'Safariland', Rem. Farm 1265, Paarl - Heritage Western Cape

d a v i d g i b b s PrLArch # 20128 (SACLAP) + PHP (APHP) BAS (UCT), MLArch (UCT) Landscape Architect | Environmental Planner + Heritage Practitioner t +27(0) 21 762 3370 | m +27(0) 72 396 5892 | e [email protected] #32 Wellington Mews, 11 Wellington Avenue, WYNBERG, 7800

‘Safariland’, Rem. Farm 1265, Paarl

Heritage Impact Assessment

Final Report 2015-12-02

Cover Photograph: Schuurmansfontein Road, Groot Drakenstein; approaching ‘Safariland’ from the east. (Image source -David Gibbs)

Heritage Impact Assessment (incorporating Visual Impact Assessment)

Contemplated in terms of Section 38(8) of the NHRA (Act 25 of 1999)

and Western Cape Provincial Gazette 6062, Notice 298 of 2003

Prepared by David Gibbs in association with Lize Malan and Graham Jacobs

‘ S a f a r i l a n d ’ R e m a i n d e r o f F a r m 1 2 6 5 , P a a r l , H I A P a g e | 2

d a v i d g i b b s P r L A r c h + P H P Landscape Architect | Environmental Planner + Heritage Practitioner

Prepared by: David Gibbs in association with Lize Malan and Graham Jacobs Prepared for: Kabod Pearl Valley (Pty) Ltd; c/o Doug Jeffery Environmental Consultants NID Reference: Proposed Residential Development of Rem. Farm 1265, ‘Safariland’, Paarl, Drakenstein HWC Case #: 1506110 GT061E



TABLE OF CONTENTS ..........................................................................................................................3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................7

Synopsis of focussed Heritage Impact Assessment ........................................................................................

1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 12

1.1 Background (NID & NID Response – integrated HIA) ...................................................................

1.1.1 Notification of Intent to Develop (NID) .........................................................................................

1.1.2 HWC Response to the NID .............................................................................................................

1.2 Approach & Methodology ..........................................................................................................

1.2.1 Heritage Assessment Approach .....................................................................................................

1.2.2 Visual Assessment Approach .........................................................................................................

1.3 Assumptions and Limitations .....................................................................................................

1.3.1 Assumptions ...................................................................................................................................

1.3.2 Limitations ......................................................................................................................................

2. SITE LOCATION AND CONTEXT ...................................................................................................... 19

2.1 Site Location ..............................................................................................................................

2.1.1 Relative Location ............................................................................................................................

2.1.2 Locality ...........................................................................................................................................

2.1.3 Locus ..............................................................................................................................................

2.2 Legal Context .............................................................................................................................

2.2.1 NEMA .............................................................................................................................................

2.2.2 NHRA ..............................................................................................................................................

2.2.3 LUPO ...............................................................................................................................................

2.3 Policy Context............................................................................................................................

2.2.1 Spatial Development Framework (SDF) .........................................................................................

2.2.2 Heritage Overlay Zones ..................................................................................................................

3. SITE HISTORY ............................................................................................................................... 29

3.1 History & Ownership .................................................................................................................

3.2 Current Use ...............................................................................................................................



4. HERITAGE RESOURCES & SIGNIFICANCE ........................................................................................ 33

4.1 Drakenstein Heritage Resources Survey .....................................................................................

4.1.1 Places, buildings, structures and equipment of cultural significances ..........................................

4.1.2 Sense of Place ................................................................................................................................

4.1.3 Cultural Landscape .........................................................................................................................

4.2 Heritage Significance .................................................................................................................

4.2.1 Establishing the Significance of the site .........................................................................................

4.1.2 Summarized Statement of Significance .........................................................................................

5. VISUAL CHARACTER ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................... 40

5.1 Identification of Issues and Values .............................................................................................

5.1.1 Visual, Aesthetic & Scenic Resources .............................................................................................

5.1.2 Visual Heritage Issues ....................................................................................................................

5.2 Visual Landscape Context ..........................................................................................................

5.2.1 Geology & Landform ......................................................................................................................

5.2.2 Vegetation Cover ........................................................................................................................................

5.2.3 Settlement & Land-Use Patterns ...................................................................................................

5.3 Description of Site Interface ......................................................................................................

5.3.1 Landscape Types ............................................................................................................................

5.3.2 Landscape Character ......................................................................................................................

5.3.3 Sense of Place ................................................................................................................................

5.4 Visibility (as a result of Topography) ...........................................................................................

5.4.1 View Shed (relative to elevation) ...................................................................................................

5.4.2 View Catchment (relative to distance) ..........................................................................................

5.4.3 Zone of Visual Influence .................................................................................................................

5.5 Affected Environment (from which the development proposal is visible) ..........................................

5.5.1 Views Points & View Corridors ......................................................................................................

5.5.2 Distance Radii .................................................................................................................................

5.5.3 Visual Exposure ..............................................................................................................................

5.6 Receiving Environment (of the development proposal) ................................................................

5.6.1 Landscape Sensitivity .....................................................................................................................

5.6.2 Receptor Sensitivity .......................................................................................................................

5.6.3 Visual Absorption Capacity (VAC) ..................................................................................................



6. INTEGRATED VISUAL & HERITAGE INDICATORS ............................................................................. 57

6.1 Planning considerations .............................................................................................................

6.1.1 Visual Intrusion vs Visual Assimilation ...........................................................................................

6.1.2 Visual Conflict vs Visual Compatibility ...........................................................................................

6.1.3 Congruence with Landscape Character .........................................................................................

6.2 Design Considerations................................................................................................................

6.2.1 Height and Scale of Buildings .........................................................................................................

6.1.2 Massing and Aggregation of Buildings ...........................................................................................

6.1.3 Landscape and Building Integration ...............................................................................................

6.3 Detail Considerations (ref: architectural guidelines) ....................................................................

6.3.1 Texture and Colour ........................................................................................................................

6.3.2 Edge conditions ..............................................................................................................................

6.3.3 Lighting Conditions ........................................................................................................................

7.PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................................ 61

7.1 Description of Development Proposal ........................................................................................

7.2 Description of Development Alternatives ...................................................................................

7.3 Description of the No-development Alternative Option ..............................................................

8. EVALUATION OF THE DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................ 74

8.1 Visual Impacts ...........................................................................................................................

8.2 Visual Assessment Criteria .........................................................................................................

8.3 Possible Mitigation and Site rehabilitation .................................................................................

8.4 Visual Assessment Summary Tables ...........................................................................................

9. CONSULTATION ............................................................................................................................ 82

9.1 DHF ...........................................................................................................................................

9.2 ACTAEM (AKSO) .........................................................................................................................

9.3 Paarl 300 ..................................................................................................................................

9.4 SAHRA .......................................................................................................................................

10. INTERPRETATION ....................................................................................................................... 86

10.1 Conclusions .............................................................................................................................

10.2 Recommendations (for design response) ..................................................................................



11. SOURCE MATERIAL ..................................................................................................................... 92

11.1 Document and Reports ............................................................................................................

11.2 Geographic data ......................................................................................................................

ANNEXURES ..................................................................................................................................... 95

General Declaration ........................................................................................................................

Consultant Data ..............................................................................................................................

Details of Specialist and Declaration of Interest ...............................................................................

NID Response ..................................................................................................................................

Further Correspondence ..................................................................................................................

Comments Received on Draft HIA ....................................................................................................

Design Response to HIA recommendations ......................................................................................



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Safariland, Farm 1265, Paarl

Summary [Safariland]

1. Site Name

Safariland’, Remainder Farm 1265, Paarl

2. Location

Street address off Schuurmansfontein Road, off the R 301

farm name, ‘Safariland’

town/district, Paarl, Groot Drakenstein

erf number Remainder Farm 1265, Paarl

GPS co-ordinates 33deg 49' 38.79"S; 18deg 59' 14.72"

3. Locality Plan Indicating the location and extent of the site within its wider context

Locality Plan: Safariland (outlined in red) set within the broader context

(Image source: various: Google Earth, QMA, with adaptions)

Pniel



4. Description of Proposed Development

The development entails a variety of residential and medical facilities divided into four zones

as follows:

Zone 1 (14 ha): Retirement Complex with 132 units in apartment clusters, 88 single

residential units and 8 home care units that will house 8 persons per unit.

Zone 2 (15 ha): General Residential development with 225 units in apartment clusters and

150 single residential units with an average erf size of 395 m2.

Zone 3 (3 ha): Medical tourism facilities, consisting of treatment facility, private recovery

units and communal facilities, with total floor area of approx. 3500m2.

Zone 4 (2 ha): Holiday accommodation with 50 self-catering units and a small conference

facility of 250 m2 that will cater for 30 persons.

The development will include single, double and 3 storey buildings. Access to the bulk

services networks to service the site will be through the adjoining Pearl Valley Estate.

5. Heritage Resources Identified

No heritage resources are located within the site boundaries, however the Mandela Prison

house(Grade 1 Heritage resource) is situated to the south -west of the site on the Drakenstein

Correctional Services grounds, and the Langerug farm gateway (Grade 3iii heritage resource)

is situated at the end of Schuurmansfontein Road.

6. Anticipated Impacts on Heritage Resources

The rural ‘sense of place’ of the setting of the Mandela Prison House will be impacted upon

by proximate urban development. Change in the sense of place and sense of isolation of the

Mandela Prison House situated opposite the site.



7. Recommendations The full set of recommendations made in the report.

The interface with Schuurmansfontein Road is of critical importance to maintain a sense of

rural quality within the local context. Even in the face of increasing development, this would

help to retain some sense of the area’s remoteness: this being the underlying factor for its

choice as Mandela’s last place of incarceration. Schuurmansfontein Road has only recently

been tarred – it was previously a gravel surface road, which has a far more ‘rural’

connotation. However, without concrete kerbs and with open ‘swale channels’ it retains a

more rural expression that if concrete kerbs and channels had been introduced in the typical

‘sub-urban’ engineering manner.

To retain the ‘rural’ quality and sense of ’openness’ Schuurmansfontein Road currently

enjoys, (and with reference to the area identified within the Botanical assessment report), it

is recommended that a buffer strip of minimum 30m be maintained along the length of

Schuurmansfontein Road, as indicated on plan, with appropriate landscaping. Built features

should be avoided within this zone.

Berm and dam features may be incorporated in a manner which is sensitive to natural

landform (avoiding steep, trapezoidal berms and other landforms of rectilinear geometries

that appear heavily ‘engineered’). Views towards the mountains should be maintained, and

planting should retain a wilderness quality. Indigenous vegetation consistent with the

botanical assessment report ought to be integrated as a biodiversity corridor. Formal

avenues of trees are not recommended along Schuurmansfontein Road, informal clusters of

trees and large shrubs would seem more appropriate in this context.

The design of this edge should be explored in detail and be made available for review by the

Drakenstein Municipality’s Urban Designers, Landscape Architects and Heritage Officials.

A Landscape Context Plan (say 1km radius from site) – including the approach to the prison

house, relationship and transition to farmland – beyond the borders of the site, should

contextualize the proposal.



The Site Development Plan should incorporate a Landscape Development Plan (preferably

prepared by a SACLAP-registered Professional Landscape Architect) indicating the proposed

Schuurmansfontein Road buffer strip, position of fencing, signage, lighting bollards, .and

general landscape concept,

with a Landscape Detailed Plan (preferably prepared by a SACLAP-registered Professional

Landscape Architect) showing the Schuurmansfontein interface at (say) 1:100 scale, to

include the following information:

Suggested plant species list, quantities (areas) or typologies, details of irrigation and

maintenance strategies, existing trees to be retained, sizes and species of new trees,

shrubs and groundcovers, indication of proposed paving / hard-landscaping

materials and details. Inclusion of the buffer strip into the maintenance and

management programme for the site.

Details of fence / boundary treatment (no continuous solid masonry walls; – rather

visually permeable, non-obtrusive farm fences, with informal hedges and screen

planting).

Indication of lighting and signage and/ or (discreet) way-finding system – positions to

be included on plan. It is recommended that the site development plan address

lighting and signage to the approval of Drakenstein Municipality’s Planning

Department. This requirement could become a condition of the rezoning approval.

Irrigation and Drainage Strategy (open, planted channels and swales recommended

(no concrete kerns or channels), particularly within the buffer zone.



SUMMARY of Requirements:

To accompany the development proposal, the following drawings should be included:

Landscape Context Plan – showing broader context (say 1km radius) and

relationship with neighbouring properties, transition to farmland and interface with

Schuurmansfontein Road.

Landscape Development Plan – indicating trees/features to be retained,

trees/features to be removed, (retain existing windbreak, mature pine trees of

stature, dam areas).

