for certain primary use rights, namely open space, private road and environmental conservation use. Consent uses include environmental facilities, tourist facilities, place of instruction, place of assembly, place of entertainment, plant nursery, utility service, cemetery, cultural and social ceremonies. The City wishes to reiterate the previous comments that, given the unique environmental and heritage significance of the site any development that takes place here must respect the context of the open space amenity and conservation use of the site, and that the recreational, ecological and visual amenity must not be compromised. 4.2. A suitable balance between the receiving environment (biophysical and heritage) has not been achieved and the proposed development does not constitute a sustainable proposal in that the natural environment, which provides green infrastructure services to sustain and undergird the existence of the socio-political and economic environment, is not given sufficient attention in the investigations and recommendations, around which alternatives are to be scoped as part of this BAR. In particular, with regard to the value of the biophysical and heritage environment (open space system, green valley / green lung, natural ecosystem of water bodies, ecological buffers, fauna, flora and freshwater, ground water and aquifer systems, would be irreversibly degraded / destroyed for the short term benefit of job creation, while creating attendant socio-political problems of locating commercial and residential activities within the 1:10year floodplain.).

4

This and the rehabilitation of such systems in light of ensuring that the City of Cape Town is a resilient and sustainable City and that new developments need to respond to this challenge in the larger context, has been overlooked. Throughout the BAR and responses to this question raised in the Pre-application stage, the overriding concern is the financial viability of the project (for example, refer row 125 of Issues and Responses Summary (Appendix F2). 4.3. The River Club site is a unique area and a desirable place in which to live, work and play and plans should reflect an interconnected and managed open space network that supports interactions between social, economic and ecological activities, sustaining and enhancing both ecological processes and human settlements, including natural areas, servitudes, river corridors and road reserves. The percentage of hard surfacing and buildings within the site is therefore critical and should respect the receiving environment so that a balance is achieved. The current proposal does not respect this balance.

5. Inclusionary housing

5.1. It is important to provide affordable housing in close proximity to the city centre, and the Observatory area is deemed desirable by the City for this. 5.2. Of the proposed 150 000m2 floor space, 20% (30 000m2) is allocated for residential units (approx. 600 units) and of that 20% (6000m2) is proposed to be set aside for inclusionary housing. Essentially, only 4% of the total bulk proposed for the new development is earmarked for inclusionary housing.

6. Public Open Space

6.1. POS is not identified as an issue in the Issues and Responses Summary (Appendix F2). Our comments made on the pre application Bar have not been adequately responded to. 6.2. The current “inward growth strategy” of the City makes the provision of public recreational and green spaces increasingly important for maintaining quality of life. 6.3. A buffer of a minimum of 40m for the Liesbeek canal (eastern Liesbeek) has been proposed. Likewise, a wide buffer (minimum 30m) for the Liesbeek river (western Liesbeek) is recommended from top of bank to fulfil its recreational potential as well as ecological role. 6.4. A breakdown of the nature of the open space (percentages for hard and soft, recreational, ecological and functional (e.g. detention ponds) must be given. Percentages of what will be accessible to the public should be shown. 6.5. The BAR needs to show what percentage of POS allocation for the development is on public land. This picks up on our previous comment on the pre-application BAR: POS (page 3 section 5) that City land should not be included as part of the open space provision. This comment was not adequately responded to. (Also see comment and response to Carol Clarke row 373 of BAR Issues and Responses Summary: Authority and Institutional Comments). The Table offered (Row 110) does not show the breakdown as requested, but refers to ecological open space and NEMA open space. Clarification is required in a response to our original comment. 6.6. The BAR repeatedly uses the fact that the site is somewhat disturbed and transformed to justify further transformation of the site. This is disingenuous as it implies that the only solution to the partial transformation of the site is to fully transform the site rather than rehabilitate as necessary.

5

7. Local Planning Frameworks (refer Section 11 of the BAR checklist)

Please refer to Annexure J for the City’s Urban Design comments. Spatial Planning and Urban Design are in agreement with the fact that the site makes up part of a wider metropolitan park and green lung and that the ‘sense-of-place’ should speak to a truly public, accessible, open space and park network, as part of the original zoning. Hence development should enhance and give reality to this public open space and riverine corridor as a point of departure and structuring. This in part is true of naturalising the eastern arm, creating the ecological corridor, however, the western Liesbeek arm being filled is still a point of contention. 7.1. Two Rivers Urban Park Contextual framework (TRUP CF) and Phase One Environmental Management Plan (Final Report August 2003) 7.1.1 Although raised as an issue in the Pre Application stage, the EAP has still not included this Framework in the list of “Applicable Legislation, Policies, Circulars and / Guidelines” (page 114 of the BAR checklist, Section 11 (a) of the BAR checklist). This is an oversight and must be corrected in the BAR. 7.1.2 In the response Row 29 of the of Issues and Responses Summary (Appendix F2), and on page 124 of the BAR, the EAP downplays the status of the Council approved Two Rivers Urban Park Contextual Framework (2003) and does not acknowledge its status as City adopted Policy. As approved policy, it has status, such as the Floodplain and River Corridor Management Policy, for which application is being made to deviate. As approved policy, the principles in such TRUP CF must be used to guide decision-makers regarding any future development within the area. In the absence of formal structure plan status, the TRUP CF must be regarded as a policy or a guideline. Thus it is of persuasive value for purposes of decision-making subsequent to 2003, but its provisions are not legally binding. 7.1.3 The City reiterates that according to the TRUP CF additional development within the TRUP is essential in order to ensure its future sustainability and that a balance between development and parkland must be achieved so that additional development does not compromise the integrity of the Park and its ecology. Towards this aim, the City concurs that buildings should not dominate the landscape within the Park, but should be used and orientated in order to provide informal surveillance over the Park, day and night. The application at hand proposes a dominance of buildings in the River Club precinct of the Park. The TRUP CF advocates the River Club site as an important structuring element of the Park and that development should support a range of activities for a multipurpose park, ensuring the unique character of the Park. The application at hand does not do this. The cultural / historical value of Observatory Hill is a vital contribution to the role of the Park as a place of cultural character and role of the site should be enhanced. From a climate resilience and environmental point of view, the application at hand does not do this. The framework puts forward that the River Club is one of the most active areas in the Park and that it should continue as a place of recreation, relaxation and outdoor education. The application at hand does not do this. 7.1.4 The TRUP Association (TRUPA) is still in existence and was intended to assist with governance of the area. It has a constitution. The TRUPA will be a significant role-player in the statutory processes that require public participation, given that its fundamental purpose is to uphold the Contextual Framework and Stage 1 Environmental Management Plan. It does not have status over and above a commenting authority. 7.1.5 The TRUP CF is in line with the City’s Resilience Framework. 7.2 Draft Two Rivers Local Spatial Development Framework (TRLSDF)The applicant is incorrect to refer throughout the BAR to this as a current Policy Plan against which the proposal

6

should be assessed. It is not adopted as official City Policy. Refer row 19, 27, 29 and 31 of Issues and Responses Summary (Appendix F2) and has no status. 7.2.2 The applicant, on numerous occasions throughout the BAR states that this TRLSDF is in support of the proposed River Club development. Statements like this should not be made at this point. The plan is still in Draft and needs to incorporate the high faunal sensitivity Conservation Area, which is part of the City’s Biodiversity Network (refer diagram) and MSDF.

City’s Biodiversity Network

7.2.3 If and when approved, this DF will replace the Two Rivers Urban Park Contextual framework. It will have statutory status, as a planning guideline document. 7.2.4 The context of the River Club within the Two Rivers Urban Park should be highlighted in the BAR, i.e. that the site is located within the larger Two Rivers Urban Park (TRUP), as a Precinct within the broader 300ha TRUP study area and this context must inform the spatial and environmental context w.r.t the sites’ proposed uses and intensity and scale of these uses, use of infrastructure, transport and parking etc.

7

7.3 Table Bay District Plan (2012) 7.3.1 Our previous comments made on the pre application BAR stand whereby the development proposal does not align with the conservation and open space function indicated for this area.

Excerpt from the Table Bay District Spatial Development Plan showing Natural assets, development edges & urban development

8

Excerpt from Table Bay District Spatial Development Plan showing Core 2 conservation areas, buffer areas, open space and floodlines in the River Club area

9

7.4 Environmental Strategy for the City of Cape Town Policy 7.4.1 The Environmental Strategy for the City of Cape Town (Policy No:46612) maintains that in order to realise the City’s vision, it needs to put measures in place to ensure that “Cape Town’s rivers and wetlands are well managed and where possible planned as cohesive corridors that are well-used recreational spaces and community assets that provide ongoing ecological service”. Taking this into account, this Department questions whether the approval of this development proposal as it will ensure that these principles are met as the development proposal will not ensure that the ecological diversity of this natural open space is preserved, nor will it ensure social inclusivity where all citizens will have reasonable access to this ecologically diverse natural open space. This development would further lead to a loss of public open space with amenity value as part of a larger metropolitan system of interconnected open spaces. 7.4.2 The City further highlights that private open space at the River Club is currently only accessible to the paying public and largely used by golfers. Taking this into account, it is noteworthy to point out that there is no guarantee that the ~15ha of high quality open space provided by the River Club Development will remain accessible to the wider public in the long-term after the development is authorised. The City further raises concerns over the potential of this development in promoting gentrification. The City land of 1.7m width along the Liesbeek canal is zoned Public Open Space 2, so this should still remain publicly accessible. 7.4.3 Directive points 6.11.1 through 6.11.4 are not fully complied with by the proposal in that the full significance of the unique sense of place and cultural landscape is not acknowledged sufficiently by the current development proposal which impacts negatively on these values. Mitigation is by means of reconfiguring the Liesbeek Canal and landscaping green open areas but the currently suggested bulk and heights of the proposed structures and resultant built forms should be reduced further in order to present a more sensitive alignment with the significance of the cultural landscape and sense of place. 7.5 Densification Policy 7.5.1 The City of Cape Town Densification Policy is but one City Policy and not applicable in cases in which it is in conflict with environmental and heritage protection and where the infilling of watercourses and a floodplain is proposed. While the EAP argues that the Basic Assessment Report and specialist studies compiled provides irrefutable evidence that demonstrates that the proposed development is possible from a hydrological perspective, will maximise net ecological and economic benefit, the City believes this would be at the expense of significant impacts on the heritage character of the site and SAAO. For these reasons, this Department further concludes that this development will not enhance key policies and objectives set out in the City of Cape Town Densification Policy nor will it outweigh the need to conserve the natural environment and green infrastructural assets which undergird and sustain the socio-political environment, and are major factors in the City of Cape Town’s economy, which is largely based on tourism and the property market. 7.6 City’s Climate Change Policy 7.6.1 The City’s Climate Change Policy promotes the protection, maintenance, rehabilitation and restoration of natural systems and resources. Infilling a river and developing within the floodplain is not consistent with the stated objectives of the Climate Change Policy. 7.6.2 The BAR does not adequately address the issue of climate change. 7.6.3 The only response given to our previous comment that the “development will reduce the resilience of the City to climate change” is a reference to the Surface Water Hydrology

10

report, Appendix G3 (see Row 242 of the Issues and Responses Summary, Appendix F2) where the issue of flooding on the site is mentioned. There is insufficient consideration of climate change impacts both in terms of potential climate impacts on the proposed development as well as the potential impact of the proposed development on climate risks in the area. Climate change was raised by a number of previous commenters as a significant issue, and the report acknowledges “the impact of the development on the City’s resilience to climate change” as a key issue that emerged from previous consultation processes. However, the current version of the BAR does not include a specific section dedicated to addressing this issue. 7.6.4 The frequency of recorded disasters indicates that high impact weather conditions and damaging floods are no longer ‘rare events’. Rather, these events occur almost annually, with extensive and recurrent financial losses. 7.6.5 Refer Annexure C for detailed comments. 7.6.6 Refer also par. Under 9.2, Surface Water and Flooding. 7.7 MSDF Compliance 7.7.1 It is stated in the BAR page 121 that, “Notwithstanding the site’s current role in the open space system and anticipated change in character as assessed in the BAR, it does not necessarily mean to say that development of the site should be precluded as motivating factors exist from a town planning perspective”. 7.7.2 This response is not accepted by the City. The response given is wholly insufficient, namely, that from a town planning perspective the outcome of the impact assessment should not preclude development. There would be no point in doing an assessment if one were to follow this rationale. The impact assessments are intended to guide the development i.t.o design / siting / height / bulk and mitigate the proposals at hand, in line with the City vision. Our understanding of town planning is that it is multi-disciplinary and should take into account an integrated perspective, taking into account biodiversity, visual, heritage and economic concerns. All layers of the MSDF (a suite of 4 plans) are applicable and make up town planning, i.e. the Consolidated Spatial Plan cannot be read in isolation of the other sectoral plans (5A to 5D MSDF 2018), one of which is the Biodiversity Network and Marine Protected Areas Plan. 7.7.3 This series of MSDF plans collectively indicate the metropolitan-scale interpretation of the City’s spatial vision, development directives, land-use informants and investments priority areas. 7.7.4 These plans should be read together as they culminate into a coherent spatial plan to guide and direct decision-making that is binding to the City. 7.7.5 According to spatial strategy 2, which relates to the management of urban growth and creating a balance between urban development and environmental protection, imperatives for this spatial strategy involves making more efficient use of non-renewable resources, such as land, water and biodiversity, including protecting and maintaining existing surface and groundwater resources and sustainably managing existing and future water supplies. It further provides that the use of these spatial strategies should ensure using the natural environment to support spatial justice by enhancing access for all citizens to quality open space network, offering community, recreational, non-motorized transport and economic opportunities.

11

7.8 Heritage Policies 7.8.1 The proposal does not align with current approved City policy and Strategies in terms of the City’s Tall Building Policy, Environmental Strategy and Cultural Heritage Strategy. This is further elaborates upon in the Heritage Impact Assessment Comment attached.

8. Infilling of the historic Liesbeek River

8.1 The infilling of the Liesbeek River is motivated in the BAR based on the evaluation that the proposed rehabilitation of the canalized section of the eastern Liesbeek River (according to Dr Liz Day’s report) would be a better trade-off for biodiversity habitat (including new Western Leopard Toad (WLT) habitat) and recreational amenity in the long-term (Refer to Section 13 of these comments (Biodiversity) where assumptions and gaps in knowledge are outlined). 8.2 From a biodiversity conservation point of view, the City is not amenable to the changes proposed to the function and management of the natural channel of the Liesbeek River on City land (Refer Annexure B). The City does not support the infill of a historic water course which effectively takes away the current wetland habitat. 8.3 This section of the Liesbeek River constitutes a natural watercourse that is partly disconnected from the Liesbeek River itself due to an engineered diversion of most of its flow into the eastern canal, and it now functions as a permanent backwater waterbody, receiving additional fresher water during rainfall events as the Observatory catchment stormwater discharges into it, and as flooding of the Liesbeek River overtops the road flowing into the historic river course in big rainfall events. Owing to its depth, it is a permanent waterbody. Its water depth is deeper than the Liesbeek Canal on the eastern side during low-flow days. 8.4 The historic Liesbeek River, as it skirts the River Club Site on the west, remains on the same alignment as it was, dating back to the 1800s. Historic aerial photographs attest to this. 8.5 The adverse water quality impacts from urban and suburban run-off from the Observatory catchment, changes in natural flow regime with the introduction of the canal, loss of some indigenous vegetation and invasion of the river channel by invasive alien plants, provide opportunities for improvement in the management and rehabilitation of the Liesbeek River (it’s flows, water quality and habitat). 8.6 This river and its vegetated margins are used by several species of waterfowl, particularly the Red knobbed coot, as breeding grounds for their young. They build floating nests on the river, safe from predators such as cats, dogs and humans. This section of the channel is also home to Pied Kingfishers, Malachite Kingfishers and Giant Kingfishers. Endemic Cape Galaxia fish occur in this stretch of the river. Fish-eating birds seen catching fish in this particular area, include cormorants, reed cormorants, the snake bird, and herons. Further, the river provides suitable habitat for the Cape Clawless Otter which also eats fish. The steep embankments are important for the Kingfishers, and possibly for otters’ holts (lairs / dens). It provides habitat and breeding areas to the endangered Western leopard toads. 8.7 The Liesbeek River also contains some indigenous reed species typical of wetlands, such as Typha capensis and Phragmites australis, along the banks of the river. These provide linear wetlands and valuable habitat to birds and frogs along the edges of the river. 8.8 It is for these reasons above that the historic Liesbeek River, as part of the broader Two Rivers Urban Park, has been identified as a Biodiversity Conservation Area. The City has entered into an agreement with CapeNature to ensure the long-term sustainable management of the rivers and wetlands of the Two Rivers Urban Park.

12

8.9 The infilling is not in line with City Policy that includes the following: Biodiversity strategy, Climate change / Climate resilience strategy, Environmental strategy, Floodplain and River Corridor Management Policy, Management of Urban Stormwater Impact Policy, Table Bay District Plan, Coast to Coast Greenway, and the Two Rivers Urban Park Contextual Framework (TRUP CF) and Environmental Management Plan (2003). 8.10 The proposal seeks to dispose of stormwater on City property, contrary to current stormwater Policy. Current Policy advocates stormwater harvesting, replenishing the Cape Flats Aquifer and water quality polishing (litter traps and reed beds), all required from a sustainable development point of view and from a Water Sensitive Urban Design point of view. 8.11 The TRUP CF advises the increasing of flows by diverting more flows through the historic Liesbeek River natural watercourse rather than the canal in order to provide a natural control against waterweed infestation. The proposal, on the other hand, aims to increase flows to the eastern canal, while reducing flow to the historic channel, exactly the opposite of what should occur. 8.12 The proposed infilling would see a 623m long section of the Liesbeek River, varying in width from 25 to 35m buried under fill, displacing the river waterbody completely, and the future stormwater being piped beneath the fill, in a series of landscaped swales, with no habitat for fish, waterfowl and otters. The existing Western Leopard Toad (WLT) breeding area would also be infilled. WLT breeding areas on the River Club would also be developed. The regionally significant bird population dependent on the water, would also be displaced. 8.13 There would be no riverine habitat visible from the Liesbeek River Parkway as the rehabilitated habitat would be between the River Club and SAAO (the Observatory). This would be a loss of visual amenity and sense of place. 8.14 Insufficient motivation is provided for the infilling of the natural watercourse of the Liesbeek River. The motivation appears to be to create more space for development on the site by removing natural water flows from this area. This infilling will negate the River Club development from having to set back 30 – 40m from the edge of the watercourse, enabling a substantially larger built footprint and more bulk, height and floor area. This is despite the report itself noting that the unlined watercourse “has high rehabilitation and ecological potential”. The infilling of this watercourse should not be considered lightly. The full consequences must be taken into account. A second alternative option should be provided that includes the rehabilitation of both the canal and the unlined natural river. 8.15 Absent from the BAR is a sensitive design from a water quality and ecological point of view that won’t set the City back from the City’s Water sensitive design goals and objectives, nor destroy the ecology of the historic Liesbeek River, a conservation area of high faunal sensitivity / significance. The latter is not acknowledged by the applicant. The BAR does not address the upgrading of the Liesbeek River natural channel in line with the TRUP CF and global trends where rivers are daylighted and brought to the surface and incorporated into designs, tying in with sustainable urban drainage system planning and design towards achieving water sensitive designs. 8.16 The infilling and remodelling of the historic natural Liesbeek River into a vegetated stormwater swale will have a negative impact on the cultural landscape and its connection to the First Nations people (water and ecology have significant meaning to the First Nations People). Visually obscuring the old Liesbeek River and removing its ability to be perceived as a historical watercourse severs the historical link to the cultural landscape and will have a negative impact on this significant heritage resource. This is not adequately addressed in the BAR.

13

8.17 A preferable solution would be the retention of the existing Liesbeek River (channel) and its banks, AND the partial removal / rehabilitation of the 1952 canal (east of River Club), with additional water being diverted from the Liesbeek River down the old (west) arm of the Liesbeek River, in addition to the stormwater inputs it currently receives, supplementing the backflow from the Black River. 8.18 Adaptive management principles set out that it is important to not cause more damage to a system by perpetuating the same threats. An alternative that will safeguard the ecological integrity of the system and ensure that that the negative effects to the system are not further perpetuated should be scoped. This is in line with the City’s Climate Change Policy which promotes the protection, maintenance, rehabilitation and restoration of natural systems and resources. 8.19 The City does not consider the canal rehabilitation as an acceptable biodiversity offset for the loss of a well-functioning natural ecosystem. The canal rehabilitation is an obvious upgrade that should be implemented for many canalised rivers in the City to enhance its ecological functioning, water percolation and aquifer recharge potential, but is not a substitute for filling in the western channel. Filling in the historic Liesbeek River, with its numerous fish, bird and frog populations, would have significant high negative biodiversity / ecological impacts and would compromise the functionality of the Raapenberg Wetland, and hence the overall functioning of the TRUP Conservation Area. 8.20 It is recommended that a 30m setback be applied to any development footprint along the edge of the historic Liesbeek River, in order to provide a vegetated open space area which will have both amenity and stormwater polishing functions. Mitigation measures (gabions and barriers) to discourage western leopard toad passage into the development should be implemented, except where it is reasonable for toads to cross the east-west corridor from the historic Liesbeek River breeding area to the Raapenberg Bird Sanctuary. These proposals need to be shown spatially on plans, and included in Construction & Operational River Corridor and Wetland Habitat Environmental Management Plans. It should be noted that the rationale for an east west WLT corridor and other dispersal corridors across the site for animal movement, was to enable movement from their breeding area within the Liesbeek River to the Raapenberg Wetlands. Removal of the Liesbeek River course would of course negate the need for any such movement corridor.

9. Surface Water and Flooding

9.1 Refer to comments from the City’s Catchment Stormwater and River Management Branch (Annexure I). Catchment Management is not in support of the current proposals. 9.2 The findings of Dr Day, in the fresh water ecology survey, documents that there is evidence of wetland vegetation that grows in brackish water. The study further reveals that there is an artificial channel that seems to have been created along the boundary of the SAAO property that is not linked to the Liesbeek or Black River. However, Page 85 4(a) (“Surface Water”) clearly states that there are no artificial wetlands (man-made) on the site. This is

14

incorrect. (Refer to artificial wetlands below, taken from 2015 and 2018 aerial photography).

Permanent water bodies (2015 and 2018). These aerial photographs are taken in February, towards the end of the summer in the dry season.

