SECTION F: APPENDICES

SECTION F: APPENDICES

Appendix A: Site plan(s) ................................................................................................................................................... 1

A-1 Locality Map showing 67 River Street (Erf 1327) ............................................................................................ 1

A-2 Site Plan of 67 River Street (Erf 1327) ............................................................................................................ 2

A-3 Topographical Plan or 67 River Street (Erf 1327), as surveyed in March 2013............................................... 3

A-4 Revised Site Plan of 67 River Street (Erf 1327), confirming Erf Boundary points ........................................... 4

A-5 Municipal Drawing Set for proposed dwelling at 67 River Street (Erf 1327) .................................................... 5

A-5.1 East & North Elevations ........................................................................................................................... 5

A-5.2 South & West Elevations ......................................................................................................................... 5

A-5.3 Ground Floor Level from Above ............................................................................................................... 5

A-5.4 Lower Ground Floor Level from Above .................................................................................................... 5

A-5.5 Longitudinal Section from NW ................................................................................................................. 5

A-5.6 Site Plan .................................................................................................................................................. 5

A-6 Design Alternative for proposed dwelling at 67 River Street (conservancy tank below the pool deck) ........... 6

A-7 Site Drawing showing vegetation to be removed ............................................................................................ 7

A-8 Protected Species on Erf 1327 and recommended action for each required prior to construction .................. 8

Appendix B: Site Photographs .......................................................................................................................................... 9

Appendix C: Facility illustration(s) .................................................................................................................................. 10

C-1 Original isometric drawings of the proposed residential dwelling (presented in the Draft BAR) .................... 10

C-2 Original concept plan of the proposed residential dwelling from above (presented in the Draft BAR)........... 11

C-3 Street view conceptual design of the proposed residential dwelling at 67 River Street (Presented in the Draft BAR) 12

Appendix D: Specialist reports ....................................................................................................................................... 13

D-1: Specialist Declaration Form .............................................................................................................................. 13

D-2: Ecological Specialist Report .............................................................................................................................. 14

Appendix E: Public Participation ..................................................................................................................................... 15

E-1 Site Notice ..................................................................................................................................................... 15

E-2 Advertisements .............................................................................................................................................. 15

E-3 Interested & Affected Parties’ (I&AP’s) Database ......................................................................................... 18

E-4 Notification of Stakeholders ........................................................................................................................... 22

E-4.1 Background information document (BID) ............................................................................................... 22

E-4.2 Notification Letters ........................................................................................................................................ 27

E-4.3 Comments & Responses Summary (Interested & Affected Parties) ...................................................... 33

E-4.4 Proof of correspondence with Interested & Affected Parties and Juristic Organs of State .................... 48

E-4.5 Letter of Objection – Mr Adriaan van den Berg ..................................................................................... 49

E-4.6 Permit issued by the Eastern Cape Provincial Heritage Resources Authority ....................................... 50

Appendix F: Environmental Management Programme (EMPr) ...................................................................................... 51

Page | 1

Appendix A: Site plan(s)

A-1 Locality Map showing 67 River Street. Note the properties have now been consolidated and are now Erf 1327.

Page | 2

A-2 Initial Site Plan of 67 River Street (Erf 75 & 76). Note the properties have now been consolidated and are now Erf 1327.

Page | 3

A-3 Topographical Plan or 67 River Street (Erf 1327), as surveyed in March 2013.

Page | 4

A-4 Revised Site Plan of 67 River Street (Erf 1327), confirming Erf Boundary points

Page | 5

A-5 Municipal Drawing Set for proposed dwelling at 67 River Street (Erf 1327)

The drawings of this preferred alternative are attached in the following order:

A-5.1 East & North Elevations

A-5.2 South & West Elevations

A-5.3 Ground Floor Level from Above

A-5.4 Lower Ground Floor Level from Above

A-5.5 Longitudinal Section from NW

A-5.6 Site Plan

Page | 6

A-6 Design Alternative for proposed dwelling at 67 River Street (conservancy tank below the pool deck)

Page | 7

A-7 Site Drawing showing vegetation to be removed

Page | 8

A-8 Protected Species on Erf 1327 and recommended action for each required prior to construction

Page | 9

Appendix B: Site Photographs

North West

North North East

West

ERF 75 & 76

East

South West

South South East

Page | 10

Appendix C: Facility illustration(s)