Landscape Detailed Plan – indicating the proposed soft landscaping treatment /

planting plan of the 30m wide buffer strip interface with Schuurmansfontein Road,

indicating:

Suggested Plant Species list for trees, shrubs and groundcovers

(total areas, planting-out sizes, planting-out ratios, densities and quantities)

Details of proposed security / boundary treatment and provision of footways

(visually transparent, welded mesh fence recommended – no masonry walls)

Screening of parking (berming / planting – again no kerbs, paving of parking to

reflect in-situ soil colours (suggested materials - exposed aggregated / gravel areas)

8. Authors and Date

David Gibbs, Lize Malan & Graham Jacobs;

draft for review: 31st July 2015,

full report(edited) 5th October 2015

final report (updated) 2nd December 2015



1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

1.1.1 Notification of Intent to Develop (NID)

On 12th June 2015, a Notification of the Intention to Develop Remainder Farm 1265, (known as

‘Safariland’) Paarl, Drakenstein - for Residential and Medical Tourism purposes - was submitted to

Heritage Western Cape by Planner and Heritage Consultant, Lize Malan.

Whereas ‘Safariland’ itself lacks intrinsic heritage resources, the site interfaces with

Schuurmansfontein Road - the approach to the adjacent ‘Mandela House’ located on the

Drakenstein Correctional Services property. This property was seen as an isolated yet more

comfortable place of imprisonment for Mr Nelson Mandela following his incarceration on Robben

Island, during the time of negotiations between the government and the opposition; and as one of

the recognised symbols of the history of the Freedom Struggle has significant cultural heritage value.

‘Mandela House’ has been proclaimed a Grade One heritage resource as per Government Notice

Department of Arts and Culture 748: ‘By virtue of the powers vested in the South African Heritage

Resources Agency, in terms of Section 27(5) of the National Resources Act, 25 of 1999, SAHRA hereby

declares “Mandela House” situated on the Farm Watervliet, Portion 2 of Farm 942, Drakenstein

Correctional Services (formally known as Victor Verster Prison) and all its associated objects, as a

National Heritage Site.’ (Government Gazette, RSA, Vol 529, No. 32403, Pretoria, 15 July 2009)

Because of this heritage significance, the consultants anticipated that Heritage Western Cape would

require Heritage Impact Assessment of the proposal, including assessment of visual impacts,

identification of heritage indicators and recommendations for mitigation measures.

This was imagined as a focussed and integrated HIA, discussing the rural setting and sense of

remoteness of the ‘Mandela House’ - regarded as an important attribute that should be preserved

for visitors to have an authentic experience of the house and the important role it played in the

transition to democracy - and suggesting visual criteria and heritage indicators to be accommodated

within the site planning, layout design and detailing of the proposal – with particular concentration

on the interface between ‘Safariland’ and Schuurmansfontein Road.



1.1.2 HWC Response to the NID

On the 23rd June 2015 Heritage Western Cape (HWC) issued their response to the NID.

(Ref: Annexures)

The response asserted that whereas the application for the extension of a housing estate adjacent to

the Nelson Mandela Prison house plans no development on the property on which the prison house is

located, the development may have a cumulative impact on the sense of place of the house, which is

registered as a Grade 1 Heritage Resource.

HWC considered this reason to believe that Heritage Resources would be impacted upon, and

therefore required an HIA in terms of S.38(#) of the NHRA (25 of 1999) to be undertaken to assess

the potential impacts upon the cultural landscape and sense of place of the area.

HWC required the HIA to consist of a visual impact assessment, as well as a brief assessment of the

cultural landscape and the impact on the sense of place of the Mandela Prison House; and due to

the proximity of the Prison House, further required consultation with relevant heritage bodies,

including SAHRA; and compilation of an integrated set of recommendations.

David Gibbs (Landscape Architect | Environmental Planner + Heritage Practitioner) has been

appointed in association with Heritage Practitioners Lize Malan and Graham Jacobs to undertake the

visual and heritage assessment work on behalf of the applicant Kabod Pearl Valley (Pty) Ltd,

via Environmental Assessment Practitioners Doug Jeffery Environmental Consultants.



1.2 Approach and Methodology

1.2.1 Heritage Assessment Approach

This Heritage Impact Assessment report has been prepared and compiled as per the criteria,

definitions and terminologies set out in the reference document: Bauman, N & Winter, S,

Guideline for involving Heritage Specialists in the EIA processes: Edition 1. CSIR Report

No ENV-S-C 2005 053 F, Republic of South Africa, Provincial Government of the Western Cape,

Department of Environmental Affairs & Development Planning, Cape Town. 2005; and in compliance

with the 2014 EIA regulations – Appendix 6 – Specialist Reports

Within the response to the NID, HWC has required an integrated Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA)

incorporating visual impact assessment (VIA) and including recommendations by heritage and visual

specialists. As the VIA component is framed within the context of the HIA process contemplated in

terms of Section 38 (3) of the National Heritage Resources Management Act (NHRA); the articulation

of overarching recommendations should relate directly to the heritage resources considered within

the scope of the NHRA. Section 38 (3) of the NHRA outlines the requirements for a heritage impact

assessment and calls for the following to be included:

The identification and mapping of all heritage resources within the areas affected by the

development proposal;

an assessment of the significance of such resources in terms of the heritage assessment

criteria set out in section 6 (2) or prescribed under section 7;

an assessment of the impact(s) of the proposed development upon such heritage resources

(considering construction and operational phases);

an evaluation of the impact of the proposed development upon heritage resources relative

to the sustainable social and economic benefits to be derived from the development;

the results of consultation with communities affected by the proposed development and

other interested parties regarding the impact of the development upon heritage resources;

should heritage resources be affected adversely by the proposed development, the

consideration of viable alternatives; (including the ‘no-go’ alternative), and

plans for mitigation of any adverse effects during and after the completion of the proposed

development (construction and operational phase measures).



1.2.2 Visual Assessment Approach

As an integrated study, this report incorporates Visual Impact assessment considerations compiled

as per the criteria, definitions and terminologies set out in the reference document: Oberholzer, B,

Guideline for involving Visual & Aesthetic Specialists in the EIA processes: Edition 1. CSIR Report No.

ENV-S-C 2005 053 F, Republic of South Africa, Provincial Government of the Western Cape,

Department of Environmental Affairs & Development Planning, Cape Town, 2005.

Safariland is situated at Farm 1265, Paarl, off Schuurmansfontein Rd, Groot Drakenstein, at

coordinates: 33deg 49' 38.79"S 18deg 59' 14.72"E. Currently a vacant property of 34.0692 hectares

in extent, the site borders onto parcels of farmland, the Pearl Valley Golf Estate, and the Drakenstein

Correctional Services Facility. The site is situated within the Drakenstein Municipality’s revised urban

edge of 2010, but outside of any Heritage Overlay Zone and is not highly visible from any designated

scenic routes, as the site is set back 1km from the R301. Due to the topography, vegetation and

surrounding land uses, the site is not considered to be visually sensitive. However, the surrounding

mountains have a ‘wilderness’ quality, lending a sense of remoteness, and the local farmland

contributes to the agricultural character of the area. These qualities can be considered as visual

resources which designate this as an "area of medium scenic, cultural, historical significance".

As the development proposal constitutes ‘medium-density residential development’, (i.e.

development of generally 1- to 3-storey structures, including cluster development, usually with more

than 25% of the site area retained as green open space), added to existing ‘small-scale agriculture /

nurseries, narrow roads and small-scale infrastructure’, this is considered to be consistent with

‘Category 4 development’ for which ‘moderate visual impact’ may be expected.

This means that, potentially the proposal may have ‘some effect on protected landscapes or scenic

resources’; and/or may cause ‘some change in the visual character of the area’ as it ‘Introduces

new development or adds to existing development within the area’.

The guideline designates this as a 'Type A’ Assessment (i.e. visual assessments which are relatively

large in extent, and / or which involve natural or rural landscapes) - and as moderate visual impact

may be expected (as determined by the above), ‘Level 3’ Visual Impact Assessment is required.



The components of ‘Type A’ Level 3 Visual Impact Assessments normally include the following:

Identification of issues raised in scoping phase, and site visit

Identifying the issues and values (raised during scoping) relating to visual, aesthetic and

scenic resources - through site reconnaissance and research;

Description of the receiving environment

Identifying landscape types, landscape character and sense of place, based on geology &

landform, vegetation cover, settlement & land use patterns of the receiving environment;

Establishment of view catchment area, view corridors, viewpoints and receptors;

Identifying view-sheds, establishing the view catchment area and the zone of visual

influence, generally based on topography;

Identifying important view corridors and viewpoints and sensitive receptors within the

receiving environment, and indicating distance radii from viewpoints to receptors;

Determining the visual absorption capacity (VAC) of the landscape, based on topography,

vegetation cover or urban fabric within the area;

Description of the proposed project

Determining the relative visibility, and/or level of visual intrusion of the proposed project

within its context.

Determining the relative compatibility (congruence/appropriateness) or conflict of the

proposed project with its surroundings;

Comparing the existing situation with the probable effect of the proposed project

Indication of potential visual impacts using established criteria

Including potential lighting impacts at night;

Description of alternatives, amendments and monitoring programmes

Including recommendations for mitigation.



1.3 Assumptions and Limitations

1.3.1 Assumptions underpinning the visual/heritage evaluation of the development proposal:

Awareness that 'visual' implies the full range of visual, aesthetic, cultural and spiritual

aspects of the environment, which together contribute to the local character and ‘sense of

place of the area,

Understanding that ‘impact’ means a ‘noticeable change’ to the status quo when perceived

under normal conditions; and that change is not necessarily negative, but may contain

positive, neutral, and/or negative aspects in varying degrees,

Identification of all significant scenic resources, including protected areas, scenic drives, sites

of special interest and tourist destinations, together with their relative importance within the

broader context of the region;

Acknowledging the dynamic nature of landscape processes; including geological, biological,

horticultural and human settlement patterns, which contribute to landscape character, visual

attributes and scenic amenity value;

The need to include quantitative criteria, such as 'visibility’; and qualitative criteria, such as

‘aesthetic value’ or ‘sense of place’ to achieve a balanced perception of visual impact

(i.e. the rational and the intuitive; the measurable and the immeasurable)

The need to include visual input as an integral part of the project planning and design

process, so that the visual findings and recommended measures for mitigation can influence

final designs pro-actively

The need to determine the value and significance of visual and aesthetic resources

responsibly through a rigorous process, of which participatory public engagement forms an

essential component



1.3.2 Limitations of the visual/heritage visual evaluation of the development proposal:

Availability of Information: This report is based on information available at the time of

writing and may be subject to review and revision should additional information become

available at a later stage.

Accuracy of Material: This report assumes that all material supplied by others (including

specialist assessments, historical, planning and land-use background research) is an accurate

and true reflection of the issues governing the property and its proposed development.

Conceptual plans of the development proposal (provided by the architects) indicate form,

scale, aggregation and massing accurately; but may not yet indicate complete architectural

detail (materials, colours, fenestration, etc.)

The geographic aspects of this report rely on a combination of 1:500 000, 1:250 000 and

1:50 000 topocadastral and geological maps, together with Google-Earth data and GIS

information at various scales

The generation of the view-sheds relies on topographical landform information, and does not

indicate the additional screening effect of vegetation and buildings (this is ascertained from

site photographs and observation at grade).

Within the view-shed analysis, the development is recorded as being visible from a certain

viewpoint even if only a portion of the development is visible from that viewpoint. Therefore

this does not describe the degree of visual exposure.

Statement of Significance: the significance of cultural resource is dynamic and multifaceted,

in particular as interest groups and societal values change over time. Thus it is not possible to

provide a definitive statement of heritage significance. It is also noted that the perception of

visual impact can be highly subjective.



2. SITE LOCATION AND CONTEXT

2.1 Site Location

2.1.1 Relative Location (the broader context)

The Remainder of Farm 1265, Paarl, known as ‘Safariland’, is located off Schuurmansfontein Road,

off the R301, approximately midway between Franschhoek to the southeast and Paarl to the north,

within the Berg River Valley of the Groot Drakenstein district.

Figure 1: Site Location: Extract from 1:50 000 Topocadastral Map Series - Maps 3318DD (published 2003) and 3319CC (published 2001),

Chief Directorate Surveys and Mapping, illustrating the relative location of Safariland

(Image source: NID Graphic Material – Lize Malan)

Pniel

Paarl

N1 R301

Pearl

Valley

Rem.Farm1265,

‘Safariland’, Paarl

Drakenstein Correction Services

Berg River

R45

Pniel



2.1.2 Locality (the immediate context)

‘Safariland’ lies immediately adjacent to the southern edge of the Pearl Valley Golf Estate and Spa,

with Schuurmansfontein Road (off the R301 to Franschhoek) forming its southern boundary.

The Drakenstein Correctional Services facility (formerly known as Victor Verster Prison) is located

south-southeast of the site.

Figure 2: Locality: Google Earth image illustrating the Remainder of Farm 1265, Safariland, Paarl, in relation to Pearl Valley and the

Drakenstein Correctional Services facility


Pearl Valley

Golf Estate

R301

Schuurmansfontein Road

Drakenstein

Correctional

Services

to Franschhoek

to Paarl



2.1.3 Locus (the site itself)

‘Safariland’ is located at co-ordinates: 33° 49' 38.79" S; 18° 59' 14.72" E. (based on WGS84.) at an

elevation of approximately 152 m above mean sea level.