9.3 The Hazard Analysis, of concern to the Observatory community and property owners / residents, as part of the Surface Water Hydrology Impact Assessment Study (2018) indicates that currently, significant portions of the River Club site fall within the High Hazard Zone. The findings of the specialist report conclude that the proposed development of the River Club would increase the extent of flooding and inundation on already affected infrastructure and the PRASA site, result in flooding of the Valkenberg wetland and sports field as a result of the stormwater system surcharging, and result in overland changes in flow. The results from the modelling further confirm that the total volume of the flood at the Salt River would increase by 4% as a result of the 7% increase in the peak flows, while the flow at the Black River and River Club site would increase by 24%. 9.4 The study further elucidates that this increase in peak flow would occur because the proposed River Club development would block the existing flow route that would have connected the ‘Old Liesbeek River. Consequently, this would force all the flow down the Liesbeek Canal Route which would mean increased flow levels in the vicinity of the South African Astronomical Observatory. As such, there is no guarantee that the effect of the increased flows would be localised along the course of the Liesbeek Canal and not extend to neighbouring properties during extreme flood events. However, the BAR report largely minimizes the potential impacts of the development, in changing the flow regime and character of the riverine system, and the risk of flooding events and flood inundation to neighbouring properties, as a result of the proposed raising of ground levels on the site. 9.5 In terms of the City of Cape Town Floodplain and River Corridor Management Policy, 2009, new or existing rights within the High Hazard Zone are prohibited. The elevation of the River Club out of the floodplain will not ensure adequate and safe pedestrian and vehicular access to the development site. International best practice in places such as the Netherlands around development in flood plains is clearly illustrated in projects such as “Room for the River”. In this climate mitigation project, houses are relocated from the flood plain to higher ground and “room” made to allow the river to safely flood. As much as the engineering report suggests a negligible impact, the City should carefully consider why it would deviate from current international best practice. The high levels of development and their hardening of surfaces is inconsistent with the commitment the City has made to become a water sensitive city. 9.6 Taking the above into consideration, without having assessed cumulative, long-term unintended, unforeseen impacts of the proposed development of the riverine system and

15

on neighbouring properties for all proposed development stages in great detail, the City disagrees that it is appropriate to conclude that “increased flood depth would be negligible and will not result in a significant change in risk, or likely damage” as stipulated in the report. 9.7 As previously discussed, the development proposal includes the infilling of portions of the site and the elevation of structures up onto podiums. These interventions are proposed as a means of elevating the development out of the 1:100-year floodplain. The engineering reports indicate negligible impact on the catchment. The City’s catchment manager however notes that the engineering and water model did not take into account the impacts on the adjacent PRASA properties. The PRASA properties form part of the backbone of the City’s public transport system and therefore play a critical role in the City’s economy. It is understood that PRASA were unsuccessful in the past in their application to build a protective berm. The impact of the development on the PRASA property and other infrastructure (pump stations, electrical substations etc.) must be investigated in detail to determine the risk to ongoing functionality in the event of a large storm event. Protecting their functionality must be an important consideration. PRASA have also noted their concern regarding the impact of flooding that the River Club development will have on their property. 9.8 City-owned properties associated with the Liesbeek River Parkway roadway have been included in the development proposal. These properties have been included as part of the development’s stormwater management system. A query related to the use of these properties for this purpose was forwarded to the property management department who confirmed verbally at the time that they were unaware of the proposed use of these properties for stormwater management. It is unclear on what basis these properties have been incorporated as new developments are obliged to manage their stormwater onsite. The River Club BAR indicates the intention to enter into an agreement related to these properties. It would be useful to understand if the development has considered the possibility that the City does not agree to relinquish these properties. 9.9 Future development and flooding scenarios for the proposed development are largely dependent on the PRASA and National Research Foundation (NRF) site remaining undeveloped. The potential changes in land-use of neighbouring properties (for example PRASA railyards and the possibility of future upgrades and development of both Malta Park and Hartleyvale sports grounds) must be factored in. 9.10 Floods would in all likelihood cover the public areas. Responsibility for repairs and reinstatement of landscaping and all improvements (roads, pathways etc.) will need to be carefully outlined. 9.11 It is stated that two properties in Observatory will have increased risk of flood damage (1:20 year floods), but that the developer will provide flood barriers. Responsibility for ensuring these are appropriate to the task, the nature of these barriers, issues arising from unforeseen impacts, maintenance of barriers etc., all need to be carefully outlined. 9.12 The City reiterates that negative impacts on neighbouring properties/limited detrimental effect on neighbouring properties as a result of any developmental proposal is not acceptable. For this reason, it is a recommendation of the City that the issues raised above be taken into account and the outlined impacts be assessed as part of the Final Basic Assessment Report. However, the liability for any of the abutting properties flooding, is not clearly outlined in the report. 9.13 Hydrology and hydraulic modelling should be considered as a tool for analysing potential impacts and scenarios, based on engineering judgement and experience, and not an exact deterministic science. It is essential to draw attention to the fact that while hydrological models are conducted by specialists in the respective fields, they are not

16

always a 100% accurate and can, to some degree, be subject to human error and potential shortcomings. Different modellers may obtain different results. In the absence of reliable data to calibrate models, accuracy of the modelling may be rendered questionable. 9.14 The residents are not convinced, regarding the potential flooding of their properties resulting from displacement of floodwaters, that the proposed development’s hydrological modelling, is accurate. The surface hydrology assessment presented a literature review of findings from a range of hydrological and hydraulic studies dating as far back as 2000. However, the data used to highlight recorded flood events and inform future trends and flood levels in the vicinity of the River Club, dates as far back as 2007 and 2012. This leads us to probe whether or not there isn’t more recent and updated statistical analysis of data that could have been used to address the concerns raised by the stakeholders and provide irrefutable evidence that the proposed development would not have an adverse flooding impact on infrastructure and private property. Furthermore, little consideration has been given for flood events that have occurred over the years but were not recorded. This variable has not been taken into account in the modelling. 9.15 The opportunities related to the water resources on the site have not been considered. These opportunities are not limited to the site and have great potential to the City more broadly. The City’s river catchment planner Richard Nell, has confirmed that the River Club’s location at the confluence between the Black and Liesbeek Rivers represents the only site in the southern suburbs for a storage dam and treatment facility combined with injection to the aquifer below. Kevin Winter (Future Water) and Jason Mingo (Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning) have also seen the benefit of this idea and also proposed a dam for this area. Richard Nell has also indicated that this specific site is one of two possible dam sites in the City and is the only one within the southern suburbs. 9.16 The rich water resources at the River Club offers a very real opportunity to give effect to the principles of a water sensitive city, as per the City’s Water Strategy and Water Resilience Strategy.

10. Alternatives 10.1. The No-go option and development within the parameters of the current Open Space 3 Zone have not been explored adequately. The “no go” option is therefore dismissed in the Alternatives Analysis as being “highly unlikely” and no positive implications of the “no go” option are listed. Similarly, no negative implications of the various development options are provided in the Alternatives Analysis and only positive implications are provided. The report provides no evidence for the positive implications that are listed. These alternatives require further investigation in order to establish if the ensuing negative impacts would be less than those perceived from the current proposal. 10.2. Preferred Development Layout (Figure 3), setback from eastern canal: Distances of setback are given to buildings. Distances to the actual start of any hard surfacing (e.g. for parking areas and retaining structures should be shown). 10.3. The City recommends that, even at this early stage, more detail is given for a firmer understanding of this interface. Indicate cadastral lines showing River Club property in context of the existing Liesbeek canal (currently not shown) and proposed river corridor that clearly depicts and shows areas of private ownership and City owned land. Provide a larger scale drawing and include the photographic backdrop as reference. Provide cross sections through the canal at various points (also showing the distance at which point the hard surfacing, starts). This will provide a better illustration of the interface between the city owned canal and the rehabilitated corridor, and will help the reader better understand the nature of this space.

17

10.4. A case in point is the proposed 7.5m sloped embankment (refer figure 24 (note, assumed to be figure 24 as this figure has no title). The gradient is not given and it is likely to be quite steep due to the significant height change over a short horizontal distance. However, the City was also not given the height difference between the canal and the top of the development platform. Certainty needs to be provided that spaces, shown as recreational space, (dog walking etc.) can be used as such. 10.5. Quantity and height of fill is not described in detail in the BAR but is alluded to at various points in the BAR. There is no clear summary and diagram of existing and proposed ground levels. It is unclear in the report by how much the site is proposed to be raised from its existing level and no base level of the buildings (final platform level) is given. Clarity on this should be included. 10.6. Regarding the Riverine Concept Alternative, the BAR states that, as well as residual impacts, there will be a number of socio-economic benefits to local communities and government, that include cultural benefits from restoring the Liesbeek River corridor (canal), celebrating the First Nations narrative at the site, and that the immediately adjacent ecological environment will be improved. The City does not share this opinion (refer Section 8 and point 8.17 of these comments). 10.7. The BAR puts forward that, through effective implementation of detailed design and the stipulated mitigation measures, the adverse impacts can be reduced to tolerable levels, and that benefits are significant. The Riverine Corridor Alternative is therefore positively assessed for development. The City disagrees that the preferred development alternative will lead to a net ecological benefit (including the replacement of a canal with a watercourse with natural ecological function, and the transformation of a degraded water body into a swale with terrestrial and aquatic ecological function) as stated by the EAP (refer Section 8). 10.8. Checklist response, Page 162, The applicant has not provided “a detailed motivation for not further considering the alternatives that were found not feasible and reasonable including a description and proof of the investigation of those alternatives”. The applicant’s response is based on economic returns only. There is no investigation of positive impacts that an alternative development with less bulk, and that does not include the infilling of the Liesbeek River natural channel, will have on the biophysical and heritage environment. 10.9. The assessment of development alternatives is insufficient. The EAP fails to scrutinise each alternative based on the advantages and disadvantages/opportunities and constraints associated with each alternative to inform the selection of the preferred alternative. Furthermore, it remains unclear on which grounds each alternative was assessed, as part of the impact assessment, as the impacts associated with each alternative are not fully set out in the report. Furthermore, the report alludes to financial feasibility as the basis for selection of the preferred alternative, which is flawed. It is not clear how the ecological outcomes of this project, if implemented, would mitigate the impacts anticipated as a result of this proposed development, improve the ecological function and river connectivity of the site nor how the proposed infilling of the natural river channel, is justified. Hence, the City recommends that another alternative needs to be investigated. 10.10. The selection of an alternative that would not entail the infilling of the historic river course and maintains a minimum setback of 30m from the Liesbeek River to enable an ecological riverine buffer for faunal habitat and for recreational and visual amenity, should be investigated. This would minimise some of the residual impacts relating to the loss of ecological integrity and visual impact. For this reason, the City reiterates the need for investigation of a development alternative of setting back the building footprints from the original course of the Liesbeek River and the rehabilitation of the Liesbeek River canal by removing the left hand (western) wall of the canalised section of the canal.

18

10.11. The City advises further assessment of another development alternative to better understand the potential opportunity costs and benefits to the City of Cape Town. 10.12. While the report stipulates that the proposed development is in line with a number of principles contained in the MSDF such as opening-up opportunities in the urban space economy, improving accessibility, the promotion of a mixed-use development and densification, this development and the proposed Alternative deviates from a number of policies and principles that relate to the protection of the City’s biodiversity, heritage, hydrological and cultural assets.

11. Visual Impact

11.1. The site plan in the VIA does not show the same boundaries as given in the BAR (Appendix B: Site development Plan). The former boundaries do not include the City land: Western Liesbeek River natural channel and land adjacent to the Liesbeek Parkway. 11.2. Page 36 of the VIA states that the “Square Kilometre Array building is also proposed to be constructed on the property immediately south of the River Club site”. This is also put forward in the BAR checklist. This needs to be confirmed by the SAAO. This is important as it is used as motivation / catalyst for the further development of the River Club site. 11.3. Having to raise the site by 6m or more to achieve an acceptable height above the flood water level to constitute the base level of the building platform should be shown and included in the VIA. Likewise, the encroachment into the historic Liesbeek River with a sloping berm to cover the parking base levels up to 5.9m in height above existing ground level, should be included. 11.4. It is concluded in the VIA that for Operational phase there will be a high impact and that with mitigation this is will drop to a medium significance. This “medium” significance is considered by the City to be a significant high negative impact on the receiving open space and heritage environment (in light of current Local Planning Frameworks – refer Section 7 above). One cannot mitigate the loss of a strategic view corridor (from the Observatory across the floodplain to the mountain). The City does not agree that the significance rating should be dropped from high negative to medium negative. 11.5. Operational Phase (page 32) 6.2.1 Altered sense of place: Mitigation offered for buildings is to “avoid large blocks”. The proposal still has large blocks. As for 6.2.2: Visual intrusion, the City does not concur that the significance would be reduced from High to Medium with the mitigation measures proposed, as they make no real difference to the massing and scale proposed. 11.6. The mitigation interventions presented are not measures that significantly affect the footprint / bulk or heights proposed. The VIA talks to ensuring green buffers along rivers. However, the rivers already have wide setbacks in terms of current zoning and City Catchment policies. Hence, this cannot be used as a mitigating measure (the entire site forms an East-West corridor between the eastern canal and western natural river channel. The VIA also describes other measures such as vegetation and tree planting, architectural details of buildings, utilising views of the mountain and bird sanctuary for the development itself, use of finishes and materials, signage, fencing colour and width of roads and arrangement of parking. These are essentially superficial mitigation measures, and the City does not believe that they will have any material impact on the proposed massing. There is no indication of reducing the bulk, height or footprints, being the only factors that will reduce the actual visual impact of the proposed 10-12 storeys building in precinct 2 (85 0000m2 bulk) and 1-10storeys in precinct 1 (65 000m2 bulk). The City does not agree that the visual impact rating will be reduced from high to medium negative with the mitigation measures as proposed.

19

11.7. Appendix A: Viewpoint photographs show landscaping and tree planting around the proposed blocks. The City is of the opinion that this will have minimal impact on reducing the visual intrusion of the development on the receiving cultural landscape. 11.8. The conclusion does not look at the possibility of improving the western Liesbeek River natural channel from the point of view of a sense of place and integrity of the landscape - being the retention of a riverine and green valley cultural landscape. No real mitigation of visual impacts is offered. Instead the BAR contends that during parts of the year, the original (western) natural channel of the Liesbeek River can be visually unappealing when water levels are low, as the channel can appear polluted. No alternative to rehabilitate is given. This is an oversight and should be scoped as part of a further alternative. 11.9. It is stated that the visual impact is pronounced but not inconsistent with a cityscape. The City agrees with the EAP that the visual impact is pronounced but the City does not concur with the conclusion which describes the proposal as being “not inconsistent with a cityscape”. This part of the metropolitan green belt, zoned Private open space and the hub of the TRUP is not “cityscape” but parkland. 11.10. The cityscape of Cape Town as depicted in the before and after figures clearly shows a significant and pronounced change and impact from a visual perspective. This impact can be mitigated by reducing bulk, development footprint and building heights as suggested in mitigation in the VIA (“avoid large blocks”). However, the proposal still has large blocks with some of the blocks in precinct 1 having increased in height with an additional storey. In precinct 2 the revised proposal has reduced the number of the storeys for some of the buildings, but the footprint dimensions of the buildings have increased. In addition, approximately mid centre of precinct 2, a 10storey building is proposed, which would reduce the mitigation effort to reduce the visual impact as it would still cause visual intrusion.

Figure of the Preferred Development alternative extracted from the BAR January 2020

11.11. The VIA concludes that receptor perceptions are key, and that either open space may be valued and prioritized, or that urban development may have functional advantages depending on the viewer. This is not a useful or helpful opinion and does not address the issue of visual impacts on the landscape, nor visual absorption capacity of the river valley for a multi-storey development, nor whether this is in keeping with the sense of place of this predominantly natural landscape. City Policy should be applied when making a decision on the suitability of the site for the proposals at hand, Refer Section 7.

20

12. Socio Economic impact

12.1. Ecosystem Services are free services offered by natural processes that aid and assist our well-being. A healthy ecosystem contributes to improved water quality, which in turn leads to less expensive methods of water purification, increased tourism potential, and better functioning of the environment as a whole. The rehabilitation of the Liesbeek River natural channel as part of the City’s Green Infrastructure that can provide an ecosystem service (with clear socio economic benefits) has been overlooked in the BAR. 12.2. The concept of green infrastructure has emerged internationally as a way of understanding how green assets and ecological systems function as part of the infrastructural fabric that supports and sustains society and builds resilience and secures the provisioning of ecosystem services in human-dominated city landscapes. Green infrastructure refers to the entire urban green network, including all natural, semi-natural and artificial ecological systems within, around and between urban areas and at all spatial scales. It is a planned and managed network of such green spaces and geographically formed corridors, aimed at conserving ecosystem values and functions and providing associated benefits to human populations. The proposal is not in line with this approach. 12.3. While the EAP maintains that the proposal is in line with the current mandate and consistent with national priorities in terms of the creation of jobs and opportunities, the City needs to promote increased economic growth and promote social inclusion, whilst ensuring that such growth is ecologically sustainable. The National Spatial Development Perspective (NSDP) (2003 and updated in 2006) maintains that, to achieve the goal of stimulating sustainable economic activities and to create long-term employment opportunities, it is required that spending on economic infrastructure is focused in priority areas (“spatial targeting”) with potential for economic development, with development to serve the broader societies’ needs equitably. Taking this into account, while it is evident that this development will cross-subsidise and generate funds which will contribute substantial income for the City of Cape Town in the form of rates and taxes, on the other hand, this development will rob communities of the opportunity to retain their cultural heritage. 12.4. In terms of socio-economic benefits, the City is of the opinion that the proposed development will not promote justifiable economic and social development. This development could potentially result in negative socio-economic impacts on views, sense of place and the historical character of the site. Furthermore, it could potentially result in negative socio-economic impacts primarily associated with gentrification.

13. Biodiversity Impacts

Please refer to additional City Biodiversity comments attached under Annexure B. Refer Annexure G2 Assessment of potential biodiversity impacts – Incorporating the findings of the aquatic ecosystems (rivers and wetlands), botanical, faunal, avifaunal and groundwater specialists.” December 2019, Prepared by Liz Day, Freshwater Consulting cc.: Comments on Executive Summary 13.1. Assumptions 13.1.1. The important assumptions on which the Biodiversity Impact Assessment are based are not realistic or founded in reality. The assumption contained in E2, pg2. That the City of Cape Town is amenable to changes to the function and management of the natural channel of the Liesbeek River on City land, as part of Alternative 2, is unfounded and misguided.

21

13.1.2. Please see the erroneous quote from the report in the snip below:

13.1.3. There is no support from the City of Cape Town nor power of attorney from Property Management to make such an application on the City’s behalf, and to include a statement to this effect, and to propose to fill in with soil, this high faunal sensitivity Conservation Area which functions as part of the City’s Biodiversity Network, which is managed according to a Biodiversity Agreement with CapeNature as part of a sustainable biodiversity network, sustaining habitat and range of various species, to ensure their survival in perpetuity. Diminishing functioning habitat is not one of the City’s objectives, such as infilling this ecological corridor would result in (as indicated in the River Club’s proposals). It also does not align with the City’s IDP policies and strategies as included in the MSDF’s Biodiversity Plan and Table Bay District Spatial Development Plan. This has been dealt with in our comments on alignment of the proposal with policy and spatial plans. 13.1.4. The second assumption is the assumption that “The findings of the hydrological study, particularly with regard to the impact of the proposed infill on flooding of the adjacent Raapenberg wetlands, are accurate.” The findings cannot be assumed to be 100% accurate, because there is always a margin of error in hydrological studies, on average between 10 – 20% inaccuracy, as there are numerous variables and sensitivities to consider, and alternative combinations thereof, that are not always factored in to the predictive equations in the relevant proportions. 13.1.5. “The third assumption is that “The development of either alternative, if approved, would be in accordance with the full detailed description of the development as outlined in this report, unless altered by explicit biodiversity mitigation. No items would be excluded from the development, without confirmation from the biodiversity team that they were immaterial to the development outcomes / impacts;” 13.1.6. The fourth assumption that “The additional recommendations included in the report, and intended to improve certainty that the proposed development would be able to achieve its untended [sic] ecological benefits, would also be conditions of Authorisation” may not necessarily materialize, for the reason stated above. As frequently occurs, one could have a situation of the development varying from the proposals assessed, and there may not be funds to rehabilitate the canalized portion of the canal on the eastern edge of the River Club. Landscaping is often the first budget to be cut on various developments in the City, particularly in the event of the developer running out of funds, or the development costing more than anticipated. 13.2. Gaps in information and further studies needed 13.2.1. With reference to Section E3.2 Aquatic ecosystems on and near the site, it is important that thorough studies be done of the fish in the Liesbeek River and upstream thereof. It is not sufficient for the specialists to postulate that there may be ‘endemic galaxia fish in the Liesbeek River’ because they occur upstream, without having verified this. Please provide the relevant studies of all species of fish in the river. This stretch of the river is indicated as an important fish river on maps for this purpose. Also, if there are fish upstream of the site, the appropriate response would be to re-establish the original link from the Liesbeeck River to the historic course of the Liesbeek River to re-establish and enhance the ecological functioning of the river and help re-establish improved water flows, rather than infilling a section of river that contains indigenous fish, and which supports fish-dependent bird species.

22

13.2.2. The concrete lined canal only extends along part of the eastern boundary of the River Club site, (rather than along the full length of the eastern boundary) and the rest is a natural wetland and riverine edge which contains valuable habitat. Despite the concrete canalised section, birds visiting this site include the white throated swallows, Egyptian geese and their chicks, and various others. They are able to walk out of the canalised section where it has broken down on the SAAO side of the canal.

Natural Edge of River Club property includes reed banks, treed island and bird roosting opportunities

23

13.2.3. The concrete lined Liesbeek canal does not extend the full length of the River Club site, and the unlined portion, illustrated in the aerial photographs, of roughly 220m in length with natural wetlands and riverine edges, is not discussed. This omission must be rectified with further studies and recommendations.

end of the canal wall and the start of the natural reedbank edge

The photo shows the end of the canal wall and the natural reedbank edge of the River Club property

13.2.4. Please include accurate mapping of the ecologically sensitive wetlands and habitat as well as the WLT breeding sites on the River club site itself. Provide maps of the breeding, foraging and home range areas of the various species. 13.3. Affected Natural Systems (Refer E3) 13.3.1. E3.1 Overview refers. The statement in the report that the River Club site includes no indigenous terrestrial vegetation is not accurate. On the edge of the River Club, on the north-eastern boundary, adjacent to the Raapenberg Wetlands, the River Club site contains indigenous wetland vegetation of reeds and this also occurs in two artificial wetlands. It is not accurate to say that the River Club site is ‘edged along its eastern and south-eastern boundary by the Liesbeek Canal’. In fact, along the north-eastern and part of the south-eastern boundary, the River Club has a natural edge of wetlands and reed habitats, which provide valuable faunal and avifaunal habitat within the River Club’s boundary, as an extension to the Raapenberg Wetlands. This habitat is well documented, and the erection of the bird hide on the River Club site with views into the wetlands attests to the fact that these wetlands provide bird habitat.

24

13.3.2. The north-eastern edge of the River Club site includes reed beds and trees and a bird hide overlooking the reeds of the River Club site, and the Raapenberg Wetlands. Please note that wetland habitat and trees as roosting sites for birds within the River Club site, north of the canalized section of the river. This wetland and riverine habitat falls within the River Club site, north-east of the end of the canal, the edge of which is on City land. 13.3.3. Furthermore, the report states erroneously that the River Club site “is edged along its eastern and south eastern boundary by the Liesbeek Canal”. To be accurate, in the vicinity of the canal, the River Club site is edged by a 1.7m wide strip of City land, zoned Public Open Space and therefore accessible to the public as a water’s edge walkway, and thereafter, is edged by the Liesbeek Canal. The River Club does not own the 1.7m wide City land between its site and the Liesbeek Canal. Certain of the trees along this edge are located on City land, and not River Club land. 13.3.4. Land Use Zoning map indicating that the canal edge and 1.7m wide area abutting the canal is City land and zoned Public Open Space. Hence this land is owned by the City and available as publicly accessible land alongside the water’s edge for a water’s edge trail. It is a good bird watching area. The report needs to be corrected to reflect the City owned land between the River Club and the canal for the full length of the canal.

Zoning Map indicating canal zoned Public Open Space (OS2)

25

13.3.5. There would need to be permission from the City for the development proposals on City land, and the City would require an undertaking of maintaining the new landscaping on the City land and ensuring ongoing public access to this land, in the event of any type of development going ahead. 13.3.6. It is not acceptable to find so many inaccuracies within the report, and it tends to indicate that the River Club site and surrounds have not been properly surveyed or assessed by the specialists, or the EAP. 13.3.7. The Liesbeek River is referred to as “an earth-lined channel”. It is true that it is a natural water course, and therefore not cement-lined. However, the Liesbeek River is lined with vegetation on the river banks for the most part, and there is little exposed earth-lining anywhere. 13.3.8. The report states in E3.1 that “the Black River forms the southern boundary of the site, between the confluence of the Liesbeek Canal and the natural channel of the Liesbeek River (Figure E1)”. This is not correct and one wonders if the specialists are familiar with the site. The Black River forms the north eastern boundary of the River Club site and not the southern boundary as stated in the report. 13.3.9. Please describe the ‘serious change from its natural conditions, with changes in natural river morphology being major contributors to this poor condition rating.” Nowhere is this ‘serious change from its natural condition’ described.

An illustration of portion of the 1.7m wide City land between the River Club site and the canal, zoned public open space. The land is public land

26

13.3.10. The City is aware that the water quality impacts and the changes to the natural flow regime from canalization have caused some impacts, but the Liesbeek River is still apparently on the same alignment as it has been, since the late 1800s. Please see the diagrams which indicate this. The historic maps from the City’s Heritage Section, indicate that the historic Liesbeek River still follows the same alignment below Station Road.