C-1 Original isometric drawings of the proposed residential dwelling (presented in the Draft BAR)

Page | 11

C-2 Original concept plan of the proposed residential dwelling from above (presented in the Draft BAR)

Page | 12

C-3 Street view conceptual design of the proposed residential dwelling at 67 River Street (Presented in the Draft BAR)

Page | 13

Appendix D: Specialist reports

D-1: Specialist Declaration Form

Page | 14

D-2: Ecological Specialist Report

Page | 15

Appendix E: Public Participation

E-1 Site Notice

E-2 Advertisements Arrangements were made for the following notice to be placed in the Talk of the Town newspaper on Thursday 29th August 2013 and in the Daily Dispatch on Friday 30th August 2013.

NOTICE OF BASIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS & RELEASE OF DRAFT BASIC

ASSESSMENT REPORT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW

Proposed Construction at 67 River Road, Bushman’s River,

Ndlambe Local Municipality

Notice is hereby given, in terms of Regulation 54(2) Government Notice No. R543 of the National Environmental Management Act (Act 107 of 1998), as amended, of the above mentioned Basic Environmental Assessment Process. The owner of the property, No. 67 River Road (Erven 75&76), is proposing demolition and construction activities for the purposes of building a new residential dwelling. The proposed project will involve listed activities in terms of GN R 544 (activity 11, 16, 18 & 40) and GN R 546 (Activity 12) and therefore requires a Basic Environmental Assessment. Conservation Support Services (CSS) has been appointed to undertake the Basic Assessment Process and you are hereby invited to register as an Interested & Affected Party (I&AP). The Draft Basic Assessment Report will be available for public review from 02 September to 07 October 2013. A copy of the document will be available at the Kenton-on-Sea Public Library and on the CSS website: www.cssgis.co.za/documents Comments or queries may be addressed to Ms Sandy van der Waal - [email protected], 046 622 4526

Page | 16

Proof of the advert appearing in the Talk of the Town newspaper on Thursday 29th August 2013:

Page | 17

Proof of the advert appearing in the Daily Dispatch newspaper on Friday 30th August 2013:

Page | 18

E-3 Interested & Affected Parties’ (I&AP’s) Database

Name Organisation Tel Fax Cell Email Address

Environmental Affairs

Mark Ralph (Basic Assessment Case Officer)

Department of Economic Development, Environmental Affairs & Tourism (PE)

041508 5885 086226 3877 [email protected] P/Bag X5001, Greenacres, 6057

Carin Swart Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (Grahamstown: Permit for removal of Cycads and other plant species)

0466227216 [email protected]

Department of Water Affairs

Marisa Bloem Department of Water Affairs: Port Elizabeth Branch

0415010717 0865605042 0832329822 [email protected] Private Bag X6041, 6000

Renaldo Nell Department of Water Affairs: Port Elizabeth (WULA)

0415010708 [email protected]

Thabo Nokoyo Department of Water Affairs (King Williams Town: Permit for removal of Protected trees)

[email protected]

Department of Agriculture, Forestry & Fisheries

Ms Gwendoline Sgwabe Department of Agriculture, Forestry & Fisheries (Permits for removal of protected species)

[email protected]

Ndlambe Local Municipality

LE Khoathani Ward 3 Councillor, Ndlambe Municipality 0466241140 0824031000 [email protected] P.O. Box 13, Port Alfred, 6170

SJ (Fanie) Fouche Deputy-Director: Community Protection Services, Ndlambe Municipality

0466241140 ext 223

0466042702 0827531716 [email protected] P.O. Box 13, Port Alfred, 6170

Other Key Stakeholders

Mr Sello Mokhanya Eastern Cape Provincial Heritage Resources Agency

043745 0888 043745 0889 [email protected] Dept of Roads & Public Works Building, Cnr Amalinda & Scholl Roads, CAMBRIDGE, 5247 P.O. Box 16208

Page | 19

Name Organisation Tel Fax Cell Email Address

Amathole Valley 5616

Africa Fishile Administration Officer - ECPHRA 043745 0888 043745 0889 0842787 590 [email protected] Dept of Roads & Public Works Building, Cnr Amalinda & Scholl Roads, CAMBRIDGE, 5247 P.O. Box 16208 Amathole Valley 5616