The eastern and western boundaries of the site adjoin farmlands, which contribute to the

agricultural character of the valley, considered part of the ‘Cape Winelands’ Cultural Landscape.

Figure 3: Locus: Google Earth image illustrating the extent of the Remainder Farm 1265, ‘Safariland’, Paarl.




2.2 Legal Context

2.2.1 National Environmental Management Act (Act 107 of 1998)

Doug Jeffery Environmental Consultants will be submitting an application in terms of the National

Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998) and the 2014 Environmental Impact

Assessment Regulations for the proposed development of ‘Safariland’.

Various Listed Activities in terms of Listing Notice 1 (Government Notice R. 983) and Listing Notice 3

(Government Notice R. 983) are triggered; therefore a Basic Assessment process is being followed.

The integrated HIA study therefore forms part of the Basic Assessment process. NEMA provides for

identification and assessment of activities that are potentially detrimental to the environment and

which require authorization from the relevant authorities - based on environmental assessment

findings.

Although NEMA is a national act, enforced by the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA); within

the Western Cape these powers are delegated to the provincial Department of Environmental Affairs

and Development Planning (DEA&DP). Prior to issuing a Record of Decision regarding the proposed

activities, DEA&DP will consider the comments submitted by Heritage Western Cape (HWC) in

response to the integrated HIA.



2.2.2 National Heritage Resources Act, Act 25 of 1999

Further to the above NEMA provisions, the requirements of the National Heritage Resources Act

(NHRA) - (Act 25 of 1999) must be satisfied as well.

Section 38(1) (d) of the NHRA requires the submission of a notification of intent to develop (NID)

when proposed development entails the rezoning of a site exceeding 10 000m2 in extent.

Section 38(1) (c) of the NHRA requires the submission of a notification of intent to develop (NID)

when development or activity will change the character of a site exceeding 5 000m2 in extent.

Except for the remains of an old resort located to the east of the property, the site is largely vacant

in its current condition. Proposed residential development will alter the character of the site

significantly, and will certainly effect a noticeable visual change. The Site does not fall within any

declared conservation areas, nor does it fall within any proposed municipal heritage overlay zones,

however, as Safariland interfaces with Schuurmansfontein Road, the approach to the ‘Mandela

house’, (a Grade 1 National Heritage site), the development of the site is likely to have an impact on

the sense of place of the setting of this heritage resource. Development is certainly permissible,

however, as the site is located within the revised urban edge.

A particular feature of the ‘Mandela House’ is it sense of rural isolation and remoteness. This was

one of the reasons why the property was chosen to house Mr Mandela towards the final years of his

imprisonment, when negotiations for the transition to democracy were initiated between the

former Nationalist Government and the African National Congress. This sense of place has continued

to endure until the present.

Residential development immediately adjacent to the access road to the Mandela Prison House

(ultimately to become a museum) will impact on the sense of place of the setting of the house

significantly. However, it is not unprecedented for buildings whose significance has been partly

associated with its remoteness to subsequently become surrounded by development. Well known

examples of this include Lilliesleaf Farm, Rivonia and the Smuts House in Irene (ref: Graham Jacobs)



This report follows the submission of the NID relating to the Safariland site, and intends to ensure

that the requirements of HWC in terms of NHRA section 38(3) are fulfilled satisfactorily.

In response to the NID, HWC requested that the HIA incorporate visual impact assessment – which

has been integrated into the scope if this study.

(The NID response and further correspondence with HWC in this regard is included within the

Annexures of this report document).



2.2.3 Land Use Planning Ordinance (LUPO) No. 15 of 1985

A brief outline in terms of the LUPO planning application is as follows:

Application is made in terms of Section 17 of the Land Use Planning Ordinance No 15 of 1985 for the

rezoning of the Remainder of the Farm ‘Safariland’ No 1265, Paarl Division from its current zoning of

Resort Zone 1 and Open Space Zone II to a zoning of Sub-divisional Area.

Application is made in terms of Section 24 of the Land Use Planning Ordinance No 15 of 1985 for the

subdivision of the property into four portions (zones) namely:

Zone 1 of 14 hectares with a zoning of Sub-divisional Area to accommodate an Active Adult

Community residential development,

Zone 2 of 15 hectares with a zoning of Sub-divisional Area to accommodate a residential

development consisting of both single residential and higher density residential units,

Zone 3 of 3 hectares with a zoning of Institutional Zone III for an Institution in the form of a

medical tourism and health care facility and

Zone 4 of 2 hectares with a zoning of Resort Zone 1 to accommodate a tourist lodge catering

for short term holiday accommodation, as depicted on the Plan of Subdivision.

(Ref: Peter G. Mons Pr.Pln)



2.3 Policy Context

2.3.1 Drakenstein Spatial Development Framework

In terms of the Municipal Systems Act (Act 32 of 2000), the Drakenstein Spatial Development

Framework (DSDF) prepared by Macroplan, 2010 and the Urban Edge Policy documents were both

approved by the Drakenstein Council in November 2010.

Figure 4: Extract from Figure 45, Paarl South of the N1: Proposals from the Drakenstein Spatial Development Framework, 2010.


Although the extract of the DSDF diagram indicates that ‘Safariland’ (outlined in yellow above)

potentially includes a portion of a Critical Biodiversity Area and a portion suitable for agricultural or

tourism related development, ground-truthing has in fact indicated that no critically important

vegetation is present on the site.

(Ref: Botanical Constraints Analysis by Paul Emms and Bergwind May 2015).



2.3.2 Heritage Overlay Zones

In 2010, the Drakenstein Heritage Survey Group (DHSG) produced a series of Maps indicating

Suggested Heritage Resources. (A heritage resource is defined in Section 2 (xvi) of the NHRA as: “any

place or object of cultural significance”).

As per the extract of Map 2 of 12 (below), there are no heritage resources to be found within the

site boundaries of ‘Safariland’ itself.

However Resource 1007 which refers to the gateway (grade IIIC) of the farm ‘Langerug’, is located

immediately towards the west of the site (at the end of Schuurmansfontein Road);

and Resource 1008 which refers to the ‘Mandela House’ prison (grade I), is located within the

grounds of the Drakenstein Correctional Services Facility, immediately southwest of the site.

Figure 5: Extract from Suggested Heritage Resources Map, Map 2 of 12 (Drakenstein Heritage Resources Survey

(DHSG, 2010). (Image source: NID Graphic Material – Lize Malan)



As indicated in the extract of the Heritage Overlay Zone (HOZ) map for the Berg River South Corridor,

‘Safariland’ falls outside of the suggested heritage overlay zone for this area.

The HOZ tends to focus on the Berg River Corridor, which is characterized by agricultural land

(predominantly vineyards). The HZO map does, however, indicate the R301 roadway (with its views

onto the slopes of the mountains eastwards of the site) as a scenic route.

The site is, however, set back 1km from the R301.

Figure 6: Extract from the Heritage Overlay Zone Map for Berg River South Corridor, Drakenstein Heritage Resources Survey

(DHSG, 2010). (Image source: NID Graphic Material – Lize Malan)



3. SITE HISTORY

3.1 Historical Background and Ownership

The earliest record of land ownership relating the Safariland site dates to 16 November 1790 when a

portion of land of 1 Morgen 575 Square Roods and 54 Feet was granted to Jan Christian Welman

(Old Stellenbosch Farms Vol. 4 no. 19). This portion of land was close to the river and early diagrams

indicate a T-shaped house and spring on the site.

On 29 November 1804 the property was transferred to Samuel Johannes Cats. Thereafter, it would

seem that this was re-granted to Johannes Jacobus du Preez as freehold.

In 1830 a large portion of land measuring 199 Morgen, 485 square roods and 90 feet was granted to

JJ du Preez in perpetual quitrent, and the original freehold portion was wholly located within this

larger portion of land. (This freehold portion now forms part of Pt 4 of the Farm Watervliet, No. 942,

Paarl). (Ref: NID Graphic Material, Lize Malan)

Figure 7: Extract of SG Diagram 172/1830, giving an indication of the grant to JJ du Preez in 1830.

The yellow outline indicates the original freehold property. The red figure indicates the property subject to this assessment.




The property stayed remained within the Du Preez family for several generations until it was sold to

HEV Pickstone and Brothers (Pty) Ltd in 1914.

In 1969 the Pickstone company consolidated a number of properties to create the farm Watervliet

(Farm 942, Paarl), however later in the same year, Portion 3 of Portion 1 of Watervliet was sold to

Daniel David Marais.

DD Marais then sold this portion to Uwe Detlef Schulz in 1979, who consolidated this portion with

the adjoining Portion 1 of the farm Ongegund, to create Farm 1265, ‘Safariland’, Paarl, now

measuring 204, 0695 hectares.

Figure 8: SG Diagram 425/68 illustrating the consolidated farm known as Watervliet (Farm 942, Paarl)




A small resort including a small zoo with day and overnight camping facilities was established on the

south eastern portion of the farm and it is evident that building material (such as stone) was mined

elsewhere on the property.

In 1997 Schulz sold off 170 hectares of the property, which today forms part of the Pearl Valley

Residential Estate to the north of the ‘Safariland’ Site. Mr Schulz has since passed away, but the

property remains in the ownership of his estate.

Figure 9: SG Diagram 6100/79 indicating the original extent of Farm 1265, Safariland, Paarl.

The figure in red indicates the remainder that is subject to this assessment.




3.2 Current Use

Currently a portion of ‘Safariland’ is zoned as Resort Zone 1 (approximately 1.4 hectares)

and the balance of the property is zoned Open Space Zone II.

The property was previously used as a tourist resort, with the name ‘Safariland’ denoting the game

viewing activities and overnight accommodation previously on offer. The tourism operation ceased

several years ago, and the site is now predominantly vacant, except for a few of buildings which are

occupied as living units.

As the property is no longer used actively, all other buildings and structures (such as store rooms,

aviaries and swimming pools) have become dilapidated through neglect and have fallen into

disrepair. Whereas the bulk of the property is lying fallow and consists of meadow areas with

scattered trees (including a grove of mature pine trees), there is evidence of former mining for

building materials (rock, stone, and sand excavations).

Figure 10: View from the north-eastern corner of Rem Farm 1265, Safariland, Paarl.

(Image source: David Gibbs)



4. HERITAGE RESOURCES & SIGNIFICANCE

4.1 Heritage Survey

4.1.1 Places, buildings, structures and equipment of cultural significance

With reference to the Drakenstein Heritage Resources survey, undertaken by the Drakenstein

Heritage Survey Group (DHSG), Safariland contains no structures or buildings of heritage

significance. However, there are heritage resources within the environs of the site, which could be

impacted upon by the proposed development. The site is accessed off Schuurmansfontein Road off

the R301, which has been identified as a Scenic Route. The site is also within the vicinity of the

adjacent Langerug farm gateway (resource 1007) - identified as a Grade IIIC heritage Resource;

as well as the ‘Mandela House’ prison (resource 1008) - identified as a Grade I Heritage Resource

situated to the southwest of the site, on the Drakenstein Correctional Services grounds.

The development of the site is likely to have an impact on the sense of place of the setting of the

‘Mandela House’. As mentioned before, a particular feature of the Mandela Prison House is its sense

of isolation. A residential development immediately adjacent to the access road to the house (soon

to be a museum) would impact upon the sense of place of the setting of the house.

Figure 11: R301 (Scenic Route) looking south-southeast, towards the Groot Drakenstein and Jonkershoek mountains.

The nearest boundary of the site concerned is 1km to the right off this image. (Image source: David Gibbs)



Figure 12: Schuurmansfontein Road with the eastern end of the site boundary on the right (arrowed in red).

The relative location of the Mandela Prison House more than 1km away is indicated with the white arrow.

The Simonsberg Mountains are in the background. (Image source: Graham Jacobs)

Figure 13: The boundary wall around the Mandela Prison House on the extreme left (arrowed in white)

with the Langerug Farm gateway straight ahead at the end of Schuurmansfontein Road.

(Image source: Graham Jacobs)



Figure 14: Langerug farm gates (Grade IIIC Heritage Resource) at the end of Schuurmansfontein Road


Figure 15: Mandela Prison House (Grade I Heritage Resource) at the Drakenstein Correctional Services facility.

(Image source: Sean Sheridan - http://seansheridan.com/2013/12/the-house-of-mandelas-last-imprisonment/)



‘Mandela Prison House was the last place of incarceration for Nelson Mandela, the place where

negotiations between the Apartheid Government and the Liberation movement were facilitated, and

where the foundation for a free South Africa was laid. Nelson Mandela took his first steps to Freedom

from Drakenstein Prison (then the ‘Victor Verster’ Prison), here on the doorstep of Paarl.’

http://www.portfoliocollection.com/go-heritage-collection/Mandelahouse

4.1.2 Sense of Place

The ‘Mandela House’ prison is an unassuming building, seemingly a typical ‘suburban’ American

ranch-style house. Yet it carries a significance of monumental proportion because of its association

with Mr Nelson Mandela and the historic negotiations which took place within its walls. The house

was chosen as the place of Mr Mandela’s imprisonment during the final 18months of his

incarceration precisely because of its remoteness, isolation and seclusion. It was a secret, hidden

place, somewhat forlorn and almost forgotten, far away from public intrusion and media attention.