Military survey 1899 showing the Two Rivers confluence and the Paarden Island

Divisional map c1901

27

Figure 1 See the line for the 1905 Liesbeek (blue line) which in the vicinity of the River Club is largely the same as today’s aerial photograph

13.3.11. Hence it would appear that the Liesbeek River still retains its original river bed and possibly its banks in the vicinity of the River Club. Although there has been a loss of indigenous vegetation due to infilling within the floodplain of the River Club site, by the previous owners, there is still some indigenous vegetation along the historic Liesbeek River, such as Typha capensis and Phragmites australis which provide habitat to birds and frogs. While there is invasive vegetation within the river (Eichornia crassipes, (water hyacinth) and Parrot’s feather, this is being managed on a continuous basis. This is not providing a hindrance to the waterfowl who are successfully managing to breed and raise their chicks on the Liesbeek River waterbody. It is correct that fish occur in the river upstream and also occur in this stretch of river. This is evidenced by the large number of piscivorous (fish-eating) birds occurring in this area, such as the cormorants, snake bird, heron, darter, and three species of kingfishers, amongst others. Furthermore, the local residents have pointed out that the Cape Clawless otter frequents this area. Also, the Western Leopard

28

Toads are breeding both within the Liesbeek River and apparently on the River Club site itself. 13.3.12. There is little mention in the report, apart from the Specialist studies attached as Appendices, of the importance of the waterbodies as habitat for birds. Of the 33 bird species noted on the site, 21 were water-related bird species, with two being of high (international) conservation priority (red-data), namely the Great White pelican in the Liesbeek River natural channel and Greater flamingos in the Raapenberg reserve and off the northern edge of the River Club area. Several species were of provincial conservation interest in addition to those of nationally rated conservation species. The bird study notes the importance of the water bodies for the bird populations, and this must be included, whether or not it contradicts with the developer’s intention of infilling the Liesbeek River. The importance of the bird habitat is understated, and the impacts on the water bird species is largely ignored in the report. Their need for perching and roosting sites is noted, and to this end the need to retain the Salix babylonica (weeping willow) even though not indigenous is noted. Other perching trees must also be retained for them regardless of whether the trees are indigenous or not. The importance of buffer areas to the water body will be important, and the planting of tall trees will assist them with perching and breeding sites. It is possible that perches could be constructed for large water birds within the Liesbeeck River channel. The waterbodies are highly significant in this part of Cape Town and regionally and the development impacts would be unacceptable. The total area of wetlands remaining in the Western Cape is less than 0.5% of the province. The junction of the Liesbeek and Black River channels is a focal point in the wetland systems of central-north Cape town. 13.3.13. The importance of the River Club area for birds is in the open water and the abutting waters-edge habitats which together provide a range of micro-habitats for specialist foragers. 13.3.14. The bird report states that “it is not considered appropriate to construct buildings right beside the main water channels (rivers and canal) but set back sufficiently to enable natural landscaping and the provision of trails between the buildings and the waterbodies. 13.3.15. The bird report recommends the removal of infill from part of the currently uncultivated river junction areas beyond the golf course could enable the creation of patches of managed wetland habitats. 13.3.16. The bird specialist was not provided with any information on the proposed layout and the parts of the overall area to be affected (see p228, Introduction). 13.4. Present Ecological State (PES) (or condition) rating of the LIesbeek River (natural Liesbeek channel) (Refer E3.2) 13.4.1. The City disputes this rating of E which applies to “Seriously modified with extensive loss of habitat and wetland function – unacceptable condition”. The City would say that a more accurate rating of the PES Category is C: “Moderately modified with some loss of habitat”. The City would say this because the water quality is sufficiently functioning to sustain various fish species, and because the wetland vegetation on the edges is sustaining birdlife, and the waterbody is functioning as a wetland for numerous breeding waterfowl, particularly the red knobbed coot. If it were not functioning, then it would not contain habitat which sustains so many species. If the condition of the Liesbeek River were ‘E’ – Seriously modified with extensive loss of habitat and wetland functioning” it would not support fish, Western Leopard Toad breeding and numerous waterfowl and piscivorous bird species. The Liesbeek River could be enhanced by restoring original water flows from the upstream Liesbeek River, providing a treed and vegetated riverine

29

buffer, and by increasing the availability of foraging areas for the Western Leopard Toad and Cape Clawless Otter. 13.4.2. Please rectify the amphibians study to confirm the existing situation that Western Leopard Toads are breeding in the Liesbeeck River. Presumably, if habitat were so bad (equivalent to an “E” PES rating), they wouldn’t be breeding there, and the habitat and functioning would not sustain as many diverse species of amphibians, reptiles, avifauna and mammals. 13.4.3. It is stated that the Raapenberg wetlands are important from an avifaunal perspective, supporting mainly waterfowl. Please confirm if fish are breeding in the Raapenberg wetlands and if the Raapenberg wetlands also support piscivorous birds as the Liesbeek River ‘channel’ does. 13.4.4. It is stated in the report that the artificial golf course ponds ‘may provide suitable breeding sites for Western Leopard Toads and other amphibians.’ (pg iii). Please do an amphibian study / survey and check if the artificial golf course ponds are providing breeding sites for WLTs and other amphibians. Certainty of what species are living in which habitat is required, in order to assess the impacts of the proposals on the receiving context. Without the necessary studies having elicited the relevant information, the information is incomplete at this stage, and needs to be provided to determine impacts. 13.4.5. In the description of Sensitivity of receiving environments, the report states on page iii that “the Liesbeek Canal is not sensitive as a riverine habitat in its current form. This is true, except where the canal becomes a more natural water course and contains reed habitat for birds on its edges. 13.4.6. In the description of sensitivity of the natural channel of the Liesbeek River, it states that it is disconnected from the liesbeek River and now functions as a backwater wetland. Please note that it also is able to receive water from upstream in the Liesbeek if the sluice is opened beneath the road, in heavy rainfall events where the Liesbeek River overtops the Roads, and when receiving water from the Observatory catchment via the stormwater system. The report states that the natural Liesbeek River channel ‘may provide breeding areas to western leopard toads” Please do an amphibian study to determine if the WLTs are breeding within the Liesbeek River. The City of Cape Town has had accounts that WLTs are breeding within the Liesbeek River channel. 13.4.7. The reason for East-West connectivity across the site, from the Raapenberg wetlands to the natural Liesbeek River channel and east-west across the site in various places for wetland fauna and especially WLTs, indicates the need for the Raapenberg wetland fauna to retain access to the Liesbeek River channel for breeding. It has been reported that at times the wetlands dry out too much for WLT breeding. It would be judicious to retain the Liesbeek River as a permanent fresh-water refuge for birdlife and amphibians. 13.4.8. The City endorses the recommendation that “provision of adequate, safe, vegetated terrestrial habitat for WLTs during their non-breeding season is critically important for the sustainability of this species on and near the site.” For this reason, sufficient ecological buffers on either side of the Liesbeeck River need to be allocated for their movement. A concerted effort needs to be made to provide improved vegetative cover for their movement in this 30-40m wide ecological buffer. Ecological buffers are required in terms of the City’s Flood Plain and River Corridor Management Policy. 13.5. Integrated botanical and faunal (including avifauna) specialist findings (Refer E3.3) 13.5.1. The report states on pg iv that ’29 indigenous mammal species might occur on the site’. Please conduct a thorough study and determine what mammal species do occur on the site. The listing of the African Clawless Otter as Near threatened is cause to ensure that it’s foraging and home range are protected properly.

30

13.5.2. The report also states on pg iv that a total of 32 indigenous reptile species may occur on the River Club grounds – possibly the Cape Dwarf Chameleon which is listed as Vulnerable. Please do a thorough study and determine which species of reptiles are found on the River Club site and within the riverine edges of the site, and within the trees. The City has heard that the Cape Dwarf Chameleon enjoys Mannetoka trees for habitat, and the report elsewhere recommends that the Mannetokas be felled and replaced with indigenous trees. Please ensure that adequate alternative vegetation and trees are provided on the River Club site prior to felling any existing mature trees. 13.5.3. Likewise do a thorough amphibian study and determine what occurs on the River Club site and surrounds. It is unacceptable to not have any accurate information on either mammalian, reptilian, avifaunal or fish species either in the Liesbeek River, or on the River Club site and fringes of the site. The purpose of requesting specialist studies is to confirm in more detail the presence of some known and unknown species on the site, many already known to the City, and potentially others not known. Where we know of the presence of WLTs in the Liesbeek River, on the River Club site and within the Raapenberg Wetlands, the City need indications of their numbers, foraging patterns and habits, breeding patterns, etc. 13.5.4. Maps need to be provided showing the spatial distribution of the occurrence of the various species across the site to inform the spatial plans for the development proposals. 13.5.5. On pg iv of the report, it states that “The faunal specialist noted that although the presence of an endangered species on the site does not trigger a fatal flaw response in respect of the development intentions, the prevalence of WLTs in this area does call for special considerations to adequately accommodate this species here. 13.5.6. The report then makes a factually incorrect statement that “The only known WLT breeding sites in the region of the River Club are the wetlands of the Raapenberg Bird Sanctuary / Raapenberg Wetlands and about 1.5km south-east in the Oude Molen area.” The City of Cape Town is aware that WLT toadlets and toads have been found on the River Club site itself, and within the Liesbeek River channel. 13.5.7. The City concurs with the need to provide habitat for shelter and food (foraging) for WLTs in the non-breeding period (10months of the year) and that substantial green belts must remain undeveloped especially in the areas near the Raapenberg wetland and along the rivers and within dispersal corridors. This is consistent with the City’s Flood plains and river corridor management policy which also requires ecological buffers to be protected alongside rivers. These areas required for sustaining the WLT and other amphibians outside their breeding period need to be mapped. The City of Cape Town is aware that the WLT forages across the River Club site and into surrounding areas. Currently, they are sustained by feeding in the full extent of the River Club area and are able to move across the site at will. 13.5.8. The City of Cape Town also concurs with the findings that multiple ‘dispersal options’ between breeding habitat and year-round occupancy habitat must be maintained, and barriers must be limited. Connectivity must be maintained between the Raapenberg wetlands and the river regions to the west, including the area of the former Liesbeek flow, which must be rehabilitated as an accessible high quality wetland habitat. The City of Cape Town does not concur that the Liesbeek River could otherwise be filled in and converted into high quality terrestrial habitat with some pools / ponds that would retain water into the summer. This is inconsistent with the City’s policies for Flood Plain and River Corridor Management, the Climate Change Policy (2017) and the Cape Town Resilience Strategy (Aug 2019). 13.5.9. The statement that one broad east /west belt (>65m wide) must be established in the northern reaches of the property and additional minor >10m wide east west corridors

31

must be created along the northern and southern site boundaries is not consistent with the earlier principle stated above requiring multiple dispersal corridors between breeding habitat and year-round occupancy habitat. The breeding habitat is the Liesbeek River so that would no longer be a breeding habitat it infilled. 13.5.10. Filling in the river is not consistent with the earlier recommendation that requires connectivity from Raapenberg wetlands to the river. 13.5.11. The report exclusively focuses on the WLT to the detriment of acknowledging the wide variety of classes of animals found on the site. It does not help to only consider species individually. Together they co-exist in community as a functioning ecosystem, and their habitat should be protected, not disturbed or destroyed. 13.5.12. It is special and unique that in the heart of the City of Cape Town, there is a place that hosts so many species all together. The City takes a more holistic approach to ecosystem management. The conservation of the fish is central to ensuring the continued presence of piscivorous birds in the area. Ponds and swales will not sustain fish. It is surprising to note the consultant’s lack of concern for the fish, when so many bird species and the Cape Clawless Otter depend on them for food. 13.5.13. Development options should include options that don’t require infilling of the existing Liesbeek River and 1:100year Liesbeek and Black River floodlines, with smaller development footprints. 13.5.14. There needs to be a third development alternative to retain the Liesbeek River and rehabilitate the canal, and do a more sensitive development. 13.5.15. The City endorses the recommendations of the biodiversity team to include a corridor along the western edge of the River Club site. This is consistent with City policy to retain ecological buffers along river corridors. 13.5.16. The City endorses the recommendation to create WLT breeding ponds in the stormwater system, in addition to the retention of the Liesbeek River WLT breeding area, but not to create WLT breeding ponds to the exclusion of the existing WLT breeding area in the Liesbeek River. Creating additional WLT breeding ponds across the golf course site between the Liesbeek River and the Raapenberg wetlands would be beneficial to the WLT (in addition to the two artificial wetlands breeding ponds already on the Golf Course). 13.5.17. Pg vi: Note that the canal does not necessarily separate the River Club from Raapenberg wetlands. They are connected by the same waterbody which soaks into the ground. 13.6. Impact assessment findings: pg vi. (Refer E6) 13.6.1. The report notes that the significance of the impacts considered in this section tend to be positive, or low to medium even without mitigation. The City disputes this finding, and would state that filling in a high faunal sensitivity river is a high negative impact, that is permanent, of long-term duration, irreversible, and will result in the loss of species in this regional open space system and conservation area. The Liesbeek River contains numerous aquatic species, species of various classes (mammals, fish, reptiles, avifauna, amphibians, invertebrates), whose habitat would be destroyed and not replaced (the canalized rehabilitation is not catering for fish in the same manner, and will not contain the vertical embankments currently providing habitat to the Kingfisher, so will not provide the fish required by the piscivorous birds, nor the safe habitat for water fowl breeding habitat that is currently possible on the +/-30m wide Liesbeek River. The rehabilitation is no substitute for infilling the Liesbeek River. 13.6.2. If the location of the various species’ habitats, home ranges and foraging habitats haven’t yet been mapped for the site, it cannot be stated that ecologically sensitive areas have been avoided. There are building footprints located on top of WLT breeding

32

ponds in the north of the site, and the WLT breeding areas within the Liesbeek River are proposed to be infilled and would be destroyed. 13.6.3. Regarding the statement that the significance of the impacts considered tend to be positive, or low to medium even without mitigation, please support this statement with facts. There is currently 100% unimpeded connectivity from the Raapenberg Wetlands to the Liesbeek River and across the River Club site. The loss of this connectivity, and its restriction to a small 65m corridor cannot be considered positive from a faunal point of view. 13.6.4. Show the design changes and how the ecologically sensitive areas of the Liesbeek River were avoided – this is referred to on pg vi. of the assessment of biodiversity impacts. 13.6.5. Table E1 is meaningless without a map indicating the areas in which the impacts will be experienced, and without quantifying the losses to local populations of fauna. 13.6.6. For example, the table states the consequence regarding the loss of extent of terrestrial habitat for indigenous fauna will be low, and of low significance, despite the construction of buildings across the foraging areas and home range of the various species that use the River Club site. 13.6.7. The table does not differentiate the various components of the landscape that will be affected, eg. River Club site, Liesbeek River, Raapenberg Wetlands, etc. 13.6.8. The table inaccurately states that the changes in faunal connectivity will be a medium impact with low significance. 13.6.9. Again, the table only focuses on WLT and no other species, as if they are irrelevant, and notes that there will be increased WLT mortalities of high impact / consequence, and with high negative significance, but with mitigation, this would only be of medium impact and consequence, and of low significance. 13.6.10. The City disputes the level of impacts. The focus on the WLT only is unacceptable and not a true reflection of the impacts on the overall ecosystem shared by numerous riverine species, from invertebrates, to fish, piscivorous birds, waterfowl, amphibians and numerous other species that inhabit river corridors and wetlands. 13.6.11. Please address the impacts of cement leaching from the construction of the parking garages on soil within the floodplain into the soil and ground water of the River Club and surrounds. Please indicate the distribution of cement leachate impacts from the sources. Will there also be cement leachate into the aquifer? 13.6.12. What will the impacts of cement leachate be on alkalinity of the water for the various species? Please note their tolerance levels and how these will be affected. 13.6.13. Proper mitigation would be ensuring 30 – 40m setbacks of any development footprint from the Black River, Liesbeek Canal and Liesbeek River edges, and ensuring there is no development within the 1:100yr floodplain. Retaining the 65m to 100m wide East West corridor plus additional East-West dispersal corridor linkages, is also important. 13.6.14. Mention is made of diverting rivers (Black River and Liesbeek Canal and natural Liesbeek River channel flows during construction) and the table states, Section 10, that there will be very low impacts of very low negative significance. Please state in which areas these impacts will be felt. The City has not consented to its rivers being diverted. Rivers should not be diverted during construction. This would destroy the fish in the Liesbeek River on which the birds and otters feed. 13.6.15. Pg x. Please quantify the numbers of WLT on the River Club site, breeding and crossing the River Club site to Raapenberg Wetlands or to the Liesbeek River, and the number of WLTs breeding and foraging in the Liesbeek River and buffer zone.

33

13.6.16. E5. Cumulative development impacts. The WLT and other species must be studied across all the sites: The Liesbeek River, the Liesbeek Canal, the River Club, the Raapenberg Wetlands and the Black River. The impacts on various precincts must be indicated. The table is too generalized. 13.6.17. E7 Impacts associated with the no-development alternative. The report states that the natural Liesbeek channel ‘Might provide breeding habitat to western leopard toads’. Please do an amphibian study and determine how many WLTs are breeding in the Liesbeek River and where, their paths across the River Club site to the Raapenberg Wetlands, etc. Confirm that the WLT breeding site would be protected. 13.6.18. The impacts fail to mention the ongoing survival of fish species and all other species dependent on them, plus waterfowl nursery site. 13.6.19. Identify other species that are also breeding within the Liesbeek River and how they would be affected. 13.7. Summary and Conclusions (Refer E8) 13.7.1. Discussion of alternatives, pg x: The report states that “both of the two development alternatives assessed in this study would be acceptable from an ecological perspective, and preferable to the no-development alternative”. Please elaborate on how destroying and filling in a viable river corridor that is teaming with different species and is a viable ecosystem, could be considered preferable to retaining such an ecosystem and all the life that is dependent on it. This is an irrational conclusion and is unsubstantiated because it cannot be substantiated, because the facts don’t support it. 13.7.2. It is questionable that there are no proposals to rehabilitate the Liesbeek River ecosystem, with regard to restoring river flows, improving water quality by the creation of reed-beds and litter traps. 13.7.3. Faunal connectivity is required between two or more highly desirable faunal ecosystems. If one is destroyed through infilling, the need for the connectivity ceases. Currently, the Liesbeek River is a WLT breeding area frequented by WLTs from Raapenberg Wetlands and elsewhere. Wiping out this breeding destination will negate the need for an EW corridor. Also, there are other species that cross the River Club site and these are not addressed. 13.7.4. The report states that Alternative 1 would improve faunal connectivity and toad migration routes across the site, and that it would be a positive impact. Please explain how this could be the case when currently the faunal connectivity is unimpaired now with no building footprints other than those already on site, so how could it be improved it the connectivity is narrowed down to only a 70m wide corridor and the WLTs would have to negotiate a 6m high raised berm. 13.7.5. The statement that the Liesbeek River in the area of the River Club is a ‘historically fragmented and highly altered / diverted) ‘natural’ channel’ is not a true reflection of the intactness of the Liesbeek River. Only the flow, rather than the course, has been diverted and this can easily be restored. The sluice exists beneath the road along with the pipe connection. The City can restore the water flow to the historic Liesbeek River. 13.7.6. The City disputes the statement on pg xi that the loss caused by infilling the Liesbeek River is “considered ecologically acceptable in the context of substantial river rehabilitation and the proposed development of vegetated swales in landscaped terrestrial areas suitable for colonization by WLTs in their non-breeding season is considered an acceptable use of this space without significant negative biodiversity or other ecological costs.” The City disputes this statement for several reasons: 13.7.7. The approach is pre-occupied with one species only to the exclusion of others, when the area to be impacted upon supports numerous species which all function collectively in

34

interconnected relationships to sustain an ecosystem of a quality that is seen nowhere else in this area of Cape Town. 13.7.8. The infilling of the Liesbeek River only provides non-breeding habitat for WLTs but displaces breeding habitat. The report fails to confirm that the Liesbeek River is a WLT breeding site, or where the WLTs are breeding. The report downplays the presence of the WLTs breeding in the Liesbeek River so that in the final outcome, the breeding site is destroyed and filled in. Ignoring the WLTs breeding in the Liesbeek River does not justify their destruction. It indicates incomplete surveys and a lack of mapping of the WLT and all the various other species in the area. 13.7.9. The City of Cape Town believes that the Alternative development proposals will have high negative impacts with high negative significance. 13.7.10. Please provide maps showing the spatial distribution of various species across the River Club, Liesbeek River, Black River, Raapenberg Wetlands, and Liesbeek Canal areas.

Assessment of potential biodiversity impacts – Incorporating the findings of the aquatic ecosystems (rivers and wetlands), botanical, faunal, avifaunal and groundwater specialists.” December 2019, Prepared by Liz Day, Freshwater Consulting cc.: Comment on Report

13.7.11. The terms of reference on Page 2 should have required both wetland and riverine dependent fauna and flora species to be described and mapped. 13.7.12. The report states that specialists were required to recommend mitigation measures to minimize impacts and enhance benefits associated with the redevelopment. An obvious mitigation measure is always to set back development from the edge of a river, and in this case to set back development from the Liesbeek River and Liesbeek Canal by 30 – 40m to enable an ecological buffer along the river for protection of species, and water quality, and to develop reed beds and litter traps to enhance water quality and remove litter. 13.7.13. Section 1.4 Report Informants, page 4: the report notes site visits for watercourse assessment between June 2015 and November 2017. Why have there been no further studies in the last 2 years, given the incomplete information provided regarding the faunal studies? 13.7.14. Section 1.5 Limitations and assumptions: pg 4. Again the same flawed assumption has been used and the City cannot support the assumption that it would be amenable to infilling a high faunal sensitivity watercourse ecosystem. The City objects to filling in a high faunal sensitivity watercourse ecosystem, which is on City land, and part of the public’s heritage. The City has a responsibility to act as custodian of the people’s common heritage, and to maintain in perpetuity the biodiversity network. 13.7.15. Section 1.7 Updates to the specialist reports: The report states that the faunal specialist, Mr Marius Burger, has confirmed that his findings remain relevant. However, he has not re-mapped his findings because he couldn’t state definitively that the WLT was breeding in the Liesbeek River and on the River Club site or not, whereas, it is known that they are breeding there on both sites. He would need to update his information and mapping because it is incomplete. 13.7.16. The Liesbeek River is not just a backwater off the Black River. It receives water in every rainfall event directly through rainfall, and from the Observatory stormwater catchment, which is discharged via a several large pipes of about 900mm diameter. The Liesbeek River is a water course and has wetlands on its edges in places.

35

13.7.17. Section 2 Assessment methodologies, Section 2.1 Assessment of river and wetland condition: The City disputes the Present Ecological State accorded to the Liesbeek River. See earlier comments. The Liesbeek River should be a C which is ‘modified with some loss of habitat.’ The Liesbeek River is not E = “seriously modified with extensive loss of habitat and wetland function” , “unacceptable condition” – otherwise it would not support fish, WLT breeding and numerous bird species. Restoring water flows and providing a treed and landscaped vegetated riverine ecological buffer will improve the riverine habitat. 13.7.18. Table 2.3 Conservation Importance: the Liesbeek River = high conservation importance for these reasons: It supports a high diversity of indigenous wetland species and / or Supports, or is likely to support, red data species; supports relatively undisturbed wetland communities, and / or Forms an integral part of the habitat mosaic within a landscape, and / or Is representative of a regionally threatened / restricted habitat type, and / or Has a high functional importance / (e.g. nutrient filtration; flood attenuation in the catchment and / or Is of a significant size (and therefore provides significant wetland habitat albeit degraded or of low diversity The quality of maps in the report is inadequate. 13.7.19. P10 Section 3 Natural Ecosystems in and associated with the study area. Section 3.1 Aquatic ecosystems: 3.1.1 Catchment context. The report states the Liesbeek River is “now disconnected from the main river channel upstream” whereas although it is partly disconnected, the river course remains on the same alignment, and there is a management issue which determines if water is fed through the pipe leading below the road linking the upstream flow to the lower Liesbeek River. In heavy rainfall events, the water overtops the road and flows into the Liesbeek River channel. 13.7.20. The conservation significance is downplayed in Section 3.1.2 Context in the Western Cape Biodiversity Spatial Plan. Protected areas is not a lower ranking than critical biodiversity areas. It means that it has conservation status as a Conservation Area or a Protected Area. In this case, the area of the Liesbeek River, the Liesbeek Canal and the Black River are shown as Conservation Areas, for which a Biodiversity Agreement has been signed with CapeNature to ensure their ongoing management as Conservation Areas. See map below from City Map Viewer. 13.7.21. The Conservation Areas and wetlands are indicated on the map above. It is evident that the Liesbeek River is a Conservation Area. Section 3.1.3 Context in terms of the National Freshwater Ecosystems Priority Area (NFEPA) project. The Liesbeek River as a whole is classified as a Fish Support Area or Fish Corridor. 13.7.22. Please provide accurate data of the fish and if they are present in the Liesbeek River or not, namely Sandelia capensis and Galaxias mollus. Fish studies must be done within the surrounding rivers in order to ascertain if there will be impacts, and particularly because mention has been made of diverting river flows during construction. This could have detrimental impacts on fish populations in the river, canal and wetlands. 13.7.23. P17, Section 3.1.6 Aquatic ecosystems condition. Please correct the present Ecological State (PES) of the Liesbeek River to C or D. It is correctly stated elsewhere in the report, that “in the context of other urban rivers in Cape Town, the Liesbeek River is considered relatively unimpacted and it has a high rehabilitation potential, at least in its uncanalised reaches, and downstream of the N2 crossing, in its reaches where riverine wetlands remain, including the Raapenberg wetlands.” This is further reason to upgrade the Present Ecological State rating. 13.7.24. On page 18, Section 3.1.7 Ecological importance and sensitivity, the report states that the lower (natural) channel of the Liesbeek River has an EIS rating of Moderate to High. The Liesbeek Canal has an EIS of low and the Raapenberg wetlands have an EIS of High, and the lower Black River has an EIS rating of Low to Moderate. 13.7.25. The photographs and text of the river is not up to standard and unclear.