Margaret Crampton WESSA (Grahamstown Branch) 046224764 083635 0970 [email protected] PO Box 73, Grahamstown

Neighbours

Lynn Basson 0818464334 [email protected] 54 River Road, Bushman's River

Mr Tucker Box 137; Mandeni; 4490

Jonathan Jones Perrott Van Niekrk Woodhose Matyolo Inc 011784 7679 [email protected]

John Perrott

Owner of house No. 70 River Road (Behind construction)

0413687274 0763602823 [email protected] 18 Aldersgate, Pheasant Road, Greenshields Park, Port Elizabeth 6070

Gerrit Pretorius AJ Van Der Berg Estate - owner of property (68 River Road) directly behind Erven 75&76

[email protected] G C Pretorius SC, Island Group of Advocates, Private Bag X 26, Benmore 2010

Adriaan van den Berg AJ Van Der Berg Estate - owner of property (68 River Road) directly behind Erven 75&76

0839436474 [email protected] PO Box 378 Sedgefield, 6573

Dr Erika van den Berg AJ Van Der Berg Estate - owner of property (68 River Road) directly behind Erven 75&76

0865471661

083325 6111

[email protected] PO Box 738 Sedgefield, 6573 Kalanderkloof Farm Barrington Rd District,

Page | 20

Name Organisation Tel Fax Cell Email Address

Knysna

Rulan Heunis 082 9609248 [email protected] Erf 41, Bushman's River

Bushman’s River Mouth Ratepayers Association (BRRAG)

Sheila Swanepoel Chairman: Bushmans River Mouth Ratepayers Association (BRRAG)

[email protected]

Andrew Murray Member [email protected]

Anton Vosloo Member [email protected]

Bill & Annabelle Northrop Member [email protected]

Fanie Venter Member [email protected]

Gerald Schmidt Member

[email protected], [email protected]

Lotter Wepener Member [email protected]

Pieter Mouton Member [email protected]

Walter Biggs Member [email protected]

Wendy Grove Member [email protected]

UNISA Environmental Students (interested in observing a Basic Assessment process)

Ms Bulelwa Bottoman UNISA

0836149784 [email protected] 101 Lilac Court, Pearson Street, Central Port Elizabeth 6001

Mr. Athi Mfikili UNISA 0466229899

0732102222 [email protected] 18 Somerset Street, South African Environmental Observation Network, Grahamstown 6139

Mr Thokozane Magagula UNISA

0791201092 [email protected] G 03 Humewood Gardens, Cranwell Drive, Humewood, Port Elizabeth, 6001.

Mr Elliot Motsoahole UNISA

0835425619 [email protected] P.O Box 162, Port Elizabeth, 6001

Mr Enoch Leleka UNISA

0833956836 [email protected] P.O. Box 80, Uitenhage, 6230

Page | 21

Name Organisation Tel Fax Cell Email Address

Mr Vusumzi Sihawu UNISA

0838927453 [email protected] 1 Advale, 03 Collette Street, Adcockvale, Port Elizabeth, 6001

Page | 22

E-4 Notification of Stakeholders

E-4.1 Background information document (BID)

Page | 23

Page | 24

Page | 25

Page | 26

Page | 27

E-4.2 Notification Letters

Page | 28

Page | 29

Page | 30

Page | 31

Page | 32

Page | 33

E-4.3 Comments & Responses Summary (Interested & Affected Parties) Raised by Date of initial

correspondence Method of communication

Issue Response

Rulan Heunis 28.03.13 Email As an owner of land adjacent to Erven 75 & 76, Boesmansriviermond, I hereby wish to submit my comments regarding the proposed construction on said land, in terms of the legislation and regulations quoted in your letter. The properties situated along the western bank of the Bushmans River, south of the R72-bridge, were originally (almost 100 years ago), set out specifically as holiday stands. The width of the properties were then made sufficient to only allow an ox wagon to be able to make a U-turn on the property, i.e. ±15 meters, and the size of the erven were kept small, typically 650sq.m. only. The narrow width and small size of the erven has had the consequence that the indigenous vegetation on this portion of the river bank has over time almost been decimated by residential development along the bank. The original thin strip of indigenous vegetation of this particular portion of the river bank is unique. Whereas the western bank has always had a significantly lower average annual rainfall compared to that of the opposing (eastern) bank, due to the fact that it is sheltered from precipitation brought in by the prevailing westerly winds, the western bank has always had a significantly stronger and constant supply of underground water siphoning from the large, spongy catchment area lying just west of the river bank (Marselle etc.). This unique environmental condition has resulted in large specimens of very rare tree species occurring uniquely along the lower western bank of the river. It includes species such as the endemic Olinia micrantha (Common name: Eastern Cape Hardpear), Ochna serrulata (Carnival Ochna), Ochna arborea (Coldbark Ochna), Pleurostylia capensis