Against this background, proposed residential development at ‘Safariland’ will certainly impact upon

the setting and sense of place of this significant heritage resource.

4.1.3 Cultural Landscape

Within the broader context, ‘Safariland’ falls within the Berg River Valley of the Groot Drakenstein

district – which is part of the Cape Winelands Region. In Heritage and Scenic Resources: Inventory

and Policy Framework for the Western Cape, Oberholzer and Winter consider the Groot Drakenstein

district (with its rural settlement and cultivation from the 18th century) ‘highly representative of the

Cape Winelands Cultural Landscape in terms of the visual dominance of a productive agricultural

landscape and pattern of vineyards, dramatic mountain-valley setting’. They further describe the

Groot Drakenstein as having an ‘important relationship with the scenic route network’ and playing a

‘key role in the history of the fruit industry,’ including ‘direct associations with the history of slavery,

post emancipation and farm labour, e.g. Pniel, Ebenhauser and Lanquedoc,’ and containing the ‘high

national symbolic significance of the Drakenstein Prison where Mandela was held during his last

years of incarceration’.



4.2 Significance

4.2.1 Establishing the Significance of the site

The site itself has no intrinsic heritage resources – none of the structures are older than 60 years, the

site has limited historic and social value and there are also no significant scientific resources related

to the site. As the site has been mined and farmed in the past it also seems unlikely that there would

be significant archaeological resources on site. In addition the site is not located in a particularly

scenic or important cultural landscape – if falls outside the Heritage Overlay Zones identified in the

Drakenstein Heritage Survey. Given the relatively flat topography the site is also not highly visible

from the surrounding agricultural landscape.

However the site is located immediately adjacent to the Schuurmansfontein Road, the approach road

to the Mandela Prison House at the Drakenstein Correctional Services Facility. The Mandela Prison

House is a Grade I heritage site, and the rural setting and particularly the sense of remoteness of the

house is regarded as an important attribute that should be preserved for visitors to have an authentic

experience of the house and the important role it played in the transition to democracy.

(Ref: NID cover letter, Lize Malan)

Following the description of the site, the historical overview and heritage survey, it is highly unlikely

that the Safariland site has any, historical, architectural, social, spiritual, linguistic or scientific value

within its boundaries.

However, there are significant heritage resources within the immediate proximity of the site, most

notably the Mandela Prison House. As the southern boundary of Safariland interfaces with the

northern edge of Schuurmansfontein Road (the approach to the Mandela Prison House), the

development of the portions of the site closest to this approach road need critical attention if the

remote ‘sense of place’ and ‘isolated’ landscape setting of the Mandela Prison House is to retain its

meaning. The visual axis along Schuurmansfontein Road towards the Simonsberg Mountains is highly

significance as the approach to the Mandela Prison House, and in terms of establishing the

landscape setting for this Grade 1 heritage resource.



Figure 16: Main gateway to Safariland off Schuurmansfontein Road.

The non-descript 1970’s period face-brick reception building on the left beyond.


Figure 17: Architecturally non-descript overnight accommodation on Safariland.

There are no buildings of heritage significance on the property.




4.2.2 Summarized Statement of Significance

Although the site has no inherent heritage or visual significance within its boundaries, any

development along its south-eastern edge abutting the Schuurmansfontein Road would impact on

the experience of the approach to Mandela Prison House by altering the sense of remoteness and

isolation currently experienced. The site therefore has a certain degree of strategic contextual

significance as part of the landscape setting of the Grade 1 Heritage Resource.

The edge of Safariland therefore falls within a notional ‘buffer’ zone around the Mandela Prison

House. This area is sensitive in terms of setting the context for the Grade 1 Heritage Resource, and

imparting the sense of remoteness and isolation so critical to understanding the historic meaning as

the prison house. (Ref: Graham Jacobs and Lize Malan)

Figure 18: Typical view of structures and infrastructure on the site. This serves to illustrate their lack of heritage significance.

None of the structures on the property are older than 60 years.




5. VISUAL CHARACTER ANALYSIS

5.1 Identification of Issues and Values

5.1.1 Visual, Aesthetic & Scenic Resources

Visual, Aesthetic and Scenic resources often overlap significantly with heritage resources. Within its

dramatic mountain-valley setting at the broader scale, ‘Safariland’ is part of a broader rural cultural

landscape, characterized by foreboding mountains, agricultural valleys and foothills of bucolic

tranquillity, isolation, remoteness and distance from urban centres.

As per Section 4.1.1, Safariland is located within close proximity of the Langerug farm gateway

(Grade IIIC Heritage Resource) - which is a visual resource in the Cape Vernacular architectural

tradition, typical of the region, (white plastered masonry) and the ‘Mandela House’ prison (Grade I

Heritage Resource), which also lacks architectural and aesthetic merit (uninspired suburban

architecture) but has cultural significance in terms of its particular history as the Prison House.

Affording views towards the surrounding mountains, the R301 is identified as a Scenic Route and is

therefore a visual resource. Various views are illustrated along this stretch of roadway. (Refer to

section 5.5 to follow).



5.1.2 Visual Heritage Issues

The impact of the proposed development in terms of introducing new buildings, roadways and

parking areas transforming the visual character of the area, and in particular the sense of place and

rural setting of the Mandela Prison House - is of primary concern. The Schuurmansfontein Road

approach currently passes through an expansive and largely unbuilt landscape of fallow agricultural

lands and derelict resort on the northern side, and prison grounds and facilities on the southern side.

There is a certain ‘forgotten’ (or even ‘forlorn’), character of place; derived from the rural

(somewhat neglected) landscape setting, which is important to the associated meaning of the

Mandela Prison House adjacent.

Notwithstanding the fact that neither the Safariland site nor its immediate landscape context could

be considered as visual resources of high aesthetic value, the visual axis along Schuurmansfontein

Road towards Langerug gateway (and the Mandela Prison House adjacent) and beyond towards the

Simonsberg mountains is highly significant as part of the notional ‘buffer’ zone associated with the

Grade 1 Heritage Resource.



5.2 Visual Landscape Context

5.2.1 Geology & Landform

Surrounding the site at ‘Safariland’ and surrounding lowlands are five prominent mountains –

namely Paarl Mountain (8 km north-northwest), Simonsberg (5 km west-southwest), Groot

Drakenstein and Jonkershoek Mountains (9 km south) and Klein Drakenstein mountains (2 km

east). These mountains contain the view catchment and provide dramatic background vistas.

Figure 19: ‘Safariland’ surrounded by mountain ranges.

The 200mm contour line (defining the valley) is highlighted in red

(Image Source: Google maps, with adaptions)



The Berg River flows northwards through the Valley, west of the site. With the site shown at the

epicentre of the image above, concentric distance radii are indicated (in cyan) at 500mm intervals.

As per the botanical constraints assessment report, the landscape within the valley is characterized

by gently undulating plains that grade into the surrounding mountain foothills. The land appears to

be dominated by granite- and sandstone-derived soils. Granite of the Cape Granite Suite give rise to

gritty loose soils at the eastern portion whereas the western side supports finer and deeper, loose,

acid sand. Transitional soil types seem to appear within the central portions of the site.

(ref: Botanical Constraints Assessment report).

5.2.2 Vegetation Cover

Swartland Alluvium Fynbos would naturally occur within this region, however to a large extent,

indigenous vegetation has given way to farmland within the valley. Beyond the site, mature

vegetation includes rows of Eucalyptus trees (Avenues / Windbreaks – leading up to farmsteads),

which lend scale to the landscape, and provide middle distance features between the foreground

(site) and the background (mountain ridgelines).

As per the botanical constraints assessment, only a small portion of about 0.68 hectares of the

‘Safariland’ site supports remnant and / or pioneer species of Swartland Alluvium Fynbos. The

greater part of the site (32.72 hectares) has been transformed by past farming activities, and

includes introduced exotic trees and shrubs. The transformed areas include

(1) Farmstead, (2) Grazing fields, (3) Dams, (4) Pine forest and (5) Abandoned fields, and do not hold

any conservation value. The Pine forest does provide some visual screening of existing ‘resort’

buildings at present, but does not seem to be arranged in any formal or designed pattern.

(There are no obvious avenues, windbreaks, clusters or groupings of particular trees on site.)



5.2.3 Settlement & Land-Use Patterns

At the broader scale ‘Safariland’ is located in the southern portion of the Drakenstein municipal

area, south of the N1 between the R301 to the east and the R45 to the west, where expansive land

uses prevail and predominate. These include the Boschenmeer, Val De Vie and Pearl Valley Estates

and the large area taken up by the Drakenstein Correctional Services facility.

The other major land use is agriculture in the form of vineyards and orchards as well as large areas

covered in invasive alien vegetation which are not actively farmed. The Berg River runs through the

valley, and separating the site from the Simondium settlement. (Ref: Planning Report P Mons)

At the local level the site borders directly on the Pearl Valley Golf Estate along its northern

boundary. Housing facilities which form part of the Drakenstein Correctional Facility are located

immediately south of the site on the opposite side of the Schuurmansfontein Road which coincides

with the property’s southern boundary.

Farm employee cottages associated with the farm Langerug immediately to the west are located

along the western boundary while, vacant fallow land lies to the east of the site up to the R301.

Other land uses in the immediate area are the Mandela Prison House – soon to become a museum

and tourist node - close to the south west corner of the site which has been registered as a grade I

(national) heritage site, and the Drakenstein Veterinary Centre facility south east of the site.

(Ref: Planning Report P Mons)

Notwithstanding the present largely rural character of the area, it falls within the Drakenstein Urban

Edge as revised in 2010. Consequently, this is a landscape in transition from rural to urban.

The golf estates mentioned above are therefore forerunners of more residential development to

come, including as proposed on Safariland. (Ref: Graham Jacobs)

Farmland, farm labourer cottages

Golf course, Pearl Valley residential estate

Prison Correctional services – staff village



5.3 Description of Site interface

5.3.1 Landscape Types

Within the immediate context of the site are landscape transformed by agriculture, (following the

River Valley pattern of farmland, vineyards, windbreaks, fallow fields, the residential golf course

environment to the north, and the Drakenstein Correctional Services property to the south.

Figure 20: Immediate Context: Safariland Development proposal (Mandela Prison House is shown in Red, south of Safariland)

Mandela Prison house is circled in yellow, south of Safariland. North is to the top of the image. (Source: Google Earth, QMA)

Mandela Prison House



5.3.2 Landscape Character

The landscape character of the broader valley is best described as a cultural landscape, settled and

farmed, within a dramatic mountain setting, with rugged ridges and peaks of the Cape Fold

mountain ranges providing visual containment. The broader landscape is rural, agricultural,

agrarian, and bucolic, though the site itself is fallow, neglected, somewhat forlorn and becoming

derelict. This is, however, a landscape in transition from rural to urban.

Following site investigation by the heritage consultants, it is very apparent that the site itself and the

surrounding landscape of the immediate context can hardly be considered as having high scenic

value. However, the Schuurmansfontein Road axis approaching Langerug gateway and moving

towards the Mandela Prison House is highly significant, as is its focus on the Simonsberg Mountains

beyond. Therefore it is important to maintain the character of Schuurmansfontein Road through

landscape treatment along the Safariland site boundary. The prison grounds and activities on the

opposite side of Schuurmansfontein Road would seem to serve as a suitable introduction to the

prison house, and should remain intact.

5.3.3 Sense of Place

Because of the expansive land-uses, and generally agricultural context, these rural qualities land a

sense of tranquillity, stillness and peacefulness. Moreover, the surrounding mountains serve to

‘shelter’ and ‘isolate’ the valley, adding to the sense of remoteness

There is a sense of seclusion, a certain ‘secret' quality to this place, as if it contains unknown, hidden

or forgotten attributes. The Mandela Prison House, quietly located in a corner of this place, is small

and unassuming, even ‘nondescript’ in its appearance - which completely belies its massive historic

significance and cultural heritage.



5.4 Visibility

5.4.1 View-shed (relative to elevation)

‘Safariland’ is situated at approximately 152 m above mean sea level, at an elevation slightly above

the valley floor (the Berg River is approximately 850m west of the site), but still well-below the

surrounding mountain ridges, the mountain slopes begin to become steeper from approximately

200m above sea level, forming and which confining the view-shed to within the Berg River Valley

(within an approximate 5km radius of the site).

Due to the effect of landform, the site is not particularly visible from the R301, until the viewer turns

into Schuurmansfontein Road, with the road approaching the south eastern corner of the site. At

this point, Schuurmansfontein Road kinks slightly, and runs parallel to the site (Figures 11B, 21 & 22).