36

13.7.26. The report on page 28 is unclear. The specialist is unsure if the Liesbeek River supports indigenous Cape Galaxias fish. Please do the necessary studies to determine if there are Cape Galaxias in the river or not. 13.7.27. Pg44 Section 3.3.1 Fish: The specialist is unsure if two indigenous fish species are within the Liesbeek River or not. This must be investigated and confirmed by the specialist so that impacts on the receiving environment and the wildlife it supports, can be ascertained. 13.7.28. The report states “the actual likelihood of any of these endemic fish occurring in the natural channel of the Liesbeek in its reaches past the River Club, is questionable. This needs to be investigated, so that the specialists don’t have to postulate, and can rather provide facts. During heavy rainfall the water from the Liesbeek River upstream overtops the road and the sluice can be opened to allow water to flow through, so there’s a possibility of fish being in the Liesbeek River channel. These aspects need further investigation. 13.7.29. Waterbird use of the River Club could be enhanced by providing safe, undisturbed breeding habitat for larger waterbird species. 13.7.30. Although the Bird Study of 2015 is a good study of the bird species and the habitats in which they’re occurring, the conclusions drawn through into the Biodiversity Assessment and findings of the specialist studies by Dr Day, are inadequate and don’t reflect all the information provided by the Specialist, Dr A J Williams. An updated bird study is required whereby the specialist should be briefed as to the proposed development, so that they may assess the impacts of the proposed development on the birds and their environment, and may make recommendations for mitigation measures to ensure the ongoing survival of the birds, and enhancement of their habitat. Despite the invasive plants in the Liesbeek River, which are implied prevent birdlife on the river, the area is highly populated with red-knobbed coots breeding on floating nests they’ve made on the river. Their chicks are able to swim safely in the river because they are protected from any access from the river banks. 13.7.31. The otters’ importance is downplayed in the report. They have been seen by several people within the area and they are known to frequent the area. If they move in and out of the area, it is still important that the habitat is protected for them as part of their home range. 13.7.32. The study states that “a total of 29 indigenous mammal species may potentially occur on the River Club grounds. Please request the specialist to do the necessary studies to confirm which mammalian species are present on the site. It is important to have accurate information to determine impacts. 13.7.33. Without property information one can’t be sure what the total Faunal Important Assessment (FIA) Score is for mammals at the River Club site. 13.7.34. It is important to note that the report states that the most important consideration in respect of local mammal assemblages is the maintenance and / or rehabilitation of the ecological integrity of the Liesbeek and Black Rivers including a buffer region along the banks of these rivers and corridors between them. The City supports this view as it is consistent with our riverine and biodiversity policies. For this reason, it would be sensible to ensure that any development footprint should set back the necessary 30 – 40m to enable ecological buffers of these rivers. 13.7.35. The same issue applies to the Reptiles and Amphibians studies in that statements are made that certain species may possibly occur on the site. Studies must be done to determine the reptiles and amphibians on the site, rather than postulating but being

37

uncertain. It is not possible to give accurate Faunal Important Assessment (IFA) scores without proper studies. 13.7.36. The Western Leopard toad information is inaccurate and needs updating. The report states that “the only known WLT breeding site in the region of the River Club are the wetlands of the Raapenberg Bird Sanctuary.” The City has information that the WLTs are breeding on the River Club site itself, and are also breeding within the Liesbeek River. Please update the amphibian study. This constitutes an omission of vital information that will influence the level of impacts of development on the receiving environment, because it may appear to some readers that the WLTs will not be severely impacted by the development proposals. The statement that the WLT may spend their non-breeding season only on the golf course, is inconclusive and contradicts other sources of information, which say they are breeding on the golf course. 13.7.37. The City endorses the concept of multiple dispersal options between breeding habitat and year-round occupancy habitat. Connectivity must be maintained between the Raapenberg wetlands and the river regions to the west, including the area of the natural Liesbeek River channel. The WLTs also need a foraging area near the Liesbeek River where they are breeding. 13.7.38. There is a statement that the WLT “might be breeding in the waterbody to the south of the Black River. Please clarify if this means within the Liesbeek River channel and / or the northern most reaches of the Liesbeek Canal where it turns into wetlands on the River Club site. Please do the necessary amphibian study to confirm where the WLTs are breeding. This lack of information and postulating various important issues that should have been established as fact by this stage, is unacceptable for guiding decision- making. 13.7.39. The report states that the salinity and breeding habitats highlight the need for more detailed assessments of the Raapenberg wetlands and the Liesbeek River / “backwater” as western leopard toad breeding habitat. This must be clarified before any decisions can be taken that could have detrimental impacts on the WLTs. The statement that the Liesbeek River channel may provide WLT breeding grounds is repeated several times in the study, rather than being investigated and providing a definitive statement. 13.7.40. There is a statement that “the Liesbeek Canal is not sensitive as a riverine habitat in its current form, (Pg. 49) Regarding sensitive environments, the area north-east of the Liesbeek Canal is not mentioned. This is an area that provides wetland habitat in close proximity to the Raapenberg Wetlands and is also included for connectivity purposes as part of the Conservation Area, which completes linkages / connectivity of the larger site. 13.7.41. Sensitive sites also include the buffer areas along the river and dispersal areas. Please provide a map of these ecologically sensitive areas and connectivity areas across the site. 13.7.42. The City notes that the finding that buffer areas along rivers and dispersal areas across the site is generally omitted from the recommendations that should influence the built footprint of the River Club development, and assessment of Alternatives. 13.7.43. Opportunities for faunal / habitat rehabilitation on the River Club Site: p 50. 13.7.44. Please include the creation of treed and vegetated buffers along the Liesbeek River. Ecologically buffers will always help habitat rehabilitation. 13.7.45. The Mammals and Reptiles, p50: only Cape Dwarf Chameleons are mentioned. Please provide a property study with maps and cover the full range of species present on the site and surrounds and the rehabilitation measures required to enhance their habitat. 13.7.46. The creation of new breeding ponds for WLTs is a contradiction to an earlier statement which recognizes that the ponds would only be suitable out of the breeding season and

38

that they wouldn’t be breeding in the ponds. Please describe the breeding cycle of the WLTs so that it is clear what their requirements are for water bodies. 13.7.47. The Drawing in Figure 4.4,”Alternative 2 with open space areas shown in green.” This is supposed to illustrate the retention of the Liesbeek River. However, the Drawing is incorrect and the Liesbeek River is not shown properly. Buffers of 30 – 40m wide are required. The full extent of the waterbody must be shown. 13.7.48. In the Section 4.2.1 Development alternative 1, pg 61, the report states that “at the narrowest point in the corridor at the upstream extent of the site, an ecological buffer area of at least 15m has been allowed upslope from the 1:1 year floodline. The ecological buffer should be 30-40m wide in terms of the City’s policy, and this should be for establishment of ecological habitat for fauna predominantly. 13.7.49. The accessibility of the site to fauna is questionable once it has been infilled with 220000m3 of earth. It will be much higher than previously and may not be negotiable for certain fauna, having to climb to a height of 6m above the edge of the Liesbeek River. 13.7.50. Describe the impacts of excavating down to bedrock, as indicated on pg 63. 13.7.51. In the description of development impacts, on p78, only Western Leopard Toad fatalities are mentioned. Given the many other species inhabiting the area, please provide the full list of fatalities that can be expected. 13.7.52. The assumption that the improvement of the river quality of the Liesbeek Canal would rise to possibly a PES Category C is unlikely, given that only one bank will be natural, and there will be gabions within 7m of the edge of the river. There is not a large area that will be natural. 13.7.53. The report notes the loss of non-breeding habitat for WLT, as if such habitat is not important. It is important that WLT have a foraging area of roughly 2km extent from their breeding areas. 13.7.54. Only the impacts of loss on the WLT environments is articulated. No other animal species are included in the assessment of impacts of development on their habitats. P81. 13.7.55. Neither Development alternative 1 or 2 are satisfactory to the City of Cape Town. 13.7.56. The adverse impacts of the Berkley Road extension on the wetland fringing Phragmites australis wetlands along the river bank, would be a loss to the riverine system, as the planned road would be infilled to the bottom of the river bank and would result in the loss of marginal wetland, disruption of longitudinal connectivity for terrestrial and semi- aquatic fauna along the river bank and margins, and disturbance to birds utilizing the ‘palm island’ habitat for roosting. 13.7.57. The proposed mitigation measure of pulling back the Berkley Road extension by 20m and spanning the river, is welcomed to ensure continuity of the ecological buffer zone beneath the road. 13.7.58. It must be pointed out that the Berkley Road extension will link up to a bottleneck at Malta Road and Albert Road, where the road passes through a Heritage Protection Overlay Zone protecting buildings of heritage significance that add to the historic character of the city. So it would appear that there is little point in widening the road to enable greater traffic flow to a tailback extending from this single lane road. However, there may be some benefit for outgoing traffic. 13.7.59. It would appear from the photographs in the specialist studies done in December 2016, that the water quality of the Liesbeek River channel has improved with clearing of invasive water plants which has vastly improved the bird habitat. This issue needs to be updated in the studies as it would appear to have influenced the studies.

39

14. Heritage Section Comment

14.1. The HIA dated 2 July 2019 and the Supplement to the HIA dated 4 December 2019 are the two documents contained in the BAR Report (Volume 4). Please refer to Annexure H for the latest comment which speaks directly to the Supplement to the HIA dated 4 December 2019. [Comments on the HIA dated 2 July 2019 were included in comments on the Pre application BAR, dated 09 September 2019].

15. Conclusion

15.1. Following the assessment and review of the Basic Assessment Report for the Proposed Redevelopment of the River Club, Observatory, the City concludes that it is not in support of the preferred development option or Alternative 1 in its entirety. 15.2. The City supports the proposed upgrade of the Liesbeek canal on the eastern side of the site, subject to detailed Construction and Operational Environmental Management Plans (including plans, elevations and sections) for the design, and management of the future rehabilitated environment. The rehabilitation of this canalised section of the eastern Liesbeek River is in line with international best practice trends, and is not to be regarded as a substitution of habitat for filling in the historic Liesbeek River channel. 15.3. Infilling of the historic Liesbeek rivercourse (and converting it to a landscaped stormwater swale) is opposed because this is one of the City’s high faunal sensitivity Biodiversity Conservation Areas that has to be conserved and managed as such in perpetuity. The infilling of this river would compromise the functionality of the Raapenberg wetlands and associated fauna. The City does not support the filling in of floodplains in general, as river floodplains are important ecological buffers to river corridors that sustain fauna and flora, and they provide important green lungs, carbon sinks, visual amenities, cultural landscapes, and recreation areas that enhance the quality of life for the City’s residents. The infilling proposed here is not equally offset by the proposed rehabilitation of the Liesbeek Canal. 15.4. As pointed out in the Pre Application stage, a further alternative should be scoped that retains both rivers, i.e. the eastern canal and western channel and associated ecological buffers, and E/W dispersal corridors between the Liesbeek River and Raapenberg wetlands. 15.5. As outlined in the above comments (Section 7 above), the proposal is not in line with various approved local spatial plans and frameworks, as well as the City of Cape Town Stormwater Management By-Law, Floodplain and River Corridor Management Policy. 15.6. In particular, the proposal completely deviates from the vision of the Two Rivers Urban Park Contextual Framework and Phase 1 Environmental Management Plan (2003) …” To rehabilitate, protect, secure and enhance the intrinsic ecological qualities of this area, to conserve the unique cultural landscape, to encourage environmental education, to maximise opportunities for all people and to promote sustainable development”. The Two Rivers Urban Park Contextual Framework and Phase 1 Environmental Management Plan (2003) can be used as a yardstick against which to measure any future development proposals. However, it is evident that consideration of the provisions of this policy has been minimal. 15.7. The loss / degradation of the Western Cape Leopard Toad population may be an inevitable outcome of the infilling the original course of the Liesbeek River during the construction phase as well as loss of breeding site once operational if the river is filled in. The rating of this as of low significance and tolerable by the ecologist is not accepted. This must be see in in context of the various campaigns and education awareness

40

programmes undertaken by both the City and biodiversity conservation organisations to promote and encourage efforts to help save the Western Cape Toad from extinction. 15.8. The singular focus on one species, namely, the Western Leopard Toad, to the exclusion of all other species using the wetlands, river corridors, and open space between them, results in a biased assessment of impacts, whereby the loss of wetland habitat for the regionally significant water bird population is entirely ignored with no mention of impacts on the red data bird species (Great White Pelican and Greater Flamingos) in the description of impacts. 15.9. The City believes that the report does not provide an accurate assessment of impacts on the receiving environment, and on the various species / communities inhabiting the rivers, wetlands and open space. 15.10. The lack of data in some of the specialist studies is of concern and it is recommended that further studies be done to determine current species in the area, and to provide a spatial indication of the areas in which they are located (as roosting, nesting, breeding, foraging, home range areas). Once this information is provided, it will be easier to determine the impacts on invertebrates, fish, amphibians, piscivorous birds, waterfowl, reptiles and mammals. Without this information, the impacts remain undetermined, unmeasured, and unable to be mitigated. 15.11. The City has a more holistic approach to conservation of species in ecosystems and habitats, and the preservation of systems that support them, rather than the individual preservation of one species, and the design and tailoring of the rehabilitated area to the satisfaction of one species predominantly, to the exclusion and loss of others. The significance of the Liesbeek River channel as a regional waterbody is not acknowledged in the report. 15.12. The City has no objection to some development on the site for uses possibly other than those allowed under Open Space 3, as long as they do not detract from the conservation functioning of the adjacent Conservation Areas within the historic Liesbeek River, part of the Black River (on the north-eastern boundary), the eastern wetlands on the River Club site, and the Raapenberg Bird Sanctuary, or detract from the cultural landscape and sense of place identified as important heritage factors for the First Nation People. 15.13. The proposed heights, scale, bulk and floor area of 150 000m² are not supported and should be significantly reduced in order to achieve a better balance between built form and the receiving environmental and heritage context as discussed above. 15.14. It is on this basis that the City concludes the proposed development will not promote ecological sustainability and justifiable economic and social development. The proposed development may result in the degradation of sensitive ecosystems and biological diversity and the complete destruction of sensitive habitat, and that the report is not a sufficient guide to aid decision-making in this regard.

41

15.15. The BAR does not provide the necessary information required in terms of NEMA EIA Regulations, to aid decision-making, insofar as the description of the receiving environments is inadequate, the determination of fauna is inadequate, and the impacts on the habitat of the fauna is inadequate, and is incorrectly minimised and certain impacts have not been investigated, as identified in the comments above. This has affected the ability of the EAP to make meaningful recommendations regarding mitigation measures to minimise impacts of the proposed development on the receiving environment.

D. Georgeades Head: Environmental and Heritage Management Table Bay District

42

Annexure A: City Health

43

Annexure B: Biodiversity

SPATIAL PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

Dr Charmaine Oxtoby Biophysical Specialist

T: +27 21 444 2797 M: 082 265 2762 E: [email protected]

06 February 2020

SRK Consulting (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd. The Administrative Building Albion Spring 183 Main Rd Rondebosch 7700 Cape Town

Attention: Mr Matthew Law Via email: [email protected]

Dear Mr Law,

RE: BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE RIVER CLUB, OBSERVATORY, CAPE TOWN

DEA&DP Reference Number: 16/3/3/6/7/1/A7/17/3217/19 DWS Reference Number: 16/2/7/G22/A/11 HWC Case Number: 15112504WD1217E

The City of Cape Town Biodiversity Management Department would like you thank you for the opportunity to comment on this basic assessment report for environmental authorisation.

Page 12: “The majority of the site is owned by the proponent.” This is an incorrect reflection, since Liesbeek Leisure Property Trust Pty Ltd. (the proponent) lease land from the City of Cape Town. This inaccuracy is perpetuated throughout the document, e.g. page 40. Please provide written consent from City of Cape Town Property Management for the applicant to purchase City land, or written permission from the City to lease land from the City on a long-term basis.

Page 12: “At least 20% of the leasable area at the development will be allocated to residential use, and 20% of the residential area at the development will be inclusionary accommodation.” How will this contribute meaningfully to the city's housing crisis? This is questionable in light of the comment on page 20 that “the proponents require a level of flexibility to respond to market conditions”.

44

Page 27: “Should the preferred development alternative (the Riverine Corridor Alternative) be selected, the crossings over the (infilled) unlined course of the Liesbeek River will include box culverts for faunal movement”. This is not adequate mitigation, as it will not facilitate fish or bird movement.

Page 39: description of the “locally indigenous fynbos” to be planted in the ecological setbacks does not account for fire. Fynbos is both fire-prone and fire-dependent vegetation. How will this be managed?

Page 40: “Plants used in setbacks / buffer areas will be carefully selected with the help of the fresh water ecologist”. Surely this should be done by a botanical specialist? How is a freshwater ecologist qualified to plant fynbos?

Page 40: “Tree species may include some specimens originally found in the wider South African context”. This needs to be qualified, since some indigenous trees are invasive in Cape Town, e.g. Outeniqua Yellowwood. Refer to the City list for acceptable extra-limital species.

Page 40: “The rehabilitation of the surrounding water courses which will make them (as well as surrounding areas such as the Raapenberg Wetland and SAAO) more accessible and aesthetically pleasing for visitors to the site”. Have neighbours been consulted as to whether they want to be more accessible? Please provide written confirmation.

Page 40: “It is possible that additional applications will be made at a later stage for other infrastructure in aquatic areas, such as walkways / boardwalks, artificial islands for waterfowl and bird hides.” Why is this not included in the current site development layout?

Page 61: “Green (planted) roofs are proposed which will assist in reducing post development peak flows (as well mitigate against heat island effects)”. Where will solar panels go if roofs are planted? The previous page says “In order to supplement electrical supply, LLPT proses to install solar panels on rooftops”.

Page 76: “The infilling of a channel excavated into the Raapenberg Wetland by a 3rd party (which has effectively increased the frequency of inundation and decreased the time that the wetland takes to drain with negative ecological consequences”. Which map is this indicated on?

Page 82: “Indicate the landform(s) that best describes the site (highlight the appropriate box(es).” How can none of the options apply? Surely it is part of the landscape? The following section states “The site is located in the broad, flat floodplain of the Black and Liesbeek Rivers.” Therefore, surely the “plain” box should be highlighted?

Page 83: “An upper unconfined primary (intergranular) aquifer with a yield of 0.1–0.5ℓ/s, locally known as the Atlantis Aquifer; which forms part of the more extensive Sandveld Aquifer, and A deeper semi-confined secondary fractured bedrock aquifer with a yield of 0.1–0.5ℓ/s, known as the Malmesbury Group Aquifer.” This area is very close to the edge of, if not part of, the Cape Flats Aquifer. Figure 47 does not name or show the extent (at a landscape scale) of the intergranular aquifer and fractured aquifer that occur in the proposed development area.

45

Please provide a labelled map and reference to confirm which aquifers occur in the proposed development area. Please also confirm the geology description in the preceding section. The rivers bordering the River Club drain from Table Mountain.

Page 83: “Locally, although it is likely that the Raapenberg Wetland is fed predominantly by groundwater, it has been deduced that this feature is hydrogeologically up-gradient of the River Club site, and that the canal buffers groundwater flows from the site towards the wetland”. How will this change when the wall of the canal is removed?

Page 90-91: “The loss of wetland habitat by the “unlined course” would be mitigated / offset by the proposed inclusion of standing water ponds along the “swale area”. An artificial stormwater pond cannot be equated with a river, albeit an altered river course. There should be clear quantification of how extensive these swales will be.

Page 91: “The eastern boundary of the site as it banks onto the Black River is classified as an unchannelled valley-bottom wetland and CESA.” Unchanneled? It is a canal. It is also described on this page below as a "channel system".

Page 92: “Waterbirds are attracted to all peripheral water bodies at the site, including two birds that are rated conservation species (Great White Pelican and Greater Flamingos, both rated as near-threatened).” What does “rated conservation” mean? Please use the correct terminology, namely Red List threatened species.

Page 93: “The canal rehabilitation project should at least improve habitat for fish species, compared to the canal, an if important fish species can survive in the Black River backwaters of the “unlined course” of the Liesbeek River (unlikely) then such conditions would persist downstream of the site.” How can this be considered acceptable mitigation? This is a significant loss/transformation that will impact the downstream reaches.

Page 94: “Although no quantitative data had been sourced at the time that this document was produced, two alien fish species are understood from popular literature and comments by local resident to occur in the Black River, namely common carp (Cyprinus carpio) and African Catfish (Clarias gariepinus), as well as the pollutiontolerant amphibian, the Common platanna (Xenopus laevis).” Why were both the faunal specialist report and freshwater specialist report so inadequate? This is not due diligence.

Page 94: “Habitat diversity is low, and the canal provides a generally sterile aquatic ecosystem, unlikely to support a high diversity of flora and fauna, despite the relatively good water quality in this river.” Were no assessments conducted? This is an odd statement in light of the paragraph below stating the Liesbeek River supports Galaxias and a diverse suite of aquatic macroinvertebrates, as well as the previous page (93) that adds “The Liesbeek is classified as a Fish Support Area (FEPA CODE 2) in the NFEPA database. This dataset also attributes Cape Kurper to the river.”

Page 95: “Otter activity has been confirmed from the general region, however these are unlikely to have a resident population at the site, but rather a few individuals probably move in and out of this area throughout the year.” Why is this only described for the golf course?

46

Otters should be discussed for each riverine habitat. On what evidence is the “unlikely to have a resident population at the site” assumption based? Many medium to large sized mammals depend on, and require safe passage across, large home ranges to survive. It is highly likely that otters regularly use the habitats in question as part of their home range.

Page 95: “A number of seasonally to perennially inundated ponds have been created in the golf course. These artificial water features have been noted as potentially suitable breeding sites for Western Leopard Toads (WLTs) and other amphibians.” Why was this not confirmed by a specialist? Furthermore, page 172 states “Details of actual non-saline western leopard toad breeding areas in the Raapenberg wetlands are not known and should be checked – this gap is not material to the findings of the study which has been conservative in this regard.” This conclusion cannot be drawn until an actual adequate on site survey has been conducted. The terrestrial habitats in the proposed development area may well be important non- breeding habitat for Western Leopard Toad.

Page 95: “The only reptile species of conservation concern that could occur at the site is the Cape Dwarf Chameleon which currently is listed as Vulnerable (VU).” Continuing from the previous comment, why was a faunal specialist study not conducted on site? This is not a scoping report.

Page 95: “The WLT population of the area (that is, Observatory and surroundings), appears to be somewhat disjunct and seemingly completely separated from WLT breeding populations further south on the Cape Peninsula.” This is the most northerly breeding site for the species, so adds value to the population.

Page 97: “River Club is considered to be a highly disturbed environment and the floodplain at the site is considered to be of extremely low sensitivity from an ecological perspective, with its only present functions being as a WLT refuge and movement corridor and provision of a degree of buffering of the channel from adjacent noise and physical disturbance”. Why are Cape Galaxia (Galaxia zebratus) fish not considered, especially since this species is discussed in the Biodiversity Impacts Report (Appendix G2)? They are probably a regionally endemic taxon. The taxonomic status of this indigenous freshwater fish is currently under review and it is now believed that this genus contains numerous species. The presence is therefore considered as having conservation significance. Was the bird fauna of the area not considered? Is it not considered to be at least locally significant?

Page 103: Why was “River, stream or wetland” crossed out when both rivers and wetlands will be impacted/altered by this development? It cannot be considered “surrounding area” if it is included in the development application.

Page 103: Why was “Nature conservation area” crossed out, especially considering the paragraph description below talks about a bird hide? In addition, parts of the development site (Berkley Road extension and the original Liesbeek River) cuts through the Biodiversity Agreement area. It cannot be considered “surrounding area” if it is included in the development application.

47

Page 113: “Figure 54: Examples of how symbols central to First Nations narrative would be incorporated into the design”. In the first frame at the top of this page there is a picture of a REINDEER. No indigenous antelope in Africa have antlers. This implies that the First Nation narrative is European / Northern Hemisphere, which is potentially insulting and inflammatory for the Garinghaiqua people. A more appropriate example would be an Eland.

Page 115: why is this BAR dated October 2017? This becomes problematic when outdated documents are being referenced, such as “Cape Town Integrated Development Plan (2012 – 2017)”. The newer version is freely available.

Page 121: “Further afield, there are other significant open space areas that are accessible to the public (such as the Table Mountain national Park).” Given the significant distance, this cannot be proposed as adequate mitigation for the loss on site of public open space.

Page 127: “The Management of Urban Stormwater Impacts Policy (2009) … According to the policy, the River Club site fits within the category of a “Brownfield and Existing Development Site (area > 50 000m²)”.” Previously (page 125), it is categorised as a “Greenfield Site”.

The application does not address two key ecological issues raised during a meeting on 10 May 2019, namely: (1) fire management of vegetation (fire breaks, wildfire prevention and period planned ecological burns of the fynbos that will be planted) and (2) invasive species control of aquatic weeds such as water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes).

The Biodiversity Management Branch is not amenable to the changes proposed to the function and management of the natural channel of the Liesbeek River on City land. The Biodiversity Management Branch does not support the infill of a historic water course which effectively takes away the current wetland habitat.

The Biodiversity Management Branch reserves the right to revise initial comments and request further information based on any additional information received.