Due to the existing Pine tree forest vegetation on site, views into the site do not penetrate

particularly deeply.

5.4.2 View Catchment (relative to distance)

Direct views onto the site are afforded only from Schuurmansfontein Road, where immediate

foreground fills the field of view. The view catchment is therefore localized to within a 2,5km radius.

5.4.3 Zone of Visual Influence

The actual zone of visual influence of the project may be reduced by the screening effect of existing trees and

buildings. This also relates to the number of receptors:

• High visibility: visible from a large area (e.g. several square kilometres) Regional ZVI

• Moderate visibility: visible from an intermediate area (e.g. several hectares) Local ZVI

• Low visibility: visible from a small area around the project site. Site ZVI

Although the view-shed as derived by topography notionally extends to the edges of valley, the

screening effect of surface texture (structures and vegetation) effectively reduces the actual zone of

visual influence considerably. Variously along the view corridor, wind break vegetation, clusters of

trees, gentle undulations within the foreground obscure views of the site at middle distance and

background positions. However, as the development proposal will impact upon the setting of

Mandela Prison House, the Zone of Visual Influence extends beyond the site to the local area.

(Considered holistically therefore, Visibility is ‘moderate)’.



5.5 Affected Environment

5.5.1 Views Points & View Corridors

Viewpoints along the R310 and Schuurmansfontein Road view corridors have been selected to

provide typical visual conditions, and to illustrate the landscape setting of the site and adjacent

heritage resources. As the site is setback approximately 1000m from the R301, it is not particularly

visible from any particular view point, especially as the R301 runs parallel to the narrower dimension

of the site.

Figure 21 Sequential viewpoints approaching ‘Safariland’ from the R301 Scenic Route and Schuurmansfontein Road

(VP’s 01 – 08 follow)

(Image source: Google Maps, with adaptions)

1 km

radius

1.5 km

radius

‘Safariland’

Site

Mandela Prison House

R301



Figure 22: R301 Scenic Route looking south towards the Groot Drakenstein and Jonkershoek Mountains (VP 01)


Figure 23: R301 Scenic Route approaching the turnoff to Schuurmansfontein Road. (VP 02)




Figure 24 Schuurmansfontein Road looking west towards the Berg River and the northern foothills of Simonsberg (VP 03)


Figure 25: Schuurmansfontein Road looking west - approaching ‘Safariland’ (note: farmworker cottages) (VP 04)




Figure 26: Schuurmansfontein Road approaching the ‘kink’ in the road. (Note former ‘resort’ buildings and pine trees) (VP 05)


Figure 27: Schuurmansfontein Road at the eastern site boundary. Pine forest provides partial screening (VP 06)




Figure 28: Schuurmansfontein Road looking southwest towards Simonsberg. (Note: roadway only recently tarred.) (VP 07)


Figure 29: Schuurmansfontein Road looking southwest, approaching Langerug farm gateway. (VP 08)




Figure 30: Schuurmansfontein Road with ‘Safariland’ on the right.

The cottages on the left (south side) are part of former Safariland overnight accommodation.




5.5.2 Distance Radii

Using the Mandela Prison House as an epicentre, concentric distance radii reveal that the south

westernmost corner of Safariland is approximately 200m away, and the south easternmost corner

approximately 1000m away. This 800m length of Schuurmansfontein Road forms the southern

boundary of the site. This approach along Schuurmansfontein Road is a critical issue: for the setting

of the Mandela Prison House to retain its meaning, the sense of remoteness, isolation and seclusion

needs to remain intact along the entire length of Schuurmansfontein Road.

Figure 31: Distance radii emanating from the Mandela Prison House

(Image source: Google Maps, with adaptions)



5.5.3 Visual Exposure

Visual exposure tends to diminish exponentially with distance from site to critical viewpoints.

• High exposure – dominant or clearly noticeable;

• Moderate exposure – recognizable to the viewer;

• Low exposure – not particularly noticeable to the viewer

As the site itself is not particularly visible within the broader context, it may be argued that the

development proposal has low visual exposure. However at Schuurmansfontein Road interface

within the local context, visual exposure is increased to a ‘moderate’ level closer to Mandela House.

Figure32: Safariland / Schuurmansfontein Road interface with respect to distance from Mandela House.

(Image source: various - QMA, Google Earth, with adaptions)

Mandela House

300m distance

200m distance

400m distance

500m distance

600m distance

700m distance

800m distance

900m distance

1km



5.6 Receiving Environment

5.6.1 Landscape Sensitivity

The level of visual impact considered acceptable is dependent on the type of landscape.

• High visual sensitivity – highly visible and potentially sensitive areas in the landscape;

• Moderate sensitivity – moderately visible areas in the landscape;

• Low visual sensitivity – minimally visible areas in the landscape.

Due to its natural and cultural visual and heritage attributes, the berg River Valley is considered to

be scenic resource of cultural landscape value. As such, its default sensitivity towards development

is high, though the sensitivity of the site itself it considerable lower. However, considering the

setting of Mandela House, the landscape sensitivity is deemed to be ‘moderate’.

5.6.2 Receptor Sensitivity

The level of visual impact considered acceptable is dependent on the type of receptors.

• High sensitivity – residential areas, nature reserves and scenic routes or trails;

• Moderate sensitivity – sporting or recreational areas, or places of work;

• Low sensitivity – industrial or degraded areas.

Due to the designation of the R301 as a scenic route, the residential use of Pearl Valley Estate and

the proximity of Mandela Prison House; receptor sensitivity is considered to be ‘high’, especially

along the Schuurmansfontein Road interface towards Langerug gateway and Mandela Prison House.

5.6.3 Visual Absorption Capacity (VAC)

The potential of the landscape to conceal the proposed project, i.e.

• High VAC – effective screening by topography and vegetation;

• Moderate VAC – partial screening by topography and vegetation;

• Low VAC – little screening by topography or vegetation.

Partial screening is afforded by the existing vegetation on site (pine forest); however, it would

appear that this existing vegetation will give way to the proposed development, thereby reducing

the visual absorption capacity. This could be remedied through additional landscaping. The Visual

absorption capacity of the site is therefore deemed to be ‘moderate’.



6. INTEGRATED VISUAL & HERITAGE INDICATORS

6.1 Development Planning considerations

6.1.1 Visual Intrusion vs Visual Assimilation

The level of compatibility or congruence of the project with the particular qualities of the area, its 'sense of

place' - related to ideas of context & maintaining integrity of landscape or townscape.

• High visual intrusion – noticeable change or is discordant with the surroundings;

• Moderate visual intrusion – partially fits into the surroundings, but clearly noticeable;

• Low visual intrusion – minimal change or blends in well with the surroundings.

With reference to the current Site Development Plan and Landscaping Plan, the ‘Safariland proposal

would seem to intrude moderately into the visual context; being clearly noticeable, but partially

congruent with the surroundings (particularly the Pearl Valley Estate).

For the development to assimilate positively into the visual context, (thereby minimizing visual

intrusion), certain planning consideration can be integrated into the Development Plan.

Oberholzer and Winter suggest: Observe the siting of traditional settlements and farmsteads, usually

nestled into north-facing hill-slopes, near a source of water, within a copse of trees, overlooking the

lands; avoiding visually-exposed, wind-swept hillcrests and ridges, as well as frost-prone valley

bottoms.

To optimize visual assimilation, new development should reflect the established pattern of built

form placement within the landscape. Farmsteads and settlements built within this valley are

typically clustered, responding to landform and building platform (contours).

By responding to existing landforms and natural patterns, and by providing appropriate landscape

treatment along the length of Schuurmansfontein Road, the development planning may achieve

strong visual assimilation.



6.1.2 Visual Conflict vs Visual Compatibility

Structures within the valley typically relate to agricultural use, (shed, stores, barns) or to

accommodation (homesteads, farm cottages, workers housing, hotels, guest houses, residential

estates), or to the correctional services facility (including staff village).

Vegetation within the valley reflects agricultural use (vineyard, orchards, fallow fields), as well as

some cultural plantings (avenues, windbreak stands of and Eucalyptus, etc.) at farmsteads or along

the edges of fields. For compatibility, proposed structures should traditionally conform to agriculture

and accommodation uses, and be associated with the cultural landscape, avoiding the ‘untouched’

wilderness areas. However, given that the local landscape is under transition from rural to urban,

compatibility with rural character will inevitably become increasingly challenging to accommodate in

the future. Within this context, considering the Safariland is a ‘disturbed’ site already transformed by

prior uses and given that this is a landscape in transition the proposed development seems to

present low visual conflict.

Oberholzer and Winter suggest: avoid ‘suburban’ development patterns (including building and

infrastructure typologies); and avoid ‘gentrification’ of farming character

This will enable (at least) a moderate degree of visual compatibility.

6.1.3 Effect on Landscape Character

Maintain rural authenticity, character and scenic value wherever possible, while ensuring that new

development is responsive to the historical rural context as development in the area increases. Avoid

suburban type layouts. Conserve traditional patterns of planting in cultural landscapes of

significance. Ensure that new development responds positively to special cultural features

(e.g. farmsteads, signature approaches, road alignments and mountain backdrops) by providing

them with sufficient ‘breathing space’, respecting their settings and leaving public views uncluttered

and unobtrusive.

Key aspects of rural and agricultural quality of the landscape to be preserved

Loose aggregation of buildings (clustered around farmsteads)

Agricultural anchors and signature open space to predominate

Key rural aspects of landscape to be preserved



6.2 Development Design considerations

6.2.1 Height & Scale of Buildings

Articulated, simple rectangular forms are characteristic of rural buildings, and this typology should

inform the development proposal. Within the valley - generally single, single + loft or double storey

accommodation is found, with some larger dwellings within the Pearl Valley Estate. Building heights

should therefore be limited to maximum 3 storeys at the Pearl Valley interface, but preferably 1-

storey (6m height) only along the entire length of the Schuurmansfontein Road interface.

Oberholzer and Winter suggest: Prevent the imitation or reproduction of vernacular styles, and avoid

the introduction of foreign stylistic devices. Distinguish old from new but ensure visual harmony

between historical fabric and new interventions in terms of appropriate of scale, massing, form and

architectural treatment

6.2.2 Massing & Aggregation of Buildings

Ensure that new buildings within historical precincts or werf contexts are in sympathy with the scale,

massing, layout and idiom of surrounding buildings.

Locate new buildings within already ‘disturbed’ zones, and avoid ‘pristine’ areas. Use development

as an opportunity to rehabilitate damaged and disturbed sites.

New buildings should respond historical patterns in terms of form, scale and placement, –but should

not mimic or directly copy existing buildings.

Set-back new structures beyond 30m of the edge of Schuurmansfontein Road, allowing a landscape

‘buffer’ strip to preserve the sense of remoteness leading up to Langerug gateway and Mandela

House. This landscape strip should be planted informally, using earth berms and clusters of

indigenous plants to screen and visually obscure the new proposed buildings.

6.2.3 Landscape & Building Integration

Ensure that new developments within rural contexts are in sympathy with the topography, drainage

patterns and microclimate. Ensure that windbreaks, avenues, copses and place-defining or gateway

planting is not needlessly destroyed by new development. Reinforce or replace traditional patterns of

planting where appropriate with suitable species. The underlying purpose must be to weave into the

existing landscape pattern, rather than to displace it with a new pattern.



6.3 Development Detail considerations

6.3.1 Texture & Colour

Muted tones and ‘earth colours’ are more subtle and are more easily absorbed (visually) than bright

or highly reflective surfaces. Suitable colours include grey, olive green, ochre, brown, etc. – refer to

on-site geology/rock/soil and vegetation types for reference. Rough/textured surfaces are preferable

to shiny/highly reflective surfaces in terms of visual absorption (minimize reflection/ glare/shine).

Roadways should resemble ‘farm roads’ – (if not gravel then exposed aggregate rather than asphalt)

6.3.2 Edge Conditions

Consider ‘dissolving’ buildings into farmland and wilderness through subtle transition from building

platform to landscape context, at the dwelling scale. Use screen/shade planting to soften the

interface. No built boundary wall allowed, especially along Schuurmansfontein Road (visually

transparent fencing; e.g. welded mesh (e.g. ‘Betafence or similar), but not steel palisade is

preferable.)

6.3.3 Lighting conditions

Avoid light ‘pollution’ by reducing lighting to the minimum necessary.

Lighting is to be discrete, and well-integrated into the design proposal.

Naked light sources must not be visible outside the area of the site

Light sources must be shielded to reduce light spillage

Up-lightning onto the outer sides of the buildings must be used sparingly

Shielded down-lights must be used on all open public areas

Neon or unshielded bright security lights may not be used

Along the site boundary, lighting may be permitted at the entrance gateways only – but not along

the length of Schuurmansfontein Road. To preserve the rural quality, this road must to remain unlit,

and streetlamps standards especially inappropriate in this context). In rural areas facing new

residential development, as in this case, no freestanding lamp standards are to be installed within

the development. Rather lighting should be provided by low level bollards (i.e. not exceeding

900mm height) or via luminaires affixed to the buildings themselves - subject to the normal

cautionary regarding naked light sources (Source Graham Jacobs).



7. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL

7.1 Description of Proposal

The developer of the property wishes to rezone the property to a sub-divisional area and to further

subdivide ‘Safariland’ into four distinct development zones, namely Zones 1 to 4, to which specific

land use rights are to be allocated. (Ref: Planning report)

Figure 33: ‘Safariland’ proposed Zones and building typology plan Rev E – updated 21 September 2015

(Image source: QMA)

Comment: With reference to the above site development plan: although larger blocks are proposed

at the south eastern portion of the site, these present their narrower facades towards

Schuurmansfontein road, (i.e. they are positioned perpendicular to the road) which impacts less than

if their broader facades were presented to the road (i.e. parallel). Smaller scale buildings are

proposed within 500m of Mandela Prison House (at the south western portion of the site); i.e. the

development proposal scales down towards the Mandela Prison House, which is positive. A landscape

‘buffer’ strip has been accommodated along the length of the Schuurmansfontein Road interface.

(The revised SDP has omitted 2 erven to accommodate the continuity of this strip).



Figure 34: ‘Safariland’ proposed landscaping plan Rev B – updated 21 September 2015

(Image source: QMA)

Comment: With reference to the above landscaping plan: The proposal allows for a landscape ‘buffer

strip along the length of Schuurmansfontein Road. This widens at the south –eastern corner of the

site (at the ‘kink’ in Schuurmansfontein Road) allowing an ‘open’ view to penetrate deeper into the

site at this point, which is commendable. The proposed landscaping in this corner seems to reference

agricultural plantings (vineyards / orchards) which is congruent with the cultural landscape character

of the valley, and alludes to former uses of the site. The suggested landscaping seems to become

more informal towards the southwest portion, which would seem to enable the ‘remote’ character of

Schuurmansfontein Road to prevail towards Mandela house.



Figure 35 Zone 1- Typical Street Scene (unit B1 Revised)

(Image source: QMA)

Zone 1, located in the north east section of the site is imagined as the Retirement Village component

of the Pearl Valley Estate and will measure 14ha. The desired uses are apartment clusters and single

dwelling units in a ratio of 60:40 with a total of 220 units which will be accompanied by appropriate

communal facilities.

The development will also contain a care component consisting of eight home care units each with

eight rooms with a unit size of 350m². The net density of this zone will be ±15.7 units/hectare and

the average occupancy will be 1.5 persons per unit. The zone will obtain access from the north

through the road infrastructure of Pearl Valley Estate. (Ref: Planning report)



Figure 36 Zone 1- Typical Street Scene (unit E1 Revised)

(Image source: QMA)

Zone 2 located in the western section of the site will consist of conventional housing in the form of a

mixture apartment clusters of two and three storey buildings as well as single dwelling units at a

ratio of 60:40 totalling 375 units at a density of 25 units/ha on the 15 ha site.

The average occupancy will be 2.5 persons per unit. (Ref: Planning report)



Figure 37: Zone 3-(3D representation) – Institutional (Medial tourism and Integrative Health Facility)

(Image source: QMA)

Zone 3 measuring 3 hectares located in the south east section of the site will be dedicated to

medical tourism and integrative health care facilities consisting of 50 visitors’ recovery units of

approximately 40m² each together with a component of consultation and therapy treatment rooms

as well as communal facilities consisting on a lounge, dining area and spa facilities.

The total estimated bulk of the buildings 3500m². It should be noted that this facility is not imagined

as a ‘hospital’, but rather an integrative, holistic health spa environment and step down operation

recovery facility. (Refer to the Planning report)



Figure 38: Zone 4-(3D representation) – Holiday Accommodation

(Image source: QMA)

Zone 4 measuring 2 hectares will be dedicated to tourist facilities in the form of short stay self-

catering cottages containing 50 units of either one or two bedrooms, a small conference facility with

amenities for 30 people and a central hub of 250m² consisting of breakfast facilities, administration

and offices.

(Refer to the Planning report)



Figure 39: Proposed 5m wide link pipeline servitude outside the existing Pearl Valley Fence

(Image source: DJEC)

As indicated above, a pipeline servitude would be required to accommodate the Bulk Infrastructure

needs of the development. This would be an extension of an existing pipeline, bringing water from

municipal water reservoirs. The servitude would be 5m wide outside the existing Pearl Valley fence,

but would not have any significant impact upon Schuurmansfontein Road.

The edge of Safariland falls within the notional ‘buffer’ zone around the Mandela Prison House, as

discussed in section 4.2.2 of this report. This buffer zone includes Schuurmansfontein Road, from its

intersection with the R301 to the Langerug gateposts, and extends approximately 30m on either side

of the edge of the road as a visual axis towards the Simonsberg Mountains beyond. Included within

this visual axis is a linear portion of the Drakenstein Correctional Services facility, parallel with the

southern edge of Schuurmansfontein Road, the outside the scope of this study. Sight of the prison

grounds and activities, however, is considered to be a suitable introduction to the Mandela Prison

House; whereas sight of residential development on the northern side is not considered suitable,

unless screened appropriately to retain a certain ‘rural quality. Recommendations for the landscape

treatment of the Southern edge of ‘Safariland’ are within the scope of this study, and are discussed

under mitigation.



7.2 Description of Alternatives

Alternative 1 (the initial proposal - as per the NID submission) included single, double and 3-storey

buildings and entailed a variety of residential and medical facilities in four zones as follows:

Zone 1 (14ha): Retirement Complex with 132 units in apartment clusters, 88 single

residential units and 8 home care units that will house 8 persons per unit.

Zone 2 (15ha): General Residential development with 225 units in apartment clusters and

150 single residential units with an average erf size of 395 m2.

Zone 3 (3ha): Medical tourism facilities which will consist of a treatment facility, private

recovery units and communal facilities with a total floor area of approximately 3500 m2.

Zone 4 (2ha): Holiday accommodation with 50 self-catering units and a small conference

facility of 250 m2that will cater for 30 persons.

Figure 40: Alternative 1 (‘Safariland’ as per NID): conceptual zoning

(Image source: QMA)



Figure 41: Alternative 1 (‘Safariland’ as per NID): conceptual landscaping

(Image source: QMA)

Many of the water features indicated above have been reduced or removed in the design revisions,

due to potential maintenance issues and practicalities, as well as safety aspects; and the perceived

benefit of incorporating more useable open spaces (for example - play grounds).

The proposed layout was reviewed and has been refined in response to design indicators, including

the heritage recommendations, towards the preparation of the ‘Alternative 2’, development option -

the current layout proposal, and preferred option.



Alternative 2 (the current proposal) includes single, double and 3-storey buildings and entails a

variety of residential and medical facilities divided into four zones as follows:

Zone 1 (14 ha) accommodating an Active Adult Community residential development;

Zone 2 (15 ha) residential development including single residential and higher density units;

Zone 3 (3 ha) incorporating a medical tourism and health care facility; and

Zone 4 (2 ha) accommodate a tourist lodge catering for short term holiday accommodation.

‘Alternative 2’ has been developed through various stages of design iteration, incorporating the

specialist inputs, especially botanical and heritage concerns.

These have been suitably accommodated within the revised layout, and therefore the ‘Alternative 2’

development proposal is considered to be the preferred option.

Figure 42: Alternative 2 (‘Safariland’ Zoning): ‘in-process’ iteration

(Image source: QMA)



Figure 43: Alternative 2 (‘Safariland’ Zoning Plan): final version

(Image source: QMA)

Comment: Note the inclusion of the 30m wide ‘buffer strip’ along the length of the Safariland /

Schuurmansfontein Road interface; a single entry and the setting back of the entrance gateway and

omission of 2 erven from within this zone.

Alternative 2 (as revised 21 September 2015) is the preferred option, as it includes the Heritage

Recommendations of the layout originally assessed by the heritage practitioners, and with

appropriate mitigation, will not substantially change the impact on the landscape setting of the

Mandela Prison House approach.



7.3 Description of the ‘No-development’ Alternative Option

The ‘no-development’ alternative option will result in the status quo of the property being

maintained. This alternative constitutes the existing rights on the property in terms of the current

zoning of Resort Zone 1 and Open Space Zone II. The property is located immediately south of the

Pearl Valley Golf Estate in the area referred to as Paarl South and is located within the Urban Edge.

Although the property was previously used as a tourist resort for game-viewing with overnight

accommodation, this operation ceased several years ago, and with the exception of a few buildings

occupied as living units, the property is no longer actively utilized. Other structures have become

dilapidated and are no longer functional. The site is characterized by fallow land, with long grass and

scattered trees including a grove of pine trees. In certain areas, the site has been used for small scale

mining, as well as various agricultural activities in the past.

The Freshwater Specialist has confirmed that the two areas within the Safariland property mapped

by the Drakenstein municipality as National Freshwater Ecosystem Protected Areas (NFEPAs) are in

fact both constructed dams: both are simply deep depressions which have been excavated and are

fed by groundwater. Furthermore, both originally extended into the property of Pearl Valley Golf

Estate, but these sections of the dams were filled-in the when Pearl Valley estate was developed.

The botanical investigation shows that the majority the Safariland site area is transformed, with

more than 95% of the original vegetation lost. A small portion [5%] of remnant vegetation occurs at

the southwestern corner and supports a small population of the vulnerable Lachnaea capitata.

The habitat is highly degraded, but due to the presence of this threatened species, is assigned a

Medium Constraint rating.

The abandoned fields support scattered plants of the near threatened Serruria fasciflora; however

these are not associated with any semi-intact or intact Swartland Alluvium Fynbos.

A ‘Low Constraint’ rating is assigned to the abandoned fields and remainder of the site due to the

lack of natural vegetation and important species.



The preparation of heritage/design indicators for future development pre-supposes that such

development is appropriate in principle.

The appropriateness of developing the site is underpinned by the following factors:

The site falls within an approved urban edge and has little agricultural value

the site falls outside of a proposed heritage overlay zone, but is adjacent heritage resources;

development will include landscaping that would rehabilitate the site environment;

Development has the potential to introduce landscaping that would safeguard and maintain

the sense of remoteness, isolation and reclusion along Schuurmansfontein Road

approaching Mandela Prison House.

For these reasons, the no-development alternative option for the site is regarded to be non-viable,

especially as the site falls within the urban edge. However the spatial nature of the development

needs to be considered carefully, because of the site’s location within close proximity of the

Mandela Prison House (a Grade 1 Heritage Resource).



8. EVALUATION OF THE DEVELOPMENT

8.1 Visual Impacts

8.1.1 Construction Phase Impacts

These include temporary, short-term scarring and dust from earthworks associated with excavation;

the introduction of temporary infrastructure (site camps storage yards); the presence of

construction workers, machinery, vehicles and equipment, as well as the removal of existing

vegetation.

8.1.2 Operational Phase Impacts

These include the impact of additional buildings, roadways and parking areas, clustering of related

buildings, the introduction of increased built form into the foreground, the effect of lighting,

increased pedestrian and vehicular activity, etc.

8.1.3 Effect on Broader Context

At the broader scale, change in visual character is negligible; due to distance from the R301 and

given that the development fits within the context of the Pearl Valley Golf Estate, but does

contribute to the loss of open landscape and the replacement of ‘farmland’ with residential

development.

8.1.4 Effect on Local Context

There is likely to be a significant effect on the sense of place of the Mandela Prison House along the

Schuurmansfontein Road interface, through increased built form, however this could be successfully

mitigated through the landscape treatment of this edge. The development proposal is congruent

with the nature and scale of the adjacent Pearl Valley development, and therefore, from visual and

heritage perspectives, the northern interface is not of particular concern.

8.1.5 Cumulative Impacts

The development undoubtedly contributes to cumulative visual impacts – especially when

considered as an extension of the Pearl Valley Estate residential / built landscape, by reducing the

extent of open space within the valley, and by transforming farmland. There is a significant danger of

effecting a significant change in the visual character of the region if the fallow farmland adjacent is

developed in future, and if the greater proportion of land within the valley does not remain

agricultural in use.



8.2 Visual Assessment Criteria

8.2.1 Extent of Visual Impacts

The spatial or geographic area of influence of the visual impact, i.e.:

• Site-related - extending only as far as the activity;

• Local - limited to the immediate surroundings;

• Regional - affecting a larger metropolitan or regional area;

• National - affecting large parts of the country;

• International - affecting areas across international boundaries.

Given the screening effect of topography, the extent of the visual impact of this proposal is localized.

8.2.2 Duration of Visual Impacts

The predicted life-span of the visual impact:

• Short term - duration of the construction phase;

• Medium term - duration for screening vegetation to mature;

• Long term - lifespan of the project;

• Permanent - where the visual impact is irreversible.

Construction phase impacts will be limited to the short term, whereas the operational phase impacts

will be long-term – until screening vegetation matures.

8.2.3 Probability of Visual Impacts

The degree of possibility of the visual impact occurring:

• Improbable - the possibility of the impact occurring is very low;

• Probable - there is a distinct possibility that the impact will occur;

• Highly probable - it is most likely that the impact will occur; or

• Definite - the impact will occur regardless of any prevention measures.

The likelihood that the visual impacts anticipated will occur is highly probable.

8.2.4 Intensity of Visual Impacts

The magnitude of the impact on views, scenic or cultural resources

• Low - where visual and scenic resources are not affected;

• Medium - where visual and scenic resources are affected to a limited extent;

• High - where scenic and cultural resources are significantly affected.

The intensity of the visual impact of the development proposal is deemed to be medium.



8.2.5 Significance of Visual Impacts

The significance of impacts can be determined through a synthesis of the aspects produced in terms of

their duration, intensity, and extent and be described as:

• Low - will not have an influence on the authority decision;

• Medium - should have an influence on the authority decision and

(in the case of negative impacts) requires management actions

to avoid or mitigate the impacts; or

• High - would have an influence on the authority decision and

(In the case of negative impacts) requires management actions to avoid or

mitigate the impacts.

Given the scale of the proposal within its context, and considering the grade 1 heritage resource

adjacent, the significance of the associated visual impacts is considered to be high.

Without mitigation, and without careful consideration of the Schuurmansfontein Road interface, the

visual impact will have a negative effect on the landscape setting of Mandela House.

However, with mitigation, the visual impacts can be reduced to medium significance, and the

negative effects may be neutralized.



8.3 Possible mitigation and site rehabilitation

Construction phases: careful environmental management measures should be enacted to prevent

damage to surrounding natural vegetation. Dust control measures should be put in place. Existing

mature trees of stature (including the remaining stone pines) should be retained where possible as

elements of the cultural landscape.

Operational phases: although the new proposed buildings meet with typology criteria within their

landscape context, additional landscaping and screen planting will reduce the visual impact further,

and help to settle and anchor the new buildings into their context. Screen and shade planting will

also help to reduce the visibility of buildings, and to provide a greater degree of privacy.

Careful consideration should be applied to the parking of vehicles – as far as possible visiting vehicles

should be parked in the shade, or screened behind berms or hedges, to prevent reflected glare from

wind shields. Parking areas should be unobtrusive and surfaced with exposed aggregate rather than

asphalt or clay brick.

The continuation of the rural character of the site is imperative, as this will contribute significantly to

the cultural landscape.



8.4 Visual Assessment Summary Tables

Table 1: Summary of key Visual Criteria assessed with respect to heritage resources

VISIBILITY: (function of general landform) View Shed (relative to elevation) (ref: 5.4.1)

5km Radius 2,5km Radius 1km Radius

5km radius

VISIBILITY: (function of general landform) View Catchment (relative to distance) (ref: 5.4.2)

5km Radius 2,5km Radius 1km Radius

2,5 radius

VISIBILITY: (modified by surface texture) Zone of Visual Influence (ref: 5.4.3)

regional local site

local

VISUAL EXPOSURE (function of elevation, visibility, and sensitivity) (ref: 5.5.3)

high medium low

moderate

VISUAL SENSITIVITY of the affected AREA (ref: 5.6.1)

high medium low

moderate

VISUAL SENSITIVITY of the affected RECEPTORS (ref: 5.6.2)

high Medium low

high

VISUAL ABSORPTION CAPACITY of site (VAC) considering existing vegetation and structures within context (ref: 5.6.3)

weak moderate strong

moderate

VAC



Table 1 (continued): Summary of key Visual Criteria assessed with respect to heritage resources

VISUAL INTRUSION of Proposal considering degree of congruence with surrounding fabric (ref: 6.1.1)

high moderate Low

moderate

VISUAL ASSIMILATION of Proposal considering degree of congruence with surrounding fabric (ref: 6.1.1)

weak moderate strong

strong

assimilation

VISUAL CONFLICT of Proposal considering degree of congruence with surrounding fabric (ref: 6.1.2)

high moderate Low

Low

conflict

VISUAL COMPATIBILITY of Proposal considering degree of congruence with surrounding fabric (ref: 6.1.2)

weak moderate Strong

moderate

compatibility



Table 2: Summary of visual impact expected with respect to heritage resources

EFFECT on Landscape Character

discussion

Foreground intrusion of built form in to landscape, removal of screening pine trees, increased traffic, increased population and

activity (building, construction, operational) etc. Change in sense of remoteness and isolation (if unmitigated)

EXTENT of Visual Impact (ref: 8.2.1)

regional local site

local area

DURATION of Visual Impact (ref: 8.2.2)

Long term Medium term Short term

Long term

PROBABILITY of Visual Impact (ref: 8.2.3)

highly probable probable improbable

highly probable

INTENSITY of Visual Impact (ref: 8.2.4)

high medium low

Medium intensity

SIGNIFICANCE of Visual Impact (ref: 8.2.5)

high medium Low

high significance

STATUS of Visual Impact (ref: 8.2.5)

negative neutral Positive

negative

Degree of CONFIDENCE

high medium low

high confidence



Table 2 (continued): Summary of visual impact expected with respect to heritage resources

MITIGATION Recommended

Recommendations

Landscape intervention (screen planting, berming etc.) to ensure retention of rural character along the development interface

with Schuurmansfontein Road.

Ensure no new built structures are placed within a 30m buffer

strip from the edge of Schuurmansfontein Road towards the site

No formal (avenue) planting along Schuurmansfontein Road -

Informal clusters of trees and shrubs are more appropriate

No solid boundary wall or visually intrusive palisade fencing along Schuurmansfontein Road – prefer welded mesh fence

integrated into landscape (hedges, etc.)

Entrance gateway to be set back from road edge

(suggested set-back distance = 30m from road edge)

Proposed erven to be setback beyond the 30 buffer strip

(this has been accommodated within the revised SDP)

Significance after Mitigation (ref: 8.2.5)

high medium low

medium

Status after Mitigation (ref: 8.2.5)

negative neutral Positive

neutral



9. CONSULTATION

9.1 DHF

Identified as an Interested and Affected Party (I&AP), the Drakenstein Heritage Foundation (DHF)

is a branch of Heritage SA - the largest and oldest heritage organisation in South Africa.

The Drakenstein Heritage Foundation's mission is to raise the general awareness and interest in

Heritage Resources. It aims to do this by assisting the authorities to carry out the principles and

provisions of the National Heritage Resources Act (NHRA) and the National Environmental

Management Act (NEMA).

The DHF associates with similar bodies nationally and internationally to further heritage

objectives. The Foundation comments, objects and appeals when necessary to proposed

developments, rezoning applications, subdivisions and/or threats to the cultural landscape.

Postal Address: Drakenstein Heritage Foundation

P.O. BOX 2646, PAARL 7620

Chair: Daniel Smit

Telephone: (021) 872 7143

Email: [email protected]

The following comment was received from Daniel Smit of the Drakenstein Heritage Foundation:

“The proposed development consists of a retirement village which constitutes an expansion

of Pearl Valley southwards up to the Schuurmansfontein Road. The committee is of the

opinion the height and bulk of the medical centre should be reduced”.

(Refer to the copy of the letter received - included within the Annexures)

Response:

The design team has confirmed that the medical facility is planned to be a single-storey

building and that the structure will be articulated through the architectural treatment to

reduce visual impact.



9.2 ACTAEM (AKSO)

Identified as an Interested and Affected Party (I&AP), ACTAEM (AKSO) is the ‘Advisory Committee

for Town Aesthetics and Environmental Matters’, represented by Ms Chantelle de Kock, Senior

Heritage Resources Officer, within the Heritage Section of the Spatial Planning department of the

Drakenstein Municipality

Primary Address: ACTAEM (AKSO)

Drakenstein Municipality

Spatial Planning - Heritage

Contact Person: Chantelle de Kock (Senior Heritage Resources Officer)

Telephone: 021-807 4818


The following comment was received via email from Chantelle de Kock:

“ACTAEM (AKSO) supported the recommendations of the HIA (draft dated 31/7/2015)

for the development of “Safariland” Rem. Farm 1265 Paarl”.

(Refer to the copy of the email response received - included within the Annexures)

mailto:[email protected]



9.3 Paarl 300 Foundation

Identified as an Interested and Affected Party (I&AP), the Paarl 300 Foundation is an NPO

established for the promotion and appreciation of the humanities, the preservation of historical

and cultural artefacts and the commemoration of historical events; it includes historical societies,

poetry and literary societies, language associations, reading promotion and war memorials.

NPO Number: 003-416 NPO

Registration Status: Registered

Date Registered: 14/12/2004 12:00:00 AM

Sector: Culture and Recreation

Objective: Culture and Arts

Postal Address: P O Box 6233, Paarl, 7622, Western Cape

Primary Address: ‘De Oude Woning’, 214 Main Road, Paarl, 7622, Western Cape

Contact Person: Elizabeth Albertyn

Telephone: (021) 872-6472

Fax: (021) 872-0904


The following comment was received from Dr Elzet Albertyn on behalf of the Paarl 300 Foundation:

“The Paarl 300 Foundation supports the findings of the HIA”

(Refer to the copy of the letter received - included within the Annexures)



9.4 SAHRA

Identified as an interested and Affected Party (I&AP), the South African Heritage Resources

Agency (SAHRA) is a statutory organisation established under the National Heritage Resources

Act, No 25 of 1999, as the national administrative body responsible for the protection of South

Africa’s cultural heritage. The Act follows the principle that heritage resources should be managed

by the levels of government closest to the community.

Primary Address: SAHRA (Head office):

111 Harrington Street, Cape Town, 8001

Postal Address: PO Box 4637, Cape Town, 8000

Telephone: (021) 462 4502

Fax: (021) 462 4509


Secondary Address: SAHRA (Built Environment & Maritime Office)

Block C, Castle of Good Hope, CAPE TOWN, 8001

Postal Address: P.O. Box 2771, CAPE TOWN, 8000

Telephone: (021) 465 2198

Fax: (021) 465 5789


Website: www.sahra.org.za

(No comments were received from SAHRA).


http://www.sahra.org.za/



10. INTERPRETATION

10.1 Conclusions

Whereas the development of ‘Safariland’ seems compatible with Drakenstein Spatial Development

Framework, and could improve the quality of the site itself, the proposal will undoubtedly affect the

current rural sense of place and landscape setting of Schuurmansfontein Road - the approach to the

Mandela Prison house at the Drakenstein Correctional Services Facility - if not carefully treated at

this interface.

Whereas the site development plan and landscaping plan do allude to careful treatment of the

interface with Schuurmansfontein Road, this landscape ‘buffer’ strip should be developed in greater

detail, and form part of the SDP submission (and be made available for visual / heritage review).

This detail should include sequential sections (suggest at 100m intervals) through the roadway and

including the first buildings within the site – to understand relative scale, landform (berming?) and

screen planting volumes, as well as proposed boundary treatment (fencing details).

From a visual / heritage perspective the development should be endorsed on condition that the

visual impact of the proposal is mitigated sufficiently, as per the recommendations that follow.



10.2 Recommendations (for design response)

The interface with Schuurmansfontein Road is of critical importance to maintain a sense of rural

quality within the local context. Even in the face of increasing development, this would help to retain

some sense of the area’s remoteness: this being the underlying factor for its choice as Mandela’s last

place of incarceration. Schuurmansfontein Road has only recently been tarred – it was previously a

gravel surface road, which has a farm more ‘rural’ connotation. However, without concrete kerbs

and with open ‘swale channels’ it retains a more rural expression that if concrete kerbs and channels

had been introduced in the typical ‘sub-urban’ engineering manner.

To retain the ‘rural’ quality and sense of ’openness’ Schuurmansfontein Road currently enjoys, (and

with reference to the area identified within the Botanical assessment report, it is recommended that

a buffer strip of minimum 30m be maintained along the length of Schuurmansfontein Road, as

indicated on plan, with appropriate landscaping. Built features should be avoided within this zone.

(This will necessitate setting back the proposed entrance gates 30m from the edge of the roadway &

omitting 2 residential erven currently indicated within this zone)

Berm and dam features may be incorporated in a manner which is sensitive to natural landform

(avoiding steep, trapezoidal berms and other landforms of rectilinear geometries that appear heavily

‘engineered’). Views towards the mountains should be maintained, and planting should retain a

wilderness quality. Indigenous vegetation consistent with the botanical assessment report ought to

be integrated as a biodiversity corridor. Formal avenues of trees are not recommended along

Schuurmansfontein Road, informal clusters of trees and large shrubs would seem more appropriate

in this context.

The design of this edge should be explored in detail and be made available for review by the

Drakenstein Municipality’s Urban Designers, Landscape Architects and Heritage Officials.