Yours sincerely, Dr Charmaine Oxtoby cc: CapeNature: Rhett Smart and Marius Wheeler City of Cape Town Environmental Management Department  Ronelle Clarke: Environmental & Heritage Management  Sandra Hustwick: Environmental & Heritage Management  Magdalena van Zyl: Environmental Compliance

48

Annexure C: Climate Change

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT SPATIAL PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT DIRECTORATE Amy Davison Head: Climate Change T: +27 21 487 2135 M: +27 72 287 9918 E: [email protected]

14 February 2020

COMMENTS ON THE BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE RIVER CLUB

Comments are provided on the proposed development as it relates to the impact of climate change on the site as well as the impact of the proposed development on climate risks in the area. Additionally, some general comments are provided.

GENERAL COMMENTS 1. The report is poorly structured and difficult to read. There is no summary document that provides a full overview of the proposed development and the various alternatives. This reduces the ability of the public to properly engage with the report and therefore reduces public consultation. The Executive Summary is insufficient in this regard. 2. Insufficient motivation is provided for the infilling of the unlined channel of the Liesbeek River. The motivation appears to be to create more space for development on the site by removing natural water flows from this area. This is despite the report itself noting that the unlined channel “has high rehabilitation and ecological potential”. The infilling of water course should not be considered lightly and should not considered purely on the basis of creating more profit for the developer. A second alternative option should be provided that includes the rehabilitation of both the canal and the unlined channel. 3. The BAR repeatedly uses the fact that the site is somewhat disturbed and transformed to justify further transformation of the site. This is disingenuous as it implies that the only solution to the partial transformation of the site is to fully transform the site. 4. The “no go” option is dismissed in the Alternatives Analysis as being “highly unlikely” and no positive implications of the “no go” option are listed. Similarly, no negative implications of the various development options are provided in the Alternatives Analysis and only positive implications are provided. In this respect, the Alternative Analysis appears to be biased in favour of development of the site. The report provides no evidence for the positive implications that are listed. 5. It is unclear in the report by how much the site is proposed to be raised from its existing level. Various different measurements are given in different parts of the report and its appendices. Clarity on this needs to be provided.

49

CLIMATE CHANGE SPECIFIC COMMENTS

1. It must be noted upfront that climate models are based on the best currently available science and should not be considered to be fool-proof. Climate models inherently incorporate a certain amount of uncertainty due to the nature of model design and this uncertainty is magnified the further forward the model looks. Additionally, these models are based on current understanding of the global climate system and therefore are generally not extremely accurate at the local scale and also do not account for future developments in climate science which may significantly change the projected impacts. As such, the precautionary principle should be adopted to ensure that future uncertainty is properly taken into account in decision-making. NEMA section 2(4)(vii) states that sustainable development requires “that a risk-averse and cautious approach is applied, which takes into account the limits of current knowledge about the consequences of decisions and actions”. 2. There is insufficient consideration of climate change impacts both in terms of potential climate impacts on the proposed development as well as the potential impact of the proposed development on climate risks in the area. Climate change was raised by a number of previous commenters as a significant issue, and the report acknowledges “the impact of the development on the City’s resilience to climate change” as a key issue that emerged from previous consultation processes. However, the current version of the BAR does not include a specific section dedicated to addressing this issue and the only significant mention of climate change is contained within the Surface Water IA (Appendix G3) which only narrowly considers the issue of flooding on the site. There is no further discussion of climate change related impacts in terms of heat, water resource management, or wind. Additionally, the impacts that the development may have on the climate resilience of the surrounding area are not considered. 3. Mitigation measures have been proposed that will reduce the risk to the site from flooding impacts. However, the proposed mitigation measure would involve significant infilling of the site to raise it out of the floodplain. While this would have the effect of the protecting the site from flooding impacts, it would irreversibly destroy the floodplain of the Liesbeek River and eliminate any future possibility of restoring a functional floodplain for one of Cape Town’s major rivers; a functional floodplain forms an essential part of climate resilience both in terms of reducing flooding impacts on the surrounding area as well as promoting infiltration of water and replenishment of groundwater. The report has not sufficiently justified why the loss of this public good is considered to be a suitable trade-off considering that the major benefit of the development would largely be a financial benefit to the property owner and future private owners of property on the site, rather than any significant benefit to the public at large. 4. The consequences of infilling of the site have been elaborated in the Surface Water IA (Appendix G3) which indicates that based on current climate models the risk to the site and surrounding areas will be mitigated. These climate models inherently have high levels of uncertainty in the far future, and cannot account for future developments in climate science. As such, the precautionary principle as outlined in

50

NEMA (see point 1 above) must be applied here. It is not possible to know with great accuracy how the future climate of Cape Town will affect water flows in the local area of the site and it should not be assumed that existing models can account for all likely outcomes. 5. The impact of the development on the heat island effect in Cape Town has not been considered at any point in this study. The heat island effect occurs due to extensive urban development and the loss of green spaces within the urban area and causes highly urbanised areas to be up to 5°C hotter than surrounding suburban or natural areas. The suburb of Observatory is already highly urbanised and has been identified as being highly impacted by the heat island effect. The site is one of the last remaining green open spaces in the suburb, and removal of this green open space would likely significantly worsen the heat island effect in the area. 6 The Surface Water Impact Assessment incorporates a projected 15% increase in rainfall intensity to account for climate change impacts. However, this projection is based on a single study and should not be assumed to account for all likely climate futures, particularly in the far future. As such, the precautionary principle as outlined in NEMA (See point 1 above) must be applied here. 7 Regarding section 1.3 and 2.1.5: the investigation into the development proposal has made reference to, and drawn from, a number of past studies that are central to understanding flood risk for this development proposal. Key studies, namely the “Stormwater Infrastructure Asset Management Plan (Phase 2A) Rainfall Analysis and High: Level Master planning” (SRK, 2012) and “Marine Inputs to Salt River Flood Model.:94” (PRDW, 2010) are now 8 and 10 years old respectively. Clarity on the risks of using data that is a decade old and what this means for confidence levels in modelled outputs, and hence flood risk determinations, is required. 8 Regarding section 2.4.2: this section of the report identifies the necessary action to keep the overland flood route on PRASA land open as a means to mitigate against the impact of flooding. As indicated in the report, should such intervention not be undertaken, flood risk may be compounded, and which may impact on properties beyond that of PRASA land, including the River Club site. It is not clear whether there is a formal agreement in place with PRASA to ensure that this flood route is kept open. Should there be no such agreement and there remains the potential for PRASA to close the flood route to pursue their own operational interests, this runs the risk of destabilising governance processes surrounding the development of the site and which may in return result in lengthy delays. Given that such an intervention is critical towards mitigating flood risks for the site, it is recommended that clarity and formal agreement is sought on the long term management of this flood route as a necessary prerequisite to ensure risk averse development. 9 Regarding section 3.2: the proposed development would require deviations from the City’s Floodplain and River Corridor Management Policy in respect of developing (inclusive of ‘filling’) within the 50-year floodplain. The Policy does make provision for exceptional circumstances where ‘smoothing’ of the 50/100 year flood line is permitted. Whist the report indicates that the proposed development would not have significant impact on flooding, it nonetheless requires a deviation from the Policy. The concern being that such a deviation sets a negative precedent that undermines the imperative of building a resilient coastal city in the face of climate

51

change. This concern is amplified given comments on sections 1.3, 2.1.5, 2.4.2 and 4.2.9. 10 Regarding section 4.2.9: the report uses a eustatic sea level rise upper limit of 0.55cm from which additional modelling was based in terms of hydrology, storm surge etc. The recent IPCC (2019) assessment determines Global Mean Sea Level Rise (GMSL) trajectories under various scenarios of global warming, all of which are dependent on our emission reduction efforts. Four pathways (Representation Concentration Pathways - RCP) have been identified to describe different climate trajectories – all of which are dependent on our ability to curb emissions. In relation to SLR, the IPCC focusses on the following two RCP scenarios, which are effectively the lower and upper limits of GMSL by 2100:  RCP2.6: Assumes that global GHG emissions will peak between 2010-2020 with emissions declining substantially thereafter. Under this scenario GMSL will rise by approx. 0.43m by 2100.  RCP8.5: GHG emissions continue to rise throughout the 21st century. Under this scenario estimated GMSL is approx. 0.84m by 2100. Given that RCP2.6 is no longer achievable and that we are likely to move towards the upper limit of the IPPCC (2019) predictions as well as the IPCC indicating that there is a 17% chance that both RCP2.6 and RCP8.5 in respect of GMSL will be exceeded by 2100, we hold the view that 0.55cm is an underestimate in respect of applying the precautionary principle approach.

Yours sincerely,

Amy Davison Darryl Colenbrander Head: Climate Change Head: Coastal Policy Development and Environmental Management Management Programmes Department Environmental Management Department

52

Annexure D: Transport Planning

53

54

Annexure E: Solid Waste

55

Annexure F: Water & Sanitation

56

57

58

59

60

Annexure G :Electricity

61

62

Annexure H: Heritage

To : Heritage Western Cape Att : Waseefa Dhansay, Assistant Director: Professional Services From : City of Cape Town: Environmental & Heritage Management Subject : Erf 151832 River Club Date : 24 January 2020

1 HERITAGE COMMENT

 For reference to our previous Heritage Assessment of October 2018, which remain valid, please see our comments below.

 Herewith are additional City Heritage comments pertaining to the supplementary and revised submitted documents, provided by SRK Consulting, for consideration by HWC for input into the Impact Assessment process.

 The supplementary and revised submitted documents are:

 River Club HIA ito S38(8) HIA Final Supplement 4 Dec 2019

 AFMAS Solutions Final River Club First Nations Report

 River Club HIA HWC IACom Issues and Responses 041219 Final

 Revised drawings of the proposal concept

 Riverclub VIA Appendix A Rev1

 RE: THE APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO “HWC’S INTERIM COMMENT WHICH WILL BE SUBMITTED TO HWC BY 6 DECEMBER 2019 TO BE CONSIDERED AT AN HWC IACOM MEETING IN JANUARY 2020. THIS RESPONSE INCLUDES ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (NAMELY A SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT TO THE HIA, A FIRST NATIONS REPORT FOR THE RIVER CLUB AND AN UPDATED APPENDIX TO THE VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROJECT). AS THIS NEW INFORMATION IS BEING INCLUDED, THE RESPONSE IS BEING RELEASED TO REGISTERED STAKEHOLDERS.” Amy Hill, Environmental Consultant, SRK Consulting.

 The Environmental Management Department (EMD), Environmental & Heritage Management (City Heritage) is commenting on the above with regard to the applicant having submitted additional information to Heritage Western Cape (HWC).

2.1 The Application

2.1.1. It is proposed to redevelop the property (known as the River Club). In summary it is proposed to accommodate a mixed use development of 150 000 m² comprising retail Shops and Restaurants (retail uses), Offices, Dwelling units, a Hotel and Places of Instruction (and associated uses).

2.1.2. The proposal will entail the construction of retaining structures so that roads and habitable space are raised above the 1:100 year flood plain. The initial phase of the

63

development proposal will see the partial construction of the Berkley Road extension, which in future phases will be further extended to provide access from Berkley Road to Malta Road/Leisbeek Parkway. Additionally the Liesbeek Canal on the eastern boundary of the site will be rehabilitated into a river course, while the ‘old’ Liesbeek River Channel on the western boundary of the site will largely be filled and landscaped to accommodate a vegetated stormwater swale.

2.1.3. To accommodate the proposal, the following City applications are required:

• In terms of Section 42(a) of the MPBL to rezone the property from an Open Space 3: Private Open Space zone to a Subdivisional Area; and • In terms of Section 42(i) to permit the Approval of Council to enable retaining structures to be constructed to a height of more than the permitted 2.0m above the existing level of the ground; and • The proposal will also entail the deviation from various city policies to accommodate the proposal, viz.: o Deviation from the Table Bay District Plan in order to permit urban development on land designated as "open space", "core 2" and "buffer 1". o Deviation from the Floodplain and River Corridor Management Policy (2009) seeking permission to:  develop/ obstruct the free of water within the 20-year floodplain; and  infill within the 50-year floodplain. o Deviation from the Management of Urban Stormwater Impacts Policy (2009) seeking permission to: . Deviate from the annexure table requiring 24hour extended detention of the 1-year Recurrence Interval, 24h storm event in a greenfield development greater than 50 000m2; . Deviate from the annexure table requiring up to 10-year Recurrence Interval peak flow to be reduced to pre-development level in a greenfield development greater than 50 000m2; and . Deviate from the annexure table requiring up to 50-year Recurrence Interval peak flow to be reduced to existing development levels in a greenfield development greater than 50 000m2.

2.1.4. The intention is to consider this new information and to issue a supplementary comment for consideration by HWC.

2.1.5. It is important to emphasise that the essence of the development proposal has not changed, with the following components still being central to the current proposal:

• development of two precincts with a combined total floor space of approximately 150 000m², comprising of inter alia retail, office, residential (including inclusionary housing)1, hotel and a private school; • developed areas of the site, including roadways, will be raised above the 100-year flood elevation (this will be done largely by constructing “super-basements”, which will raise the ground floor levels); • Berkley Road extension will be developed to the north of the site within an existing road reserve; • the existing Liesbeek Canal running adjacent to the eastern boundary of the site will be rehabilitated into a riverine corridor, while the ‘old’ Liesbeek River channel on the western edge of the site will be partially infilled and landscaped as a vegetated stormwater swale and linear park;

64

2.1.6. EMD (Heritage Section) confirms that our previous comment is still applicable and that this comment should be read as a supplementary comment for consideration of input by HWC.

IGURE 1: Previously submitted Development Framework

FIGURE 2: Currently submitted “Refined Development Framework”

65

2.2. Supplementary Heritage Consideration

2.2.1. Additional information provided to the City in the Supplementary Information, submitted on behalf of Zenprop, as well as that contained in the additional documentation from Amy Hill, Environmental Consultant, SRK Consulting that relates to our previous comment and specific heritage issues are:

• Figure 2 “Refined Development Framework” (page 9 of the Supplementary Information) • 2.3 First Nations Heritage as a Design Informant (page 21 of the Supplementary Information) • 2.6 Hard & Soft Landscaping (page 47 of the Supplementary Information) • 2.6.3 Ecological/Heritage Trail (of the Supplementary Information page52)

2.2.2. Figure 2 “Refined Development Framework” (page 9 of the Supplementary Information) As per the Supplementary Information the refined development framework, as shown in the FIGURE 2 above, “Noteworthy changes from the original development framework are:”

a) The diagonal road dissecting the central ‘ecological corridor’ has been replaced by a road that crosses the green open space in a more orthogonal orientation, with the intention to mimic the orientation of the buildings, as well as reduce the impact on the amenity and functioning of the ‘ecological corridor’ space. b) The setback of the buildings from the rehabilitated Liesbeek Canal is now a minimum of 40 metres (this setback previously ranged between 24 – 40 m). c) The buildings directly adjacent to the SA Astronomical Observatory to the west have been lowered in height to reduce the impact on this historical precinct. d) The access roads in Precinct 1 are no longer positioned on the ‘outside’ of the precinct adjacent to the rehabilitated Liesbeek Canal and vegetated swale. Instead, there is now a central road servicing the precinct, and the buildings overlook landscaped areas providing a better interface with these areas. e) The western half of Precinct 2 has been earmarked as the Amazon campus. Amazon is a global company that has very specific requirements for their buildings (e.g. standard floor plates, which in turn result in very specific building footprints). This campus is located next to Berkley Road extension where greater heights are appropriate, although the heights of buildings in the Amazon campus have been staggered as a means to articulate the massing.

f) The inclusion of First Nations heritage as a design informant which now includes the following: - establishing an indigenous garden for medicinal plants used by the First Nations; - establishing a cultural centre; - establishing a heritage-eco trail; - establishing an amphitheatre for use by both the First Nations and the general public; - commemorating the history of the First Nations by: establishing a Gateway Feature inspired by symbols central to the First Nations narrative at the road crossing the eco- corridor; incorporating symbols central to the First Nations narrative in detailed design of buildings; and naming internal roads inspired by people or symbols central to the First Nations narrative; - the implementation of these mechanisms is to be assured through an institutional arrangement which establishes within the Property Owners Association (or similar) an autonomous legal entity led by the Gorinhaiqua Cultural Council that will be

66

responsible for the governance, planning, management, operations, maintenance and sustainability of the indigenous place-making mechanisms.

2.2.3. Furthermore, (page 25)

“A number of refinements and amendments have been made to the development proposal (listed on p21 above). All of these are, we argue improvements to what was discussed in the HIA dated 2 July 2019. Many of these changes are refinements and will, we presume, not satisfy all commentators; however, we suggest that several of the changes are significant from a ‘heritage point of view’. These latter changes include, most importantly: ▪ reducing the height of the buildings in Precinct 1 opposite the SAAO in order that their presence, already minimised by the distance is further reduced and so that Lions Head and Signal Hill can be seen from the roof of the old Royal Observatory building; ▪ improving the vehicular-bridge-crossing of the eco-corridor; and ▪ introducing the several strategies discussed for “indigenizing the site through place- making mechanisms” as outlined on pages 8 and 21 above.”

2.2.4. In the document titled “HWC Issues on River Club HIA (a component of the BAR) and Project Team Responses”, several points must be noted:

• On page 3 under point 8. “Regarding the visual impact on sense of place, it is acknowledged that although ~65% of the site will be retained as open space, due to its location at the confluence of the Liesbeek River and Black River, and long-term status of the site as a green open space, the change in character may be experienced as a strong visual contrast for surrounding (urban) receptors, and the (negative) impact of a change in sense of place will be significant.”

• On page 3 under point 12. “impacts on the sense of place, and historical character of the site have been assessed in the HIA and found to be significant.”

2.2.5. On page 6 under point 31. “Regarding open space specifically, it should be noted that: • The heritage specialists argue that while the development may lead to significant visual impacts, transformation of the site’s character is of relatively low heritage significance.”

2.2.6. EHM believes that the site’s character and the sense of place to be interlinked through the site’s history, intangible as well as tangible heritage and agree with point 8. above that the negative impact of a change in the sense of place and visual impacts will be significantly negative.

2.2.7. On page 6 under point 35. “The HIA recommends that the heights of buildings in the portion of the site closest to the SAAO are kept lower than that of the bank of trees on the SAAO ridge (and that these buildings must include a range of building heights, variation in building form, and an avenue of trees lining the development along the edge of the riverine corridor).”

2.2.8. Although the revised proposal has reduced proposed building heights in proximity to the SAAO, EMD still has concerns with the overall heights of the proposed development and how this will impact negatively on the cultural landscape, sense of place as well as the SAAO itself.

67

2.2.9. On page 9 under point 49. “the “River Club First Nations Report” (AFMAS, 2019a – attached as River Club First Nations Report) was informed by: • Primary research, including key informant interviews with various First Nations representatives for the “TRUP First Nations Report” (AFMAS Solutions, 2019); • Key informant interviews with First Nation knowledge keepers and traditional custodians of the Goringhaiqua, Gorachouqua, Cochoqua, Griqua Royal Council and the San House of Nǀǀnǂe to understand First Nation intangible heritage significance and indigenous "sense of place and meaning" of the River Club site; and • Deconstruction of the Two Rivers local area cultural landscape through multi-layered and multi-dimensional contextualizing to locate the indigenous narrative of the River Club within this area.”

2.2.10. With specific reference to the First Nations grouping and respective parties involved, a Cape Times article, December 2019, quotes Goringhaicona Khoena Council High Commissioner Tauriq Jenkins as saying, “We as the Goringhaicona do not accept this development as, in its current form, it is an act of spiritual and heritage genocide.” Notwithstanding the highly commended work on the First Nations narrative, this statement is of concern to EMD and raises the question of how inclusionary the process of participation with the First Nations has been.

2.2.11. The TRUP landscape has been identified as the site of the skirmish between D’Almeida and the Goringhaiqua in 1509. Legacy Projects established in 1994 included Khoisan heritage: outcomes of the 2015 baseline study and feedback from Dept Arts Culture were that the ‘unique relationship of the Khoi-San with the environment’ could be presented as a park and that the intention of the Khoi-San legacy Project “is not to create a memorial comprised of buildings and/or traditional sculpture”.

2.2.12. On page 13 under point 74. “With regard to the visual impact, the VIA finds that the scale of the development will have visual impacts, and it is the location/context of the site - the surrounding built fabric and topography, visual absorption capacity, visibility, and landscape integrity - which effectively reduces such impacts to the assigned medium rating after mitigation.”

2.2.13. EMD is of the belief that the visual impact of the current proposal to be highly negative due to the scale of the proposed buildings, footprint of the development and heights of the proposed buildings. See Figures 3 & 4 below.

68

FIGURE 3: Currently submitted Visual Impact Views

FIGURE 4: Currently submitted Visual Impact Views

2.2.14. “This cultural landscape is a legacy for the whole of society and reveals aspects of our country’s origins and developments as well as our evolving relationships with the natural world. The ongoing care and interpretation of these sites improves our quality of life and deepens a sense of place and identity for future generations.” – The Cultural Landscape Foundation.

2.2.15. The cultural landscape, of which the pre-1952 river course is an integral part, as well as the SAAO site, are of a very high level of heritage significance and the proposed development’s heights, scale and density would certainly also impact negatively on these relative levels of heritage significance.

69

2.2.16. The impact on the level of significance of the cultural landscape will be highly negative in terms of the level of physical and visual change on the environmental/topographical/ecological and historical significance of the area and by the proposed heights, scale, and density of the current proposal. This negative impact on the significance of the heritage resources will also carry over to the SAAO site for the same reasons of the suggested heights, scale and density. Further mitigation should be in the form of reducing the proposed build heights and density.

2.2.17. Infilling of the old Liesbeek River channel and remodelling of this channel into a vegetated stormwater swale will also impact negatively on the high level of significance of the cultural landscape. 2.2.18. The old Liesbeek River channel forms an integral part of the environmental/ topographical/ ecological and historical significance and current status of the area which can clearly be seen from Figures 2 and 21 of EMD previous comment, as well as from the cover photograph of The River Club: Development Alternatives, prepared by Planning Partners dated November 2017. Removing the old Liesbeek River channel’s ability to be perceived as a historical watercourse and thereby severing its role in the story line of the cultural landscape will impact negatively on the significance of that resource. This might be mitigated by the inclusion of a watercourse of sorts within the proposed ‘park-like’ pedestrian and cycle path ‘transformed riverine corridor’.

2.3. Conclusion to the Heritage Impact Assessment:

2.3.1. EMD is not opposed to the redevelopment of the River Club site. The heritage resources identified to be impacted on by the proposed development have varying degrees of proximity to the site and heritage levels of significance but, EMD believes that the levels of significance of, in particular, the cultural landscape and the SAAO site will still be compromised or reduced by the current proposal and that, although mitigation measures have been applied in the form of the First Nations narrative, setting back proposed buildings further from the SAAO and promoting a ‘park like’ eco corridor, the overall impact on the heritage resources identified, sense of place and cultural landscape is still perceived to be high negative.

2.3.2. “the site functions as an important urban threshold, characterised by the openness of the area and the network of watercourses crossing it. This character sets it in contrast to the urban fabric that surrounds it, and makes, along with the extended context, a unique place within the city. Many of the buildings and uses that are already located “between the rivers” are located here precisely because of the threshold quality the area offers.

2.3.3. The proposed development does not acknowledge the unique and symbolic “threshold role” that the site plays, both in its formal layout, scale, and in the uses that are being proposed. Having to raise the site by 3m or more to achieve an acceptable height above the flood water level further exacerbates the concern that the development would be an invasion of this significance.” Cape Institute of Architects, 8 Feb 2018.

2.3.4. EMD agrees with the development consultants that the visual impact is pronounced but is not supportive of the visual impact conclusion which describes the proposal as being “not inconsistent with a cityscape”. The cityscape of Cape Town as depicted in the before and after figures clearly shows a significant and pronounced change and negative impact from a visual perspective. This impact can be mitigated by reducing bulk, development footprint and building heights.

70

2.3.5. Of relevance within the Environmental Strategy for the City of Cape Town (Policy 46612) which was approved by Council on 24 August 2017 (C05/08/17) are the following:

2.3.6. EMD believes that the Directive points 6.11.1 through 6.11.4 are not fully complied with by the proposal in that the full significance of the unique sense of place and cultural landscape is not acknowledged sufficiently by the current development proposal which impacts overly negatively on these values. Mitigation is by means of reconfiguring the Liesbeek Canal and landscaping green open areas but the currently suggested bulk and heights of the proposed structures and resultant built forms should be reduced further in order to present a more sensitive alignment with the significance of the cultural landscape and sense of place.