(Conceptual diagrams and precedent photographs illustrating these points were supplied to the

architects as follows)



Figure 44: ‘Safariland’ / Schuurmansfontein Road interface: conceptual section


Figure 45: ‘Safariland’ / Schuurmansfontein Road interface: conceptual plan




Figure 46: Boundary fence integrated with landscaping and partially screened by planting example: Kenrock Estate, Hout Bay’

(Image source: Google Street View)

Figure 47: Boundary fence - visually transparent, welded mesh example

(Image source: ClearVu.com)



A Landscape Context Plan (say – 1km radius) – including the approach to the prison house,

relationship and transition to farmland – beyond the borders of the site, should be included to

contextualize the proposal.

A Landscape Development Plan (preferably prepared by a SACLAP-registered Professional

Landscape Architect), incorporated as part of the Site Development Plan package, indicating the

Schuurmansfontein Road buffer strip, position of fencing, signage, lighting bollards, etc.

Indication of lighting and signage and / or (discreet) way-finding system – positions to be included on

plan. It is recommended that the site development plan address lighting and signage to the approval

of Drakenstein Municipality’s Planning Department. This requirement could become a condition of

the rezoning approval.

Irrigation and Drainage Strategy - (open, planted channels and swales recommended; no concrete

kerbs or channels, particularly within the buffer zone).

A Landscape Detailed Plan of the 30m buffer-strip / Schuurmansfontein Road interface (preferably

prepared by a SACLAP-registered Professional Landscape Architect) at (say) 1:100 scale, to include

the following:

Suggested plant species list, quantities (areas) or typologies, details of irrigation and

maintenance strategies, existing trees to be retained, sizes and species of new trees, shrubs

and groundcovers, indication of proposed paving / hard-landscaping materials and details

Details of fence / boundary treatment (no continuous solid masonry walls; – rather visually

permeable, non-obtrusive farm fences, with informal hedges and screen planting)

Incorporation of the 30m buffer strip into the holistic landscape maintenance and

management programme for the site



SUMMARY of Requirements: To accompany the development proposal, the following drawings should be included:

Landscape Context Plan – showing broader context (say 1km radius) and relationship with

neighbouring properties, transition to farmland and interface with Schuurmansfontein Road.

Landscape Development Plan – indicating trees/features to be retained, trees/features to

be removed, (retain existing windbreak, mature pine trees of stature, dam areas).

Landscape Detailed Plan – indicating the proposed soft landscaping treatment / planting

plan of the 30m wide buffer strip interface with Schuurmansfontein Road), indicating:

Suggested Plant Species list for trees, shrubs and groundcovers

(total areas, planting-out sizes, planting-out ratios, densities and quantities)

Details of proposed security / boundary treatment and provision of footways

(visually transparent, welded mesh fence recommended – no masonry walls)

Screening of parking (berming / planting – again no kerbs, paving of parking to

reflect in-situ soil colours (suggested materials - exposed aggregated / gravel areas)



11. Source Material

11.1Documents and Reports

Bauman, N. & Winter, S.; 2005:

Guideline for involving Heritage Specialists in the EIA process:

Edition 1. CSIR Report No ENV-S-C 2005 053 F. Republic of South Africa,

Provincial Government of the Western Cape, DEA&DP, Cape Town.

Oberholzer, B. 2005:

Guideline for involving Visual and Aesthetic Specialists in the EIA process:

Edition 1. CSIR Report No ENV-S-C 2005 053 F. Republic of South Africa,


Winter, S and Oberholzer, B. 2013:

Heritage and Scenic Resources: Inventory and Policy Framework for the Western Cape

A study prepared for the Western Cape Provincial Spatial Development Framework


Lize Malan Planner & Heritage Consultant:

NID + NID Graphic Material & History of the Site

2015/06/12

Heritage Western Cape:

NID Response (Auto IDs: 3406-4118)

2015/06/23

Peter G. Mons, Professional Town Planning Consultant

Application for Rezoning to Sub-divisional Area and Subdivision

of the Remainder of the Farm ‘Safariland’ No. 1265, Paarl

Planning Report draft

2015/06/08



Quentin Miller Architects

Final Safariland Architectural Guidelines

Safariland Zones and Zone Design Parameters

Safariland Typologies, Typical Units, Typical Street Scenes

Safariland Landscaping Plan Revised 2014/06/12

Paul Emms in association with Dr David J. McDonald,

Bergwind Botanical Surveys & Tours cc.

Botanical Constraints Analysis for proposed Safariland Residential Development

on Remainder of Farm 1265, Paarl, Drakenstein Municipality,

Western Cape Province,

May 2005

Groenewald Preller Architects

Nelson Mandela Prison House

Conceptual Site planning & Visitors’ Zones

2012-10-01

Mandela Prison House Relative Scale of Structures

2013-09-26

Nicolas Bauman Urban Conservation and Planning

Bauman and Winter Heritage Consultants

with Groenewald Preller Architects & Fabricate Design

Western Cape: Paarl Drakenstein:

Integrated Conservation Management Plan for Nelson Mandela Prison House

Visitors Centre Concept Plan

2013-09-23



11.2 Geographic data

GIS base information:

Strategic Development Information

Geographic Information Systems

Topo-cadastral information:

Various (topography, land use) maps

Department of Land Affairs: Mapping and Survey

South African National Government

Aerial photography & geospatial data:

GeoEye / TerraMetrics

Google-Earth Data / Google Maps

SOP, NOAA, U.S. Navy, NGA, GEBCO

Heritage Resources HOZ

DHSG



ANNEXURES



ANNEXURE ‘A’

General Declaration

I, hereby declare –

that I have acted as independent specialist in this application and have performed the work

relating to the application in an objective and fair manner, notwithstanding the fact that

resultant views and findings may be un-favourable to the applicant;

that there are no circumstances that have compromised my objectivity in performing such work;

and I have no conflicting interests in the undertaking of this work, and neither will I engage in

any such interests;

that I have expertise in conducting the specialist report relevant to this application, including

knowledge of the Act, regulations and any guidelines that have relevance to the activities

proposed within this application;

that I have undertaken to disclose to the applicant and the competent authority all information

within my possession that reasonably may have the potential to influence any decision to be

taken by the competent authority with respect to the application;

that I have undertaken to disclose to the applicant and the competent authority the objectivity of

any report, plan or document prepared by myself for submission to the competent authority to

inform any decision to be taken by the competent authority with respect to the application;

that I have complied with the Act, regulations and all other applicable legislation; that within this

form I have furnished particulars that are true and correct; and that I am aware that a false

declaration is an offence in terms of regulation 48 of the NEMA EIA Regulations and is punishable

in terms of section 24F of the Act.

Signature of the specialist:

D A V I D G I B B S P r L A r c h + P H P

Name of company:

2nd December 2015

Date:

David Gibbs PrLArch + PHP



ANNEXURE ‘B’

Consultant Data

This integrated Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment report document has been prepared compiled

by David Gibbs in association with Lize Malan and Graham Jacobs.

The authors of this document have no vested interest in the outcomes of the approvals process

associated with the development assessed in this document; nor do they stand to gain financially

from the design, construction or future management thereof. They maintain complete impartiality.

David Gibbs PrLArch + PHP; MLArch (UCT), BAS (UCT) is a Professional Heritage Practitioner

(accredited by the APHP) and Professional Landscape Architect | Environmental Planner (registered

with the SACLAP) with a foundation in architecture, a specialization in landscape architecture and

planning, and an emphasis on cultural landscape heritage.

David has served as President of the Institute for Landscape Architecture in South Africa (ILASA); as

Master of Landscape Architecture Programme Convenor at the University of Cape Town (UCT); as

Education Councillor for the South African Council for Landscape Architectural Professions (SACLAP)

and as Young Professionals Advocate for the International Federation of Landscape Architects (IFLA).

David has 14 years of practical experience in the conservation, management and development of

public and private sector interventions within the Built Environment - participating in wide spectrum

of project typologies at all stages of project lifecycles; from master-planning, programming, visual

and heritage impact assessment to conceptualization, sketch-planning, design detailing,

intervention, documentation, procurement and implementation.

Cultural landscape has become a dominant narrative and central focus of David’s professional and

academic work; and as he continues to explore this theme, he advocates the stewardship of our

shared heritage, in the collective tradition of settlement and place-making.

Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.

DETAILS OF SPECIALIST AND DECLARATION OF INTEREST

(For official use only)

File Reference Number: / / / Date Received:

Application for Environmental Authorisation in terms of the Provisions of Regulations R385, R396 and R387 promulgated in terms of the National Environmental Management Act, (NEMA) 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998), as amended

PROJECT TITLE

Safariland, Farm 1265, Paarl Heritage Impact Assessment (final) 5 October 2015

Specialist: David Gibbs PrLArch + PHP

Contact person: David Gibbs

Postal address: #32 Wellington Mews, 11 Wellington Avenue, WYNBERG, Cape Town

Postal code: 7800 Web:

Telephone: 021 762 3370 Fax:

E-mail: [email protected] Professional affiliation(s) (if any)

PrLArch # 20128 (SACLAP registered) and PHP (APHP accredited)

Project Consultant: Doug Jeffery Environmental Consultants

Contact person: Jenna Theron

Postal address: High Acres, Simondium Road, Klapmuts

Postal code: 7625 Web: www.dougjeff.co.za

Telephone: 021 875 5272 Fax: 086 660 2635

E-mail: [email protected]


Annexures

NID Response and Subsequent Correspondence, including I&AP’s comments

From: David Gibbs [mailto: [email protected]]

Sent: 13 July 2015 12:19 PM To: Guy Thomas

Cc: Jenna Theron; Lize Malan; Graham Jacobs Subject: HWC Case #: 1506110 GT061E ('Safariland')

Proposed Residential Development of Rem. Farm 1265, ‘Safariland’, Paarl, Drakenstein Dear Guy, hope you are well. Further to our discussion with Lize Malan this morning we would like to confirm our approach for the preparation of an integrated Heritage Impact Assessment - incorporating visual assessment for the proposed 'Safariland' Development. Considering the scale of the proposal within the receiving environment, (relatively large extent, within rural context) this would be a type "A" assessment, and assuming that moderate visual impact may be anticipated, (the site falls outside of any heritage over lay zones, is not highly visible from major public roads, but is within a rural / remote landscape and in proximity of a grade 1 heritage resource); Level 3 visual assessment is deemed appropriate. This level of assessment typically includes:

Identification of issues raised in scoping,

Description of the receiving environment,

Establishment of View Catchment Area, View Corridors and Receptors,

Description of the Proposed Project (visibility, visual intrusion, etc.)

Indication of potential visual impacts using established criteria

Description of alternatives, amendments and monitoring Level 3 visual impact assessment does not include 3D-modeling of the development proposal. Nonetheless, sufficient visual information will be provided within the integrated HIA to enable the committee to pronounce an informed decision. I trust this is in order - but please contact me if you have any queries or if there is anything else we should include. Best regards, David

--

David Gibbs PrLArch # 20128 (SACLAP) + PHP (APHP); MLArch (UCT), BAS (UCT) LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT | ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER + HERITAGE PRACTITIONER email: [email protected] telephone: +27(0) 21 762 3370 mobile: +27(0) 72 396 5892



tel:%2B27%280%29%2021%20762%203370

tel:%2B27%280%29%2072%20396%205892

Annexures

Design Response to HIA requirements

Figure 48: Landscape Context Plan

(Image source: QMA)

“The site, surrounded by the Franschhoek Mountains, has a feeling of rural expanse. In the

conceptual site development plan, vistas are used along the internal circulation routes to maintain

the sense of openness. This is being applied on the vehicular routes and on the pedestrian pathways

that are informal and meandering”.

(Ref: Safariland Architectural Guidelines - Quentin Miller Architects)

Comment: With reference to the Landscape Context plan above, the Safariland’ proposal is of similar

scale and proportion to the adjacent to the Pearl Valley Golf Estate, and may be viewed as a visual

continuation of the existing pattern.

The Schuurmansfontein Road interface edge has been provided with a 30m landscape ‘buffer’ set-

back, as per the heritage and visual recommendations.

Figure 49: Landscape Development Plan

(Image source: QMA)

“Low shrubs and ground covers are being used to maintain the sense of space. Around the perimeter,

taller shrubs provide screening from public roads. Lake features and dams provide a tranquil and

relaxed setting, as well as a therapeutic environment”

(Ref: ‘Safariland’ Architectural Guidelines - Quentin Miller Architects)

Comment: In response to the heritage and visual considerations, the revised SDP proposal allows for

the 30m landscape ‘buffer’ strip along the length of the Schuurmansfontein Road, with the

development set back from this interface. This allows sufficient space to conserve the landscape

setting of the Mandela Prison House approach road, and to retain the rural character so essential to

preserve its meaning. Landscape Detail concepts are illustrated in the drawings that follow, and

should be used to inform the preparation of the Detailed Landscape Plan.

Figure 50: Landscape Details Plan: Schuurmansfontein Interface

(Image source: QMA)

Figure 51: Landscape Details Plan: Schuurmansfontein Interface

(Image source: QMA)