2.3.7. The social issues revolving around cultural appropriation and social impact have not been expounded on sufficiently, the First Nations narrative appears to not be totally inclusive of all relative groups. Inclusionary housing from a socio-economic perspective relating to historic communities that may be impacted on, requires investigation. This should not only address accessibility but include factors revolving around inclusionary housing. The idea of inclusionary housing needs to be elaborated on further relative to its historic context? The typologies of homes are very important to look at critically. Can a micro apartment or one-bedroomed apartment such as may be included in this development, accommodate a family within this area between Woodstock and Maitland, areas characterised by the so-called working class who may function within extended family structures? Will the market forces of such a development, unintentionally further exclude and drive out working class communities in historically working class neighbourhoods, close to opportunity and the City?

2.3.8. EMD still believes that the current proposed development does not conserve sufficiently the historical and cultural value and significance of the cultural landscape of the area. The importance of historic and existing spatial context is not adequately recognised in the proposed development in its current form which could be mitigated by a further reduction in bulk and heights.

2.3.9. Furthermore, the No-go option and development within the parameters of the current Open Space Zone have not been explored adequately other than for reasons of economic viability to the developer. EMD believes that these alternatives require further investigation in order to establish if the ensuing negative impacts would be less than those perceived from the current proposal.

2.3.10. The application in its current form is NOT SUPPORTED by EMD (Heritage) as the proposal does not align with current approved City policy and Strategies in terms of the City’s Tall Building Policy, Environmental Strategy and Cultural Heritage Strategy.

2.3.11. EMD is NOT SUPPORTIVE OF THE PROPOSED BULK OR HEIGHTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT which should be reduced further in order for synthesis with and recognition of the areas recognised and valued as significant heritage resources, the cultural landscape and unique sense of place.

Authored by Dimitri Georgeades Mark Bell Environment Management Department 24 January 2020

71

Annexure I: Catchment Planning

72

73

74

Annexure J :Spatial Planning & Urban Design

75

Image 2 – Applicant’s preferred Development layout (fig 3, pg.16)

Image 3– layout Alternative 1

1. DESIGN OBSERVATIONS and the EIA- BAR, SRK, Jan 2020, where additional clarity was/is required:  The development consists of two precincts totalling approx. 150 000m² bulk. The developed areas, including roadways, will be raised above the 100 year flood plain. This is done through super basements to raise the ground floor levels.  Berkley Road extension will be developed to the north of the site within the existing road reserve.  The existing Liesbeek Canal, running adjacent to the eastern boundary of the site, will be rehabilitated into a riverine corridor (currently concrete). The original historic Liesbeek western arm channel will be partially infilled and landscaped as a vegetated swale.

76

 An ‘ecological corridor’, at its maximum is indicated at 90m wide, extends across the site in an east-west direction, connecting the rehabilitated riverine corridor and the stormwater swale.  The development framework indicates 18 buildings plus additional lower ‘gasket’ buildings which are mainly retail and the size and extent is to be clarified.  Heights range from 4 -10 storeys. It is noted that the perceived heights may be over a storey more due to the raised ground level. The mean sea level estimates heights are given, but the effective height in metres above the existing natural ground level should be provided for ease of reference (pg14)  The first level (habitable room) is 6.4m AMSL which the EIA explains is approx. between 1.5m - 3.5m above natural ground level, giving a podium/basement extent of basement is approx. 79 0000 m² (8ha).  Floor areas are anticipated as follows: precinct 1, approximately 60 000 m² total floor space (Mixed Use: retail, office and residential) and, precinct 2, approximately 90 000 m² total floor space (Amazon: ± 70 000 m², Private School: ± 10 000 m², Office: ± 10 000 m²) (PP, 2019, fig. 4).  Open space calculations are decribed  Retail: The retail offering will consist of typical line shops as well as restaurants, food and beverage outlets and a gym in keeping with the tenant mix focus. Retail facilities will be configured as a “high street”, with the appearance of a group of buildings lining a (pedestrian) high street. It appears that the high street will be covered.  Residential: residential units will consist of studio / one-bedroom and two-bedroom units with an average floor area (gross leasable area [GLA]) of between 25 m² and 77 m². Residential floor area will comprise at least 20% of the development. At this stage, the developer envisages a rental-only model for residential units. (EIA- BAR, SRK, Jan 2020, pg. 15/194)  Inclusionary housing: The applicant states that although the majority of residential units will be priced according to market dynamics, the developer has committed to include a component of “inclusionary housing” in the development scheme. 20% of residential floor area will be for inclusionary housing. It is thus calculated that there will be approx. 6000m² for inclusionary rental units translating into 140 apartments. It is noted that the Inclusionary housing units will be integrated into apartment blocks as far as possible. Tenants in inclusionary houses will be selected by the developer on an application basis – it is noted that the beneficiaries will be households of employed civil servants (teachers, nurses, policemen etc.) earning between R22 000 – R30 000/month (in 2019 prices).

77

 Phasing: In addition, it is understood from the SRK, Basic assessment Report, January 2020, that the development will be constructed in several phases as per diagram below

Image 4– Applicant’s fig 8 Development phases (phasing), SRK 2020, with author’s rough overlay of development site extents. The phased development should indicate how the entire public realm and open space is phased and managed. Our interest is to ensure an integrated public space environment. In addition, this drawing should indicate the NEMA site extents more clearly.

2. ALIGNMENT WITH SPATIAL PLANNING POLICY GUIDELINES, FRAMEWORKS & POLICIES

The following frameworks, plans and policy documents need to be taken into account in the application and will be used to evaluate the proposals. 2.1 Municipal Spatial Development Framework (MSDF; 2018)

The majority of the site in question lies within the Urban Inner Core Spatial Transformation Area (STA), although outside the existing built/urban footprint1, in which the MSDF calls for land use intensification. This is defined as increasing density and/or diversification to support TOD objectives. The land use guidelines for the Urban Inner Core area describe the desired land use outcome as (MSDF, Table 9: 73): “diverse and dense land uses in association with current and future public transport infrastructure provision”.

However, the site also falls within and borders a Critical Natural Assets STA. Here the MSDF calls for the enhancement and connection of critical natural assets that support the city and regional environment and ecology. The site is bordered on the east and west by Core 1 Protected and Conserved Areas along the river corridors and to the north by a Buffer 1 zone according to the Biodiversity Network. There are also pockets of wetland and Critical Biodiversity areas surrounding the site. See Image 6.

The site is situated on the outskirts of the convergence of the metro-scale Voortrekker Road and Southern Suburbs Main Road structuring corridors. Structuring corridors are typified by intensified and diversified land use and are defined as the (MSDF, Table 9: 76):

1 The Urban Footprint is defined in the MSDF (Pg. 109) as the total spatial extent of existing urban development and shown in Maps 5a-c.

78

“targeted, prioritised areas earmarked for the largest spectrum of land use mix associated with the highest density of population and employment”. The site is located in a void directly between two existing Transport Accessible Precincts which overlap with the outer extents of the site. The application for a mixed use development supported by the IPTN network on the outskirts of an important structuring corridor aligns with the Municipal Spatial Development Framework’s overall policy direction. This is highlighted by Spatial Strategy 1 and the associated policy: “P1.1: Support a mix of land uses and higher density residential development (compliant with area-specific policy frameworks) in appropriate locations in support of TOD.” While the MSDF supports development of the site, it also provides clear guidance regarding the balance between development and environmental protection. This is emphasised in Spatial Strategy 2: “Manage urban growth, and create a balance between urban development and environmental protection” and the various Policy Statements included in this strategy. Of particular relevance are Policy 19: Promote appropriate land use intensity and the subsequent Policy Guideline 19.2 (MSDF, 2018: 121): “The determination of the appropriate location, height, scale, form and orientation of a higher density development in a particular location should be guided by the following: P8.7 generic considerations related to the suitability of the area for land use intensification, such as surrounding land use character, access to public transport, proximity to places of employment, services and community/social facilities, proximity to public open space, and infrastructure availability (existing and planned); P8.8 the applicable policy frameworks, namely the CTSDF, District SDPs and local spatial plans, density plans, urban design and architectural guidelines; the spatial locations targeted for different types of densification; contextual informants related to the development application and its immediate surroundings, such as the natural environment, land use, built and heritage character, sense of place, infrastructure availability and capacity, and socio-economic considerations, should determine the densities appropriate to a specific location; and P8.9 the spatial outcome of a proposal.” The site lies within the 1:100-year flood line as highlighted in Image 7 Map 5a: Precautionary Areas. The MSDF discourages development within these areas as highlighted in policy statement: Policy 22: Discourage urban growth in areas at risk from natural hazards/coastal processes which are expected to be amplified by climate change impacts. As noted above, the site borders several riverine corridors and wetlands. The following policy statement provides guidance: Policy 24: Reduce the impact of urban development on river systems, wetlands, aquifers, aquifer recharge areas and discharge areas. The TRUP Area is identified in MAP A2 of the MSDF as a Proposed Heritage Area with various guidelines provided under: Policy 12: Identify, conserve and manage heritage resources, including cultural landscapes.

79

Image 5 – MSDF informants for the site.

Image 6 - Map 5b: Biodiversity Network informants

80

Image 7 - Map 5a: Precautionary Areas informants

81

2.2 Table Bay District Plan (TBDP; 2012)

The Table Bay District Plan was approved in 2012 and is currently undergoing a review to, inter alia, align itself to the 2018 MSDF. The Table Bay District Plan Identifies the site as part of the Two Rivers Urban Park area. The specific sub- district development objectives and guidelines for the area are highlighted below (Table Bay DP, 2012: 133): a) Facilitate the 1. Conserve and enhance ecologically sensitive areas and establishment of a historically significant sites. multipurpose 2. Upgrade and rehabilitate degraded open space and metropolitan urban park ecological systems. (Two Rivers Urban Park) 3. Create a high-quality, multifunctional recreational area that forms part of an ecological system stretching from Table Bay to False Bay. 4. Allow for varied activities including conservation, active and passive recreation as well as more public uses along the edges of the site where appropriate. 5. Integrate the park into the fabric of the city by improving edge conditions and facilitating a positive interface with existing adjacent communities and institutions. 6. Support limited residential and institutional (with some supporting commercial use) development within the edges of the park to provide passive surveillance. 7. Formalise a system of pedestrian links across the site: east-west linkages from Alexandra Road as entry points into the park as well as north-south linkages between the Alexandra Institute, Maitland Garden Village and Oude Molen precinct.

The broad principle from the Table Bay District Plan is that the site be developed in a manner that conserves and enhances ecologically sensitive areas; historically significant sites and upgrades/rehabilitate degraded open space into a high-quality publically accessible space. Cognisance is taken of the fact that the River Club Development proposal is in conflict with the Table Bay District Plan’s land use categorisation for the site (‘open space”, ‘core2 and ‘buffer 1’). An application to deviate from the Table Bay District Plan has been made, in order to permit urban development on the site.

Image 8 – Table Bay District Plan informants for the site.

82

2.3 Transit Oriented Development Strategic Framework (2016)

A key objective of the TODSF is to maximise “location efficiency” through a comprehensive approach to land use density, mix and intensity, as well as a focus on prioritised NMT and public transport. This should drive down the cost of the User Access Priority for both new and existing residents and improve the demand profile of public transport routes through targeted mixed use intensification. As mentioned above, the site is situated on the outskirts of the convergence of the metro-scale Voortrekker Road and Southern Suburbs Main Road structuring corridors in close proximity to the Cape Town CBD. The site is also sits at the convergence of several rail lines with three train stations situated within a 1km radius. Both corridors are currently serviced by several modes of public transport including minibus taxis and Golden Arrow Busses. The site is surrounded by PT Zones. It is recommended that parking supply and ratios reflect the sites location accordingly. The site’s strategic location broadly aligns with the TOD Strategic Framework objective of maximising “location efficiency”. It is important that the development contributes to the remaining TOD objectives including prioritising NMT, boosting public transport ridership and providing a rich mix of housing, shopping, recreational and transport choices. 1.1.1 Transit Oriented Development Comprehensive Model The site is located in an area where the TOD Model targets high residential intensification as per the Transit Orientated Development Comprehensive Model. The model also encourages low to medium intensification of non-residential land uses in the area. The TODC model again emphasises the requirement for a diverse mix of land uses in the precinct, prioritising residential development.

83

3. URBAN DESIGN POLICY

Please note the Urban Design Policy (2013) that provides guidance to development through suggesting methods of increasing ‘the greater good’ of the public realm to all city users. The following are extracts from the policy that apply to this high level application. All policy points to be considered with further applications. Also please note that all the relevant Policies and Frameworks and available on the City’s Planning Portal. The following policies also need to be taken into account and used in the motivation to show how they were incorporated into the development as increased detail and approvals are sought over time. They can be found on the City’s Planning Portal: 1. Urban Design Policy (2013) 2. Tall building Policy (2013) 3. Safer Cities Guidelines (2015) 4. Densification Policy (2012) 5. TOD Strategic Framework Policy (2016) 6. Gated Development Policy (2007) 7. Boundary Walls and Fences Policy (2009)

3.1 Urban Design Policy (2013)

Please note the Urban Design Policy (2013) that provides guidance to development through suggesting methods of increasing ‘the greater good’ of the public realm to all city users. The following are extracts from the policy that apply to this application:

OBJECTIVE 1: ENSURE THAT DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTES POSITIVELY TO THE URBAN STRUCTURE OF THE CITY, TO CREATE INTEGRATED AND LEGIBLE PLACES AND NEIGHBOURHOODS:

 Policy Statement 1.1 - When compiling development proposals, the logic of the underlying urban structure should be communicated in a clear, rational and well-articulated manner. Proposals should demonstrate how a new development fits into and contributes positively to its surrounding context, addresses spatial, economic and social segregation, improves integration and creates more legible urban places.  Policy Statement 1.2 – When laying out a new development, cluster community facilities and public institutions together or locate them along the higher order structuring routes to reinforce the spatial structure (as opposed to embedding them within a residential neighbourhood). Where possible, associate public facilities with high quality open spaces to create civic precincts where building frontages define the street and the public realm.  Policy Statement 1.3 – The location of utility services must be considered early on in the development design process and should reinforce the primary spatial structure and not determine or limit urban form. Elements such as detention ponds and electrical substations must be intentionally located such that they do not create movement blockages, inconvenience people or create dead frontages where active interfaces are required.

Noting Policy Statement 1, “when compiling development proposals, the logic of the underlying urban structure should be communicated in a clear, rational and well-articulated manner. Proposals should demonstrate how a new development fits into and contributes positively to its surrounding context, addresses spatial, economic and social segregation, improves integration and creates more legible urban places.” Hence the underlying stormwater, hydrological, ecological & biodiversity, heritage indicators, layers, and “fixes” should guide the developable footprint. This area contains indigenous reed and bird species and has hydrological functioning. The infilling of the Liesbeek River is motivated in the BAR based on the intended rehabilitation of the eastern canalised section. (8.1-8.9, CCT EHM report) The EHM branch have stated they are not amenable to infilling of the historic arm. Based on this, it would appear from the loss of riverine corridor in favour of a vegetated swale may not adequately respond to ‘sense of place’ at the interface to Liesbeek Parkway and Observatory.

In accordance with the Table Bay District Plan (approved in 2012) the intention to facilitate the establishment of a multipurpose metropolitan urban park (Two Rivers Urban Park) is envisioned for the

84 site in addition to intensification of use. Hence place-making should be structured by this overarching vision for the site. The intention is clear to create a high-quality, multifunctional recreational area that forms part of an ecological system stretching from Table Bay to False Bay.

Over and above, the proposed urban fabric and morphology is reviewed. This is assessed in terms of the original urban design indicators (2018). The nature of this site, as part of a wider public open space network, is also discussed here below.

Image 9: UD indicators (LUMS 2019, PP, 2018 DF, annexure with urban design indicators dated Dec 2017 pg32), indicates view corridors to Devil’s Peak from the confluence, across the ecological corridor to Devils Peak. The current (refined DF, 2019) ecological corridor geometry and alignment may vary from these indicators. Through the ‘package of plans’ process (precinct, SDP and building plans) this intention should be demonstrated - how these views from strategic public spaces are indeed safeguarded. Refer also to Tall Building Policy for guidance.

85

Image 10: UD indicators (LUMs 2019, PP, 2018 DF, annexure with urban design indicators dated Dec 2017 pg35), building recommended heights. It is noted that the refined DF has been adjusted to 4 storeys along the eastern edge (SAAO) as per heritage comment- this is supported and otherwise gernally in accordance with this, noting the built storeys will be perceived higher due to the raised ground level.

Image 11: UD indicators (LUMS 2019, PP, 2018 DF, annexure with urban design indicators dated Dec 2017), fragmentation and building form.pg 34 is a reasonable proposition that should be followed through, with caution to the scale and massing of the refined Precinct 2 buildings.

86

Critical to this development, within Table Bay District Plan, is that the site is part of a wider metropolitan park and green lung. The ‘sense-of-place’ should speak to a truly public, accessible, open space and park network, as part of the original zoning (OS3). Hence, in principle, the proposed open space and sense of a riverine corridor should dominate the developable area, as a point of departure.

The EIA denotes 63% allowance for open space. The tables states 63% (24,8ha) is open space including 14% building footprint, unassigned 6%, road 17% and open space 63%. Of the 15,6 NEMA site 3% is soft open space and 14% is soft landscaping. It is not clear as to what portions of soft and green open space is publicly accessible. Clarity is still required. It may be that the roof garden space, above the retail component, is accounted for as open space? If this is the case, it should be designed to allow for public universal access and generosity of urban scale stairways. We are also aware that the sub divisional separate LUMS application (2019pg.53) (OS3 space) was noted at approx. 33%.

Image 12 – Applicant’s table (part) (pg. 14-15) of open space being provided.

The principle remains the same, the intention is to maximise the quality, of publically accessible open space. It is a concern that there may be ‘left over spaces’, perhaps in part forming of the unassigned spaces that are residual from the infrastructural requirements of the road and bridge infrastructure. These residual areas do not provide public amenity. It is appreciated that this cannot always be avoided, but this is in part driven by the underlying premise of building above the floodplain and hence the requirements for embankments stated between 1.5m -3m above the existing ground level, but may be more up to 6m?

It is strongly recommended that the visual mitigation of the hard infrastructural barriers be increased, so that viewing towards and from the site speaks to the intention of “park”. However, internal streets within the ecological corridor appear to have increased in scale (from the draft BAR) to accommodate vehicular speed and volumes. The internal roundabout geometry frustrates pedestrian movement. Speed creates noise and negative visual impact of this road, in the most sensitive part of the site, this is not supported and should be further mitigated. In addition, there are still basement access points and other requirements for switching/sub stations that should not negatively impact the interface to the ecological corridor.

87

88

Image 13– Examples taken from the engineering drawings and the public open space drawing, do not in all cases give rise to a pedestrian friendly park environment as suggested in the landscape masterplan (below) where separate NMT pathways extend and appear to link to the road network beyond.

89

Image 14: Aurecon’s 112405-0000-SKT-CC-0001 (Jan 2020) Stormwater BMP indicating biorention ponds that relate to the riverine (eastern) corridor. It would seem logical that the engineering of the biorention would be cognisant of the human relationship to the river as part of the tangible and intangible aspects of heritage and the cultural landscape. One would anticipate the importance of water and holding water would be co- located with the spacialisation of tangible and intangible aspects of cultural landscape and or visa versa, as a suggestion?

90

Image 15: SRK (2020) fig 15, Road Network and basements, The public interfaces to Berkley/Malta, Liesbeek Parkway and Station Road extension do not appear to create accessible public open space and/or good interface. This should be mitigated. The Liesbeek park way entrance is covered by access requirements however, the visual impact of infrastructure should be mitigated (e.g. gabion and landscaping). It is a concern that the back of the ‘gym’ building could be a negative interface and gateway view to the entrance to the TRUP site.

OBJECTIVE 2: ENSURE THAT DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTES TO IMPROVING QUALITY OF THE PUBLIC REALM AND PUBLIC SPACE:

 Policy Statement 2.1 - Open space must always be created intentionally and scaled and configured to suit the functions for which it is planned (e.g. regular geometries and to meet standard dimensions required for active recreation). Open space should never be residual or left over space.  Policy Statement 2.2 - Where appropriate public spaces should be associated with public institutions, community facilities, higher density developments, water courses and public roads and these public spaces should be overlooked.  Policy Statement 2.3 - Avoid arranging buildings or erven such that the rear / backs of private property face onto the public realm (streets or public open spaces) unless there is certainty that the buildings will be designed to provide a positive interface onto the space.  Policy Statement 2.4 - Design and detail public spaces to be robust and durable with low maintenance hard and soft landscaping and street furniture that is resistant to vandalism. Consider post implementation maintenance and management through the design process.

91

Image 16: UD indicators (LUMS application, PP, Refined Development Framework, 2019 (pg.11) View lines should be maintained as per original and the refined urban design indicators (2019). There is lack of clarity as to the truly publicly accessible open space, as well as, open to sky space versus covered gallery areas, as well as ‘residual space’ which does not act as a public amenity.

Image 17: Applicant’s 3d image (LUMS, 2019) indicting the massing and bulk for precinct 2. Buildings 8&9 particular need to respond to the Tall building policy statement 1

92

The Precinct 2 urban morphology is largely monolithic and bulky in nature compared to earlier design iterations. This does not comply to the intention of the urban design indicators in its current form. The built form in Precinct 2 should adopt a morphology that appears to be most successfully achieved in building 10, (with a tripartite plan), for example. In addition, a level of visual interest and differentiation in section is also recommended, ensuring stepping of the ‘crown’ of the building, responding to Berkley Road, as well as environmental considerations >wind, sunlight stepping appropriately. This is equally required for the ‘Amazon’ sub-precinct. The typical large floorplates (PP, RDF 2019, fig 9) create ‘bulky boxes’ in the current rendition. Through the ‘package of plans’ process it is expected to see 1) tri/bipartite planning in plan and section, to reduce the perceived bulk in section/plan, 2) stepping of the ‘crown’ of the buildings to respond to wind, sunlight stepping appropriately to Berkley, 3) wrapping any non-active floor plates with active function, not precluding activity over a 24-hour cycle. In summary the height and bulk of buildings may need to be carefully considered /massaged to avoid conditions that may cause a ‘walled development response’ that is monolithic in nature.

OBJECTIVE 3: ENSURE THAT DEVELOPMENTS CONTRIBUTE TO THE CREATION OF SAFE AND SECURE COMMUNITIES:

 Policy Statement 3.1 - Optimise visual connections and increase passive surveillance of the public realm by: creating routes that have simple straightforward geometries; locating many doors, windows, balconies and terraces along the public interface; providing a mix of complementary land uses wherever possible; and creating simple designs that do not create blind spots and entrapment spaces.  Policy Statement 3.2 - Consciously organise space and activities to reduce the risk people, particularly the poor and vulnerable, are exposed to. Keep developments out of areas susceptible to sea level rise and flooding, prepare for climate change, avoid hazardous areas, encourage slower traffic speeds where appropriate and ensure that people can safely cross busy roads and railway lines.

Noted for reference for continued ‘package of plans submission’.

OBJECTIVE 4: ENSURE OPPORTUNITIES AND AMENITIES ARE ACCESSIBLE AND THAT PEOPLE CAN MOVE ABOUT EASILY AND EFFICIENTLY:

 Policy Statement 4.1 - Provide spatial connections between and through existing and new neighbourhoods to create, reinforce and transform, where necessary, the hierarchy of movement routes to achieve greater levels of integration, spatial continuity and improved permeability for pedestrians, cyclists and people with disabilities.  Policy Statement 4.2 - Recognise the generators of movement and how development proposals can change the way people move. Address dominant pedestrian desire lines by providing linkages and generous landscaped sidewalks around and to important destinations that attract high levels of pedestrian traffic. Further ensure universal access to all buildings, transport facilities and along popular pedestrian routes;  Policy Statement 4.3 - Non-motorised transport facilities must be considered from the beginning of the design process when developments are likely to attract public patronage (shopping centres, public facilities and public transport interchanges). The facilities provided must cater for the different needs of end users (residents, staff and visitors) and may include cycle parking, change / shower rooms and storage facilities. These facilities must be located so as to ensure safe and convenient access.  Policy Statement 4.4 - Car parking facilities must be located so that they offer convenient access, but not at the expense of creating a positive and active public realm and streetscape or compromise pedestrian safety and convenience. Also pay attention to the quality of the connection between car parking facilities and end destinations.  Policy Statement 4.5 - The servicing of a development (delivery, recycling, refuse and plant rooms) must be considered from the beginning of the design process and be located appropriately or screened so as to minimise their impact on the public environment.  Policy Statement 4.6 - Avoid creating physical barriers which restrict access and create inconvenience. Linear elements of urban infrastructure (busy roads, railway lines or electrical lines) need to be carefully considered and large agglomerations of impenetrable land uses (gated estates and large industrial areas) avoided. Where these are necessary provide convenient alternatives for people on foot and/or on bicycle to overcome the barrier. Noted for reference

OBJECTIVE 5: PROMOTE DEVELOPMENT INTENSITY, DIVERSITY AND ADAPTABILITY:

93

 Policy Statement 5.1- Ensure that the layout of new neighbourhoods meets the needs of current and future generations by making adequate provision for the public facilities and amenities. Where these are not provided on site, safe and convenient access to facilities located nearby must be facilitated through the arrangement of urban blocks, built form and movement routes.  Policy Statement 5.2 - A proposal must make efficient use of its site and seek to optimise its development potential through the intensification of built form (in terms of height and coverage) in response to the elements of the urban structure. A mix of uses and activities should be proposed where viable and appropriate and the arrangement of uses on the site, or within buildings should respond positively to the attributions of the particular site and its surrounding urban context.  Policy Statement 5.3 - Combine open space uses like Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS), play grounds, allotment gardens etc. to use space more effectively and increase shared use.  Policy Statement 5.4 - Ensure that urban blocks, individual erven, buildings and spaces are generously proportioned and designed so that they can be adapted to accommodate other uses and meet the needs of future generations. For instance: at the urban level- urban blocks should be a minimum of 30m deep to allow them to accommodate a range buildings types; and at a building level - circulation cores should be located appropriately and floor-to-ceiling heights should allow for the adaptive reuse of the building over time.

Noted for reference

OBJECTIVE 6: ENSURE ENCLOSURE AND POSITIVE INTERFACE ONTO THE PUBLIC REALM:

 Policy Statement 6.1 - The orientation of new streets, urban blocks, plots and buildings should recognise the historic street pattern, reinforce the existing or proposed urban structure and respond positively to environmental conditions such as orientation, rain and wind patterns so as to maximise levels of comfort for the pedestrian and make places that are pleasant to be in.  Policy Statement 6.2 - Locate buildings so that they have a positive relationship with the street. Wherever possible buildings should be located as close as possible to the street boundary and/ or along the edge of an open space to define and provide enclosure to the public realm. Where the use of the building allows, the facade of the building should be used to define the public realm and public spaces.  Policy Statement 6.3 - Design and articulate the interface between the public and private realms to ensure active and lively building frontages. Blank facades and parking fronting onto the street should be avoided.  Policy Statement 6.4 – Parking structures should not be located on the first two levels above ground. Where this is unavoidable it should be wrapped with active uses along the interface with the public realm.

Noted for reference

OBJECTIVE 7: DEVELOPMENT SHOULD RECOGNISE AND RESPOND APPROPRIATELY TO INFORMALITY:

 Policy Statement 7.1 - Respond proactively to informality at site level by focusing on interventions within the public environment and in response to the ways the sites are used on a daily basis. Such interventions could include the formalisation of movement routes, the provision of public facilities and the provision of basic infrastructure and services in a manner that creates social gathering places or places to trade.  Policy Statement 7.2 - Prioritise public health and safety measures around areas where informal trading is common and within informal settlements by upgrading the public environment to mitigate natural hazards and man-made risks, by ensuring adequate access for emergency services, regular fire breaks and public lighting in high crime areas.  Policy Statement 7.3 - Plan for economic activity and sustainable livelihoods wherever possible in the layout of new townships by zoning land appropriately and in response to opportunities and constraints of a particular site. Further ensure that programmes and strategies are put in place so that the spaces and buildings are used by the communities they were intended to serve and on a sustainable basis.  Policy Statement 7.4 - Plan for micro enterprises and informal traders around higher order activity generators (urban nodes and around public institutions and interchanges) which attract high levels of pedestrian traffic. This may include identifying locations for trading stalls and ensuring small units within the retail mix.

Noted for reference

OBJECTIVE 8: DEVELOPMENT SHOULD PROTECT, VALUE AND ENHANCE THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT THROUGH SUSTAINABLE DESIGN:

94

 Policy Statement 8.1 - Protect and enhance environmental resources, green open space systems and ecologically sensitive areas. Ensure that these are suitably integrated into the design of new developments with suitable setbacks and buffers and ensure that buildings relate positively to open space systems through the arrangement of built form and the design of its interface with its associated landscape.  Policy Statement 8.2 - Ensure the continuity of the city’s open space network by arranging development and new open spaces in such a way that they become viable and meaningful spatial connections which support biodiversity.  Policy Statement 8.3 - Start the design process by understanding and working in harmony with the natural drainage patterns of the site and apply the principles of Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) so as to arrive at a layout that is water sensitive and space efficient, minimises the disruption of the natural hydrological cycle and works together with other related gravity systems such as sewerage.  Policy Statement 8.4 - Ensure the maintenance and management of open space systems are considered during the design stages.

Noted for reference

OBJECTIVE 9: DEVELOPMENT SHOULD RESPECT AND ENHANCE THE HERITAGE, CHARACTER AND UNIQUE IDENTITY OF THE CITY AND ITS NEIGHBOURHOODS:

 Policy Statement 9.1 – Safeguard the integrity of the natural features which form part of a neighbourhood’s identity (including important vistas, view corridors and views of local landmarks) when considering development proposals. These qualities need to be identified during the design process and it needs to be demonstrated how the intrinsic qualities of the place will not be detrimentally transformed through development;  Policy Statement 9.2 - Respect the heritage and cultural landscape of the city and integrate new proposals within their existing context by: knitting developments into the historic grain and open space system of the area, retaining the key elements of the cultural landscape, and creatively adapting buildings of historic or architectural value, responding sensitively in terms of building height, massing and the placement of buildings on the site; continuing or introducing vertical and horizontal rhythms within the streetscape; and complementing the style and material palette of adjacent buildings in a contemporary manner, by using appropriate technologies and modern detailing.

Noted for reference

3.2 Safer Cities Guidelines Safer (2015)

Please also refer to the Safer Cities Guidelines. The City is in the process of developing a comprehensive series of strategies and guidelines to tackle crime and improve safety. This includes a broad spectrum of interventions including situational, social and institutional crime prevention initiatives. The “Design and Management Guidelines for a Safer City” focuses on situational crime prevention and crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED). It provides guidance to home owners, local communities, business owners and City officials in developing plans which increase levels of safety for all. 3.3 Tall Buildings Policy (2013)

Please note the Tall Building Policy (2013) that provides guidance to the development of tall buildings within the City of Cape Town. The following are extracts from the policy that apply to this application. The application initiates all the Tall Building Policy Statements:

P1. The location of tall buildings must protect the key views to Table Mountain, other mountain ranges such as Kogelberg/Helderberg and the sea from public spaces and key public places. P2. Tall buildings should only be located in appropriate locations. P3. Applications must meet assessment criteria as set out in the Policy. P4. All tall buildings must contribute to a quality, active public realm at street and first floor level. P5. Possible additional review for significantly tall buildings. P6. Assessment on merit within the building’s unique context. P7. Area character analysis will inform the design of tall buildings. P8. A tall building design should consider the three parts of a tall building within its context. P9. A tall building’s design should include a mix of uses and promote the City’s Densification Strategy. P10. Criteria for renewable energy and/or energy efficiency in tall buildings must be considered to support limited infrastructure recourses.

95

Please note the Tall Building Policy (2013) that provides guidance to the development of tall buildings within the City of Cape Town. The application initiates all the Tall Building Policy Statements:

P1. The location of tall buildings must protect the key views to Table Mountain, other mountain ranges such as Kogelberg/Helderberg and the sea from public spaces and key public places.

Image 18: SRK Consulting, The River club VIA views across the ecological corridor and views from the confluence, which is the primary public open space, are to be assured.

96

Image 19: SRK Consulting, fig. 23, Vivid architects, artist impression of the shows the view from the heritage and media centre blocking the Devil’s Peak. The Tall Building Policy is clear that views should be from key public spaces (statement 1). Hence the view across the ecological corridor and views from the confluence, should respect the Devil’s Peak and Lion’s head. Refer below for additional comment.

The individual developments in the precincts need to be evaluated according to this policy in order to motivate contextual fit and height. View corridors also need to be considered and visual impact assessments, wind studies and shadow studies may need to be done.

The information provided on this matter of ‘view’ within the EIA, to and from the site, with relation to the question of appropriate scale and massing of the development needs clarity. A key observation in this regard is that the view across the ecological corridor and views from the confluence, should respect Table Mountain. Since Devil’s Peak and Lion’s head are existing and dominant features of Table Mountain within this context, it is strongly recommended that these are enhanced views from the developed site public space.

This drawing above in part indicates the view of the heritage centre with Lion’s head in the distance, taken from above eye level and hence the applicability of the image is unclear. In addition, the heritage and urban design indicators should guide the placement of the heritage centre and hence the view lines to Table Mountain including the distinguishable features of Devil’s Peak and Lion’s head. The link between the heritage centre placement, including the spatialisation of the First people’s intangible and tangible heritage indicators, the actual confluence, Devil’s Peak and Lion’s head need to be motivated from and through the urban design indicators, heritage indicators. Finally, this should be viewed at ground and eye level and motivated as such.

4. DISCUSSION

The investment focus of the MSDF supports intensified development in the Urban Inner Core and the site is well located from a TOD perspective, however, the appropriate location, height, scale, form and

97 orientation of development must give cognisance to the site constraints, in particular the management of the river corridor. It is important to note that there is no conflict between the MSDF 2018 and the Table Bay District Plan (2012) for this site as has been claimed in the applicant’s motivation report. The District Planning and Mechanisms branch, in principle, do not object to a deviation from the Table Bay District Plan as has been stated in previous branch comments. However, we suggest that the interface between ‘green’ and ‘developed’ space be further considered, reinforcing the ecological role of the site through soft landscaping and the vision of the area in the District Plan as forming part of an open space and ecological corridor of metropolitan significance. The OS3 portion must function as a high quality open space with public access that is well integrated into the fabric of the city. Considering the Table Bay District Plan emphasises the establishment of a multipurpose metropolitan urban park, and in the interest of maintaining the highest quality pedestrian and public open space, to support the very essence of “park”, the 33% of open space (OS3) cannot be degraded through the hard and impenetrable infrastructure. With this in mind, we cannot support the geometry of the road link between Precinct 1&2 in its current form. Design improvements such as moving vehicular ramps away from the public interfaces is appreciated and should be further considered in future levels of detailed design. We would like to emphasise at this stage that the development should meet the TOD Objectives set out in the TOD Strategic Framework. Of note at this point are:  Ensuring NMT usage and public transport modes are catered for and encouraged.  Ensuring a rich mix of residential, commercial, recreational and other uses are included within the development. i.e. ensuring a truly mixed use/diverse environment. These principles should be entrenched in the form of “urban and development design guidelines”. The extent to which the application is compliant is conditional on approval from the relevant departments regarding storm water and river corridor management. The developable footprint is subject to the management and design of the river corridors including the approach to the historic arm of the Liesbeek River. This is beyond the remit of this department, but will influence the final development footprint.

5. CONCLUSION

With reference to the Table Bay District Plan (2012), the site is part of a wider metropolitan park and green lung. The ‘sense-of-place’ should speak to a truly public, accessible, open space and park network, as part of the original zoning. Hence development should enhance and give reality to this public open space and riverine corridor as a point of departure and structuring. This in part is true of naturalising the eastern arm, creating the ecological corridor, however, the western Liesbeek arm is filled is still a point of contention. In addition, the following design related concerns as per the EIA BAR (SRK 2020) information, needs to be addressed so as to give rise to and fully articulate this development in accordance with the Table Bay District Plan (2012) The following requirements should be noted: 1. The heights list table should be clarified with heights above natural ground level. Heights indicated range from 4 -10 storeys. It is noted that the perceived heights may be over a storey more due to the raised ground level. The mean sea level estimates heights are given, but the effective height in metres above the existing natural ground level should be provided for ease of reference (pg14)

2. The area proposed as OS3 ecological corridor on Erf151832, and the remaining full development area, should be registered as a public right of way servitude in perpetuity.

3. The proposed internal link road alignment in its current form is not acceptable from an urban design and landscape point of view. In light of the applicant’s proposal to deviate from the Table Bay District Plan 2012, as well as the request to rezone from OS3, it is required that the proposed link road alignment and form is designed to further reduce the negative visual impact on the “sense of place” so as not to detract from the public and NMT users’ experience, especially within and adjacent to, the ecological corridors.

4. The NMT routes are critical to the success of the functioning of this OS3 space, and surrounding riverine/swale corridors on city-owned land, as well as the internal ‘woon-erf’ spaces. In light of

98

this, we raise the concern that the proposed traffic circles do not sufficiently accommodate a NMT prioritised environment. Internal access pathways that link to the surrounding road network (with reference of the NMT engineering drawings and landscape masterplan) are not clear yet and need to be integrated.

5. It is important to keep the site visually permeable. None of the building parcels will be allowed to be fenced off. i.e. active building edges, vegetated ‘ha-ha’s’ etc. must be used to create the necessary security measures. If vehicular or pedestrian control measures needs to be put in place, detailed drawings for these access control measures needs to be submitted with the SDP for each phase.

6. Precinct 1 East/West pedestrian access into the retail component should be ‘open-to-sky’ and allow public pedestrian access that links to the wider NMT network and surrounds.

7. There is a concern that the Precinct 1 retail component appears to be an internalised mall. The appropriateness of this type of retail considering global decline in malls is questioned.

8. Heights and massing

9. Precinct 1 would have 4-9 storey buildings maximum, consisting of a mix-of -uses including residential, office retail and gym. The built form and massing is allocated across the area into eleven distinct & separate urban forms, with heights that step and vary to ensure urban scale interest across the precinct. Gateway buildings should be reflected in height and architectural treatment, not excluding the Building 1 (gym), which should be designed to interface with the surroundings. A min 20% (approx. 6000m²) is suggested by the developer to be set aside for inclusionary housing.

10. Precinct 2 would have 5 -10 storeys maximum, consisting of a mix-of –uses, including education, and offices. The built form and massing is to be allocated across the area into minimum seven distinct & separate urban forms which require additional articulation to break the current monolithic forms. These are to be allocated across the area so as to ensure the highest building respond to the higher order Berkeley road. The height, mass, and bulk of buildings needs to be carefully considered to avoid conditions that may cause a ‘walled development response’. Careful consideration with regards to ensuring the fronts and backs of buildings do not jeopardise the riverine and ecological corridor interfaces and that of the confluence.

11. Gateway buildings 8&9 appear in their current form to detract /block views across the public open space and from the confluence to Devil’s Peak. This in its current form would not be supported.

12. Gateway buildings should be reflected in height and architectural treatment, not excluding the Building 1 (gym), which should be designed to interface with the surroundings.

13. Gateway landscape elements need to mitigate the negative impact of hard infrastructure) bridges etc) (Malt Berkley, confluence, Liesbeek bridge entrance) and describe the NMT connectivity related to berms, bridges and access to the external road access.

It should also be noted that District Planning and Mechanisms and Urban Design Branches, have supported the proposed development through the LUMS application process (Jan 2020), subject to a number of requirements as per a ‘package of plans process’ which calls for additional information at appropriate scales. These are in the section below for information:

14. It should in accordance with a ‘package of plans’ the final development framework should be followed by submissions of precinct plans, SDP’s and buildings plans and corresponding levels of detail for the landscape drawings. A bulk register is to be kept and submitted alongside each application.

15. Precinct Plans for both Precinct 1 and 2 will need to be submitted prior to any SDPs or Building Plans. These plans need to stipulate the split bulk allowance designated to each Precinct (not

99

to exceed the total allowable bulk). A ‘bulk of land budget’ also needs to be submitted and kept track of for each development within the Precincts. The bulk should not be transferable between each precinct.

16. The Precinct Plan submission should include “urban design and development guidelines for the entire development”, in general accordance with the provisional refined Development framework, and approved EIA/HIA. This is intended to be used as tool to guide appropriate development.

 Precinct plans;  Character areas;  Maximum heights;  Gateway buildings;  Appropriately located bulk, including for example: - hierarchy of spaces; - light penetration; and - foreground and background buildings;  Visual corridors;  Road / built form interfaces; and  Landscaping interventions.  NMT

17. The bulk allocation of the Precinct 1 & 2 may not be transferred between the precincts. Bulk may be transferred within the Precincts in accordance with the approved “development framework” and “urban design guidelines”. This is where the Character areas should give guidance regarding maximum heights and other similar restrictions.

18. Precinct 1 would have 4-9 storey buildings maximum, consisting of a mix-of -uses including residential, office retail and gym. The built form and massing is allocated across the area into eleven distinct & separate urban forms, with heights that step and vary to ensure urban scale interest across the precinct. The heights are to correspond to ensure the lowest 4 storey buildings observes the heritage indicators in relation to the SAAO. East/West pedestrian access into the retail component should be ‘open-to-sky’ and allow public pedestrian access that links to the wider NMT network and surrounds. Gateway buildings should be reflected in height and architectural treatment, not excluding the Building 1 (gym), which should be designed to interface with the surroundings. A min 20% (approx. 6000m²) of the residential component should be set aside for inclusionary housing as proposed by the applicant.

19. Precinct 2 would have 5 -10 storeys maximum, consisting of a mix-of –uses, including education, and offices. The built form and massing is to be allocated across the area into minimum seven distinct & separate urban forms which require additional articulation to break the current monolithic forms. These are to be allocated across the area so as to ensure the highest building respond to the higher order Berkeley road. The height, mass, and bulk of buildings needs to be carefully considered to avoid conditions that may cause a ‘walled development response’. Careful consideration with regards to ensuring the fronts and backs of buildings do not jeopardise the riverine and ecological corridor interfaces and that of the confluence.

20. At the precinct plan stage or before, a Precinct Landscape Masterplan must be submitted including the NMT route network. This should be linked and co-ordinated with a Phasing Implementation plan and the Stormwater masterplan. The Precinct Landscape Masterplan must show all corresponding and adjacent open space of the development area in each and every case. In other words, the OS3 ecological, riverine corridors and CCT open space cannot be developed in isolation and separately. All adjacent public spaces, ‘woon-erfs’, streets, pedestrian walk ways and courtyards coordinated within the stormwater masterplan and landscape masterplan. An open space register is to be kept and submitted alongside each application highlighting hard, soft, ecological, active play and heritage spaces.

21. NMT: An NMT plan will be required before/at precinct plan stage indicating links into the existing network. This plan must note all flood lines so as to be cognisant of its sustainability. Connectivity

100

is paramount to make development ‘link into’ the receiving context and assure the development being integrated rather than seen as an isolated island. The NMT plan must demonstrate access points, bridges, gradients, universal access and minimum widths.

22. The next scale in plan type submissions will be Site Development Plans to be submitted for individual developments within the Precinct Plans and Character Areas and with the corresponding Landscape SDP Plans.

23. All SDP’s to reference and motivate in accordance with the Urban Design Policy (2013) and Tall Building Policy (2013) associated policies.

24. Detail Landscape Plans must be included as part of Building Plan submissions and must be submitted to the ED: Spatial Planning and Environment (or his/her delegate) for approval. Such detailed Landscape Plans is to indicate the items listed in the Standard requirements for the submission of Landscape Plan (see Annexure 1).

25. The Landscape Precinct plans and Detailed Landscape Plans must be prepared by a qualified professional Landscape Architect registered with the South African Council for the Landscape Architectural Profession (SACLAP) in terms of the South African Council of the Landscape Architecture Professional Act, No. 45 of 2000, undertake this task. The registration number of the professional must be provided on all plans submitted. The approved Detail Landscaping Plans shall be implemented by and at the cost of the owner/developer.

26. Submit the Constitution of the Property Ownership Association/ agreements to clarify maintenance and management responsibilities. Indicate the roles of Body Corporates and other similar bodies in relation to this Constitution.

27. The District Planning and Mechanisms and Urban Design Unit will be available for comment on these Precinct Plans and Character areas within them prior to submission to clarify such parameters. Some of these Precinct Plan Character Areas parameters must include:

a. The height of buildings on the Berkley Boulevard (Northern edge of the development) should be bulked higher than the southern edge facing the park area. This means that the proportions and scale established will always result in the bulk being higher on the Berkley Road side than the park side. b. Precinct gateways and entrances could contain more appropriately located bulk in order to emphasis hierarchy of spaces in the precinct. c. Buildings on prominent corners and edges could contain more appropriately located bulk. d. The internal street may require building bulk setbacks to facilitate natural light penetration. This will also allow for more comfortable balconies and response to human scale. e. Some appropriately located sites shall be designated as ‘foreground buildings’ and may have slightly more bulk than the rest of the precincts background buildings. The decisions of where to locate ‘foreground buildings’ must be done at the Precinct Plan submission stage.

The rationale behind these principles is to avoid the end result of the allowed bulk rights being constructed in a manner that does not align with appropriate scaling.

Other than the items discussed above, it must be noted at this stage that there are a number of other aspects that need to be considered from an Urban Design perspective. These should be considered when the next scale of plans are submitted. Some of these points that need to be highlighted during Precinct Plan and later assessments are listed below: 1. Any structured parking should be designed to be repurposed for habitable floor space (where this is still applicable understanding most, if not all, parking is within the basement and the 100 floodplain) 2. Partial flood-water storage is may be proposed on site if engineering reports indicate this possible. Therefore, attenuation ponds may be required. Therefore, where and how these ponds fit into a landscape masterplan must

101

be indicated. The downstream mitigation and contribution needs to be explored regarding flood detention (will this be moved downstream). 3. The River Club’s gateway features are described in terms of taller buildings and architectural treatment. The River Club is the gateway to the wider TRUP area and the development proposal needs to ensure that its interfaces promotes this with particular attention to well-connected barrier free NMT. Attention to the southern (Observatory) frontage and architectural qualities, currently the back-of-house gym may not be appropriate. 4. Housing typologies within River Club need to be varied in typology and nature. This will allow for choice.

Simone Bergoff & Sonette Smit for: URBAN DESIGN

Margaret Murcott & Michael Brooke for: DISTRICT PLANNING AND MECHANISMS

URBAN PLANNING AND DESIGN DEPARTMENT

102

Annexure K: Air Quality Management

103

60 Trill Road Observatory 7925 14th February 2020 Ms Amy Hill SRK Consulting Rondebosch Dear Ms Hill Comments on the River Club Basic Assessment Report

DEA&DP Reference Number: 16/3/3/6/7/1/A7/17/3217/19 HWC Case Number: 15112504WD1217E DWS Reference Number: WU9026 River Club and 16/2/7/G22/A/11

Please find below comments on the revised Basic Assessment Report (BAR) we have been able to assemble for the deadline of the 14th February (today). As indicated, the OCA believes the time allotted to this important Impact Assessment is far too short to do justice to the issues or to fulfil the expectations for meaningful public participation. Accordingly, we are submitting one set of comments today to include in the final report, but we reserve the right to submit additional comments in the next two weeks, which I understand from your email of 10th February, you would forward to the DEADP as the decision-maker in this matter. While we appreciate there are timelines for a BAR process, we feel that SRK should have planned ahead to allow more time for the public to study these documents and formulate a considered response. Thirty days is insufficient for communities to examine the complex documents in the required depth. We want this point to be made very strongly to DEADP – we live in a constitutional democracy where people’s participation should be valued. For that to happen, there has to be meaningful participation. Expecting IAPs to respond in unreasonable timelines is not consistent with intent and spirit of our Constitution. Please make sure this point is conveyed to DEADP along with substantive comments below.

DCAS Award Winner, 2018 for Most Active Conservation Body; NPO number: 174 - 174 NPO 60 Trill Road, Observatory, 7925 1

The Observatory Civic Association remains very strongly opposed to this development at the River Club. We outline the basis for our concerns, referring to our objections submitted in September 2019 and how these have, or have not been handled.

1. Firstly, we make the overall point that the River Club and much of the Two Rivers Urban Park (TRUP) is a unique Heritage site, a flood plain and an open space for Conservation that should be preserved as such. The site is not one suited for this type of development.

2. We remain of the view that the scale and density of the development is inappropriate to the area. We note that the Issues and Responses document acknowledges that “new built structures will be visually intrusive” but we disagree with the statement that “…this impact is clearly addressed in the VIA.” To the contrary, it is not addressed at all – the VIA simply documents the grotesque and imposing building sizes likely to destroy any sense of open space. The claim that “the proposed development is in fact consistent with the commercial, industrial and institutional land use of the surrounding area” is simply untrue and it is unclear how such a fabrication can be permitted in the documentation. The surrounding land use is predominantly Open Space and the River Club abuts a Grade I heritage site, the South African Astronomical Observatory (SAAO). The only abutting property with industrial use zoning is on the narrow strip to the north across the Liesbeek but most of the periphery of the site is located adjacent to land zoned for Open Space. As we pointed out in our previous objection to the BAR, the heights of the buildings proposed are at minimum equal to the heights of the tallest permitted buildings in Observatory (25m), and at maximum, double the size. They will be an eyesore standing out of the river plain when viewed from afar. It is one thing to think that a grain silo might be 50m high, but the grain silo is a single building 100’s of metres towards the North and hardly visible in the precinct. What is being proposed is a set of high-rise buildings where there are none at the moment. The Revised BAR has not dealt with this concern at all.

3. Our previous objection included a concern about the desolation of the precinct at night if 80% of the footprint is non-residential and does not provide social amenities. This concern has not been noted, nor addressed in the revision.

4. Our previous objection included a concern that the proposal has not recognised that massive earthworks are needed to elevate the development above the flood plain only because the developers are seeking to build in an area that is not meant to have such dense development – precisely because of the site’s role as a flood plain. This concern has not been noted, nor addressed in the revision.

5. Our previous objection included a concern that many of the proposed benefits (e.g. better walkability, public access) could be achieved by a different kind of development

DCAS Award Winner, 2018 for Most Active Conservation Body; NPO number: 174 - 174 NPO 60 Trill Road, Observatory, 7925 2

with a less dense footprint. This concern has not been noted, nor addressed in the revision.

6. Our previous objection included a concern that only 4% of the entire footprint would be allocated to affordable housing. The response is to say that allocating 20% of the footprint to affordable housing is not financially acceptable to the developer. This should not be the basis for deciding feasibility and appropriateness. The National Environmental Management Act does not reduce considerations of feasibility to simple financial feasibility – all social and environmental factors must be taken into account, not just the profit to be made by the proponent. The Revised BAR has not dealt with this concern at all.

7. The facts of the matter are that the current Table Bay Development Plan does not permit development in the flood plain (for good reason). Any “deviation from a local spatial development framework may only be permitted if site specific circumstances justify the deviation.” The specific circumstances have not been demonstrated. Instead, the response is to argue “that the proposed development is in line with the latest spatial policy plan relating to the site, the Draft Two Rivers Local Spatial Development Framework.” The Draft Two Rivers LSDF is just that – a Draft out for public comment. It is not the accepted LSDF for the River Club. Moreover, if the proponents wish to use the Draft TR LSDF as justification, that draft LSDF makes it quite clear that any development in the River Club precinct would need to deliver at least 20% affordable housing – this proposal delivers only 4%. So, it not true that there is a LSDF that supports the development. This concern has not been addressed in the revision.

8. Our previous objection noted concerns about the flat property market and that the River Club development would not be responding to local housing and mixed land use demand. We presented evidence for this concern. In response, the Issues and Responses document merely repeats the assertions made in the Impact Assessment (Appendix J) dated 2019. This means that no new information was presented to argue why “the demand for housing in this area is robust.” This concern has therefore not been addressed in the revision but merely dismissed by repeating what we had criticised in September 2019.

9. Our previous objection noted that the category for affordable housing in the proposal was somewhat narrow, being linked to incomes within the salary bracket of R 6000 to R 18000 per month. In response, the Issues and Responses document now notes that inclusive housing will be targeted at households earning a combined income of between R22 000 per month and R30 000. This is an even more narrow band and less likely to achieve the goal of redress of spatial inequality. This concern has not been addressed adequately in the revision.

DCAS Award Winner, 2018 for Most Active Conservation Body; NPO number: 174 - 174 NPO 60 Trill Road, Observatory, 7925 3

10. Our previous objection noted the reliance of the hydrology study on PRASA lands being available to receive flood water and that, should PRASA decide to develop their land, this will change the opportunities for run-off of the water and therefore impact on the likelihood and severity of flooding affecting Observatory. This concern has not been addressed in the revision.

11. We also note the disjuncture between the assertion by the hydrologists that the additional flooding risk is minimal and the revelation in the Issues and Responses document that “mitigation is required at … two properties at Ossian Road to mitigate the risk of superficial (sic) damage, and the owners of these properties have been engaged directly in order to agree on flood mitigation measures required at these properties to be implemented at the cost of the developer.” This is a tacit admission that there will be flooding of houses as a result and the flooding will be sufficient to motivate the developer to underwrite mitigation measures. If a house is to be flooded to the extent that a developer will pay for mitigation, that is not minor. Secondly, the hydrologists assured Observatory residents that there was nothing to worry about regarding flooding. However, they have now changed their tune (without changing their report). Why is it that there was no acknowledgement in the first draft or in the Scoping Report of the material risk to houses in Ossian Rd? And why is it only two houses in Ossian Rd? There are 8 houses in Ossian Rd and there are houses in Willow Rd closer to the River. We have been told that the two owners approached by the hydrologists did not agree with the flood mitigation measures proposed by the consultants. This disjuncture has made I&APs suspicious that the hydrologists are not being honest about the risks.

12. This perception is reinforced by the behaviour of the hydrology consultants who approached an Observatory resident in Ossian Road to but did not address the material risk of flooding. The resident informed the OCA that the hydrology consultants approached him “wanting to meet to discuss new measurements they have made relating to Ossian Rd ... and possible flooding as a result of the River Club development. He was wanting to meet so we 'knew what was going on' and were not misinformed about anything.” The resident was told about ‘new measurements’ but no new measurements are reflected in the report, which is still dated 2018.

13. When the resident invited the consultants to approach the OCA to explain to an OCA meeting, the hydrologists did not follow up, despite claiming to indicate interest in meeting the OCA (see attached pdf Annex 1). Moreover, there is no transparency about ‘new measurements’ and why these were made after objections received to the BAR. Did the specialists overlook key assumptions? What prompted them to persuade the developers to pay for mitigation? None of this is made clear in the documentation. This is not behaviour that inspires trust amongst I&APs. Put simply, we believe the hydrologists contacted some residents they could persuade to agree, did not contact others, and are hiding evidence that the risks of flooding are material. This is aggravated

DCAS Award Winner, 2018 for Most Active Conservation Body; NPO number: 174 - 174 NPO 60 Trill Road, Observatory, 7925 4

by the fact that the hydrology report does not make explicit its assumptions and parameters, as we previously pointed out and to which there is no response.

14. Our previous objection drew your attention to the fact that the valuator, whose opinion is used to discount alternatives that are less intrusive, has a major conflict of interest since she is employed predominantly by the financiers of the development. She has a direct interest in the profitability of the development, which she has not declared. This concern has not been noted, nor addressed in the revision.

15. Our previous objection raised the need for an archaeological survey. This is dismissed in the Issues and Responses document with the following statement that “the site has been transformed. The one-day site survey of archaeological material is therefore considered to be more than sufficient to confirm that no archaeological material occurs at the surface.” How exactly does that tally with the recommendation from the TRUP Baseline study, which concluded, after a lengthy investigation, that “The Varsche Drift crossings are worthy of further physical heritage survey and assessment albeit that the area lies within a milieu of railway and freeway crossings; The confluence of the Black and Liesbeek Rivers has special significance as this is possibly the least untransformed wetland in the study area; Any open land within the study area … should be considered to be potentially archaeologically sensitive and should be screened/surveyed before any transformation or development.” The confluence of the Black and Liesbeek Rivers is central to the River Club development. We fail to see how the Heritage Consultant can dismiss this concern, echoed in the recommendations of an experienced heritage practitioner, by implying there can be nothing but infill on the site. This concern has not been adequately addressed in the revision.

16. Our previous objection raised a concern with the HIA’s attempt to reduce intangible heritage to the river, the river banks and the confluence of the Rivers. In this, we were echoed in the comments of Heritage Western Cape on the draft HIA that “the HIA gives no significance to the floodplain between the rivers, and supports the redevelopment of the River Club site, which immediately abuts and provides the green setting for this river corridor with a bulk of 150 000m² and heights of 10 storeys… It is not just the riverine corridor, (unrehabilitated or not), but the entire TRUP valley including the riparian corridor which is noted as highly significant and is expressed in both its tangible and intangible qualities.” We agree with the HWC assessment that it is “the post- rationalizing of the development that has resulted in the incongruence in the report.” In response to this, the Table of Issues and Responses merely repeats what is already argued in the HIA – repeating the notion that “the Liesbeek River itself has been found to be the only tangible visible element that survives as a heritage resource in the broader landscape, and that this element warrants safeguarding or recovery” and relegating the significant visual impact and its impact on sense of place to be of relatively low heritage significance. It is hard to understand how repeating an opinion that is not grounded in evidence is sufficient basis for a response. This concern has not been adequately addressed in the revision.

DCAS Award Winner, 2018 for Most Active Conservation Body; NPO number: 174 - 174 NPO 60 Trill Road, Observatory, 7925 5

17. Our previous objection raised our concerns about the lack of engagement with Khoi leaders. Please note that the OCA has been raising this issue since 2016 with the Draft Scoping report in our submission on that report. Even when the first draft of the HIA was presented to the OCA in Feb 2018, it was clear that no meaningful consultation with Khoi leaders had taken place. Only when HWC put a provisional protection order over the River Club did the developers then move to engage with Khoi leaders and the so- called First Nations Collective appears as an actor in this scenario. The opinions and quotes of this Collective are used extensively to respond to a range of criticisms of the HIA and its disregard for heritage. However, it can only be myopic to ignore the fact that (a) this First Nations Collective does not say when it came together and why; (b) is only one set of leaders amongst many, of whom many are very strongly opposed to the concessions and views expressed in the HIA. Nowhere in the Issues and Responses document is it acknowledge that there is a very strong body of Khoi and Nama leaders who vehemently disagree. On what basis, then, can an HIA claim to have addressed concerns by hiding behind this co-called Collective?

18. Moreover, the First Nations report submitted in support of these claims is seriously compromised by (a) an apparent conflict of interest by the author who was simultaneously conducting a First Nations Study for DPWT whilst working for a party who has a direct financial interest in both reports; (b) information was gleaned from at least one First Nation leader for this report without him being told it was being collected for the River Club BAR; (c) the content of the River Club First Nations Report includes a scurrilous attack on a Khoi leader opposed to the development, which we do not see as befitting an independent consultant’s report. Moreover, the so-called independent consultant has been present at a press conference for the partisan group supporting the development in a very public manner. He cannot be said to be able to exercise any impartial, independent view on a matter he has clearly taken sides on, a side that happens to be the side of the party paying him. We have very, very, very serious concerns about the polarisation of Khoi positions on this development fuelled by a very problematic report.

19. Our previous objection noted the bulk of the buildings at the confluence of the Liesbeek and Black Rivers. The response given in the Issues and Responses document is simply to ‘note’ this opinion, dismiss this issue as predominantly a visual issue and further note that “a significance impact on “the change in historical character of the site” has been assessed in the HIA and BAR and reported as such.” This is a wholly inadequate response. It was assessed as trivial. This concern has not been adequately addressed in the revision.

20. Since lodging our previous objection, the developer has introduced the idea of a memorial centre and cultural space celebrating Khoi culture. However, this space is not located anywhere near the confluence of the River, which is a key location for Khoi rituals. There will be no view of Lion’s Head from the confluence of the rivers. Instead

DCAS Award Winner, 2018 for Most Active Conservation Body; NPO number: 174 - 174 NPO 60 Trill Road, Observatory, 7925 6

the confluence will be flanked by a raised road crossing and face onto a set of buildings, including buildings ostensibly to be leased to Amazon, that range in height from 34 to 46m metres in height, and no view of the Lion’s Head will be possible from the confluence of the rivers (See Annex 3). However, it has been documented that the view of Lion’s Head during equinox is a particularly important component of the traditional Khoi rituals associated with that site. This view will be completely obstructed.

21. Secondly, flanking the memorial centre will be buildings up to 44m in height. No mention is made of these buildings impacting on the sense of space important for cultural preservation. This concern remains compelling – the developer’s own visuals (see, for example, figure 8a in Appendix K1b Supplementary Planning Report Part 1 and Figure 53 of the Main BAR (part 8) which do not correspond with Illustration 17 of the Appendix G5b Supplement to the HIA) suggests that the view of Lion’s Head from the amphitheatre will be highly limited. One would have to be standing at the extreme periphery of the amphitheatre (furthest South) to have any view of Lion’s Head that is not obstructed by buildings and any foliage and vegetation of any height will further interfere with such views.

22. Thirdly, the application makes no mention of the impact of the massive development on views of the area and the Liesbeek Valley from higher vantage points (see Annex 4). The proposed development will be visible clearly as a very large set of buildings from the mountain, as illustrated by Mark Callaghan at his input to the IACOM meeting on 28th January. These views will be highly intrusive and remove what is currently seen as a lush undeveloped green strip and place an eyesore along the green belt. Please see attached image (Annex 2).

23. Lastly, we point out that the Impact Assessment Committee of Heritage Western Cape, released on 13th February 2020, have firmly rejected the HIA as meeting the requirements of Section 38 of the National Heritage Resources Act. In summary,

23.1 The reasons why IACOM came to this conclusion are as follows: a. While the HIA acknowledged the historical significance of the site, it failed to map the relevant heritage resources of the site, specifically the intangible heritage significances. It relied on what they call “ecological rather than cultural values” because it argues that the “river itself is the only tangible visual element which survives as a resources which warrants protection. IACOM says this “negates in its entirely the exceedingly high historic and symbolic significance of the site identified in all previous studies and submitted continuously through the process by the relevant I&APs.” In other words, we kept saying it was wrong to simply reduce heritage to the River and HWC IACOM has resoundingly agreed with us. They have also agreed with us that the HIA has downplayed the open, low-lying, green, riverine character of the whole site. While important, the river is not the only heritage resource to be mapped and identified. b. HWC IACOM have also agreed with us that just because 20th century activities have disturbed the site, it cannot be taken to mean that the site has been degraded in terms of its heritage value. As they say, the disturbance of the soil and use as an infill

DCAS Award Winner, 2018 for Most Active Conservation Body; NPO number: 174 - 174 NPO 60 Trill Road, Observatory, 7925 7

“does not take away the meaning of the site as a historic frontier or point of containment, conflict and contact, or its significance to the region.” c. Assessment of the significance of the heritage resources is inadequate. The HIA failed to take account of the three criteria contained in the NHRA (considered to have cultural significance ot the community; could yield information about heritage; is important for a particular aesthetic valued by a cultural group.). In particular, the HIA and First Nations Report did not unpack the significance of the deep and sacred linkage to the site through lineage and collective memory. The HIA “undervalue the significance of the Heritage Resources generally”, a point the OCA has been making repeatedly. d. HWC IACOM also took issue with the HIA regarding the existing River Club building as having no heritage significance. e. IACOM also pointed out that the River Club should have been graded as part of a comprehensive consideration of the whole TRUP site. They reminded DEADP that individual landowners were advised to wait, and that if they chose to proceed with an HIA for their own development, “to ignore existing studies and bigger TRUP picture could be at their own peril.” f. They conclude this section as follows: “It would appear that the assessment of significance has been tailored to arrive at mitigation for the development rather than an assessment of significant that would assist in informing an appropriate development.” This is consistent with what the OCA has been saying – the HIA must independently try to provide indicators for any future development rather than try to get the HIA to rationalise the development proposed by the Developer. g. HWC notes that the report ‘wholly downplays the irreversible impacts of transforming a green lung at the heart of the TRUP into a mega project’ and “these irreversible impacts are hardly interrogated at all.’ h. Consistent with our view that the HIA has been stubbornly ignoring the impact of scale and size of the proposed buildings, the HIA recognises clearly that the built form of the proposed develop will affect significant heritage resources present. As they state “this HIA practically gives the development carte blanche in terms of heights and massing.” IACOM criticises the HIA because It fails to critically engage with the proposed heights or their impacts on heritage resources. i. IACOM points out the HIA failed to assess the development’s impact on the site’s open green qualities. Instead of considering ways to recover both significance and sense of place, the HIA dismisses the open space by saying its current use is a golf course. “The statement that the sense of place has already been transformed iteratively over the past 80 years does not make it acceptable to destroy what remains.” Again, this is a point OCA has been making repeatedly and which the HIA consultant has chosen to ignore. j. IACOM notes the inadequacy of the Visual Impact Assessment (VIA). The VIA acknowledges that the visual impacts will be sizeable (‘intrusive’ and cause ‘a loss of a sense of place’), but then simply dismisses these by saying that ‘judgement of visual impacts depends on receptor perceptions.’ This mimics the HIA itself which dismisses objections to the Visual Impacts as ‘differences of opinions.’

DCAS Award Winner, 2018 for Most Active Conservation Body; NPO number: 174 - 174 NPO 60 Trill Road, Observatory, 7925 8

k. IACOM note that HWC previously recognised the site as being of Provincial if not national significance. The HIA ignores this and ignores the fact that River Club must be considered in the context of the whole of TRUP. l. IACOM takes issue with the HIA pretending that the new draft LSDF for TRUP would ‘override heritage considerations, or indeed mean that a mega project is appropriate…’. They point out that a LSDF would support developed in ‘Urban Inner Core’ areas in principle, but it is not a given that any development will be supported. A framework is just that – a framework, not an entitlement to build what you want. And they confirm that the current Table Bay SDP is actually the current framework which speaks to preserving the qualities of the site. They criticise the HIA for giving preference to proposed policies that are still in the consultation phase. m. They dismiss the economic viability argument as “unconvincing and inadequate.” The fact that the development will pay for the Berkeley Road extension “should in no way be used as mitigation to argue for sustainable and economic benefits” but, rather, “the heritage significance of the site should be the primary informant”. n. The engagement with First Nations groupings raised many issues which IACOM were not satisfied about, including the failure to include certain First Nation grouping, lack of clarity on the impartiality of the consultant, the methodology raised concerns (no ethical consent for interviews), overlap and confusion between what the consultant was doing for DTPW and for the River Club. They concluded that the engagement of I&APs did not comply with section 38(3) of the NHRA. o. IACOM really slammed the HIA for failing to consider alternatives meaningfully, a concern we have been raising repeatedly. The HIA stuck to what the Developer said was economically feasible but should have properly assessed lower density developments and the No Go option properly, which was not done. They concluded that “the reports demonstrate insufficient exploration and interrogation of a range of alternatives” and so is not compliant with the Act. p. Lastly, because the HIA fails to identify heritage resources adequately (i.e. it focuses on the river and ignores the flood plain and sense of place), it is inadequate in addressing mitigation. 23.2 The conclusions from HWC IACOM are: q. The River Club is an integral part of TRUP r. HWC believes TRUP is of Provincial if not national significance s. The River Club site is recognised as a sacred place and the open largely undeveloped floodplain is a tangible reminder of intangible heritage t. The history of the site is immensely important, being a place of conflict, the first colonial settlement and the place where indigenous people were first truly dispossessed of their land. u. “It is a place where almost all of the stage of South Africa’s development history and policies are … embedded deep … it is a place which speaks to who we are now, from where we have come, not just as a City, or a province but as a nation.” v. The HIA reduced this incredible significance to a set of ecological values, “… to post- rationalize a wholly intrusive development model, rather than inform appropriate development.” w. The memorial/museum was noted to inadequate because it is designed to create meaning rather that enhance existing significances on the site. x. “The bulk and mass of the development proposal does not respond to the site as a living heritage.”

DCAS Award Winner, 2018 for Most Active Conservation Body; NPO number: 174 - 174 NPO 60 Trill Road, Observatory, 7925 9

In sum, HWC IACOM says the HIA does not meet the requirements of the law. We support the position of IACOM and have been pointing out many of these arguments for some time already but the heritage practitioner has consistently not responded to these arguments. We do not believe the application should be approved as there are flaws in multiple key aspects of this application as outlined above and which have not been addressed in the series of iterations of this application.

We submit these comments as provisional comments, bearing in mind we may still wish to submit further comments by the 28th February.

Yours sincerely

Leslie London Chairperson Observatory Civic Association

DCAS Award Winner, 2018 for Most Active Conservation Body; NPO number: 174 - 174 NPO 60 Trill Road, Observatory, 7925 10

$QQH[&RUUHVSRQGHQFHEHWZHHQ+\GURORJ\FRQVXOWDQWVDQG 2EVHUYDWRU\UHVLGHQW

From: Mark Stead To: Carshif Talip Cc: Joe Stead; Leslie London Subject: Re: Riverclub Development Date: Wednesday, November 6, 2019 3:21:14 PM Attachments: image001.png image002.png image003.png image004.png image005.png image006.png image007.png

Hi Carshif

As mentioned, herewith the contact details for Leslie London (also cc'ed to this email). She is on the Management Committee of the Observatory Civic Association and will be able to facilitate any engagement between us.

Kind regards, Mark

On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 3:08 PM Carshif Talip wrote:

Hi Mark,

Thank you for talking my call earlier.

As discussed can you send me the contact details of the contact at the Observatory Civic Association through which we may engage.

Thanks,

Carshif Talip PrEng Technical Director / Built Environment Location Lead, Cape Town, Aurecon T +27 21 5269545 M +27 79 8077295 [email protected] Aurecon Centre, 1 Century City Drive, Waterford Precinct, Century City South Africa 7441 PO Box 494, Cape Town 8000 South Africa aurecongroup.com DISCLAIMER

--

creative director Mark Stead mobile: +27 83 556 1999 office: +27 21 447 3768 Annexure 2

View from Slopes of Devils Peak

View from Slopes of Devils Peak with insertion of River Club Development

Annex 4: Views from Mowbray and Valkenberg

View from Mowbray

View from Valkenberg

14 February 2020

Stakeholder Comment Period on Basic Assessment Report and Tabling of Heritage Impact Assessment Supplementary Report at Heritage Western Cape Impact Assessment Committee: Proposed Redevelopment of the River Club in Observatory, Cape Town DEA&DP Reference Number: 16/3/3/6/7/1/A7/17/3217/19 HWC Case Number: 15112504WD1217E DWS Reference Number: WU9026 River Club and 16/2/7/G22/A/11

Due to an overload of other commitments over the past month, the PRRA has unfortunately not been able to study the revised BAR and HIA Supplementary report in order to give additional comment.

We continue to uphold our objections to this development and support all the other stakeholders, e.g. Observatory Civic Association, Two River Urban Park Association and the First Nations, in all their objections.

We also support the opinion of HWC that the site is of at least provincial but realistically of National Significance. We support their Record of Decision of 28 January 2020, including the following points:

 “That the applicant has chosen to proceed with the application, without meaningful reference to any of the previous studies is regarded as unfortunate.  HWC remains of the opinion that the River Club is an integral part of a highly significant cultural landscape, that is at the very least of Provincial significance, but more realistically and given South Africa's history, is one of National significance. Indeed, the TRUP as a whole could be regarded as one of the single most historically significant sites in the Country”  It is the unanimous view of the IACom, being the delegated authority to issue comment on behalf of HWC in terms of Section 38(8), that the HIA and supplementary reports as tabled do not comply with the provisions of Section 38(3).

 In general, and in spite of HWC having previously advised that whilst individual land owners are entitled to proceed with an MIA for their own development, to ignore the existing studies and the bigger TRUP picture could be "at their own peril".

 It would appear that the assessment of significance has been tailored to arrive at mitigation for the development rather than an assessment of significance that would assist in informing an appropriate development.

 The report wholly downplays the irreversible impacts of transforming a green lung at the heart of the TRUP into a mega project. These irreversible impacts are hardly interrogated at all.

 The statement that the sense of place has already been transformed iteratively over the past 80 years, does not make it acceptable to destroy what remains

 As a result, and in attempting to define or limit significance to the riverine corridors only, meaningful discussion of the impact of the development on the significance of the wider TRUP cultural landscape is avoided altogether.  The viability argument is regarded by HWC as unconvincing and inadequate. That there appears to be a cross subsidy of the development to help fund the City's proposed Berkley Road extension should in no way be used as mitigation to argue for sustainable and economic benefits. The heritage significance of the site should be the primary informant of any development, and not linked to cross subsidisation opportunities.

 The HIA argues that "a lesser development would not generate adequate funds for the great public good that we argue for, the restoration of the Liesbeek riverine corridor."

 The report repeatedly extols the benefits of the "restoration" of the Liesbeek riverine corridor (a notion considered by some as inauthentic and contrived), but it is clear that it is also the substantial earthworks required to artificially raise the site some 2 to 3 metres out of the 100-year floodplain and the Berkley Road extension that contribute to the high capital costs that underpin the motivation for the high bulk development scenario.

 HWC queries whether the proposed earthworks and infrastructure indeed constituted a greater public good.

 The HIA only assesses the preferred 'Riverine Corridor Alternative' and 'Island Concept Alternative' (both 150 000m2 of bulk) and simply dismisses the lower bulk alternatives such as the 'Mixed-Use Affordable Alternative' (110 000m2) and the 'Reduced Floor Space Alternative' (102 000m2), as these have been considered economically unviable by the town planners.

 A "tread lightly", green-dominated, recreational or educational alternative, without substantial filling in of the floodplain is not even considered, and nor indeed is the no-go option or the adaptive re-use of the site and buildings.

 It is a place where almost all of the stages of South Africa's developmental history and policies are either embedded deep within this cultural landscape, or is viewed from it. It is a place where Cetshwayo and Langolibalele were exiled to. It is a place which speaks to who we are now, and from where we have come, not just as a City, or a Province, but as a Nation.  The HIA has unfortunately reduced this significance to a set of ecological values, provided for the most part to post-rationalize a wholly intrusive development model rather than inform appropriate development.

It appears that the The Liesbeek Leisure Properties Trust continues to blatantly disregard the heritage of this site and the studies done serve merely to support its own financial and development agenda.

Yours sincerely

Carol Clark

On behalf of the Pinelands Ratepayers and Residents Association.