Response by Dylan Weyer (Email, March 2013) “We are currently awaiting the completion of a Specialist Ecological Assessment for this proposed construction, which will address the vegetation on site. This, along with a 'comments and responses report', into which your comments will be placed, will then appear in our Draft Basic Assessment Report (BAR), which will be made available to the public for review” Response by Sandy van der Waal (Email, 28 August 2013) This email serves to inform you that I have since taken over the public liaison from Mr Weyer and would like to inform you of the following details: The Draft Basic Assessment Report (including the Ecological Specialist Study) will be submitted to DEDEAT in Port Elizabeth and will be available for public review from the 02 September – 07 October. You will be able to access a hard copy from the Kenton On Sea Public Library and an electronic copy of the documents on our website (www.cssgis.co.za/documents) for the duration of the public review period. In response to your concerns regarding the vegetation on site and species you mentioned; Ms Deborah Vromans (the Ecological Specialist), did not find either of the species you mentioned being on the property (Pleurostylia capensis/Coffee Pear and Eugenia natalitia/Forest Myrtle) during her specialist study. For further clarification however, Ms Vromans would like to meet you on site, in order for you to point out these trees and for further clarification to be made regarding identification.

Page | 34

Raised by Date of initial correspondence

Method of communication

Issue Response

(Coffee Pear) and Eugenia natalitia (Forest Myrtle). There are two fully grown specimens of Pleurostylia capensis, located in the south-eastern corner of Erf 75, and there is also one large specimen of Eugenia natalitia, located in the lower half and more or less in the centre of the area represented by erven Erf 75&76 in combination. In total there are only 4 Pleurostylia capensis trees surviving along the lower river bank (including the specimens on Erf 75). The Eugenia natalitia specimen on Erf 75/76 is the only surviving one, to my knowledge. Both species are beautiful and truly rare trees. It would be a great pity and an environmental loss if they were to be removed to make room for construction. I hope that, with the owners being made aware of the rarity of trees mentioned above, they will take the fact into account in the proposed construction work to be done on the erven. Response by Rulan Heunis (Email, 28 August 2013) Hi, I would be delighted to point out the trees to Ms. Vromans. She can contact me at cell 0829609248 to make the necessary arrangements, any time. Regards.

Please could you liaise with her directly about a potential site visit tomorrow? Or perhaps another time at your earliest convenience? I have cc’d her into this mail so you have her email address. Response by Sandy van der Waal (Email, 29 August 2013) Morning Mr Heunis Thanks so much for your response. I’ll forward your details on to Deborah. Take care

Gerrit Pretorius

01.04.13 Email 1 The estate of the late AJ van den Berg is the registered owner of erf 72. His son, also AJ van den Berg and I am the executors. The property will be transferred to a trust. The beneficiaries are the deceased’s 3 children, his son, my wife Estelle and another daughter Alida. 2 Will you please register the estate as an interested and affected party and send all communications to me at this

Response by Dylan Weyer (Email, 03 April 2013) Thank you very much for your response, your contact details have been added to our Interested and Affected Parties (I&AP) database. The building plans for the proposed development will be included in our Draft Basic Assessment Report which will be made available to the public for review. We will keep you informed regarding the release date of this document and how to access a copy.

Page | 35

Raised by Date of initial correspondence

Method of communication

Issue Response

email address. If you want to send anything to me by surface mail please use the following address: “ G C Pretorius SC, Island Group of Advocates, Private Bag X 26, Benmore 2010.” 3 If you have building plans I shall appreciate if you could forward a copy of the plans to me. Our immediate concern is what impact, if anything, the proposed development will have on the view from erf 72. Response by Mr Pretorius (Email, 03 April 2013) Dear Mr Weyer Thank you. Response by Mr Pretorius (Email, 22 May2013) Dear Sandy No. Our house is directly opposite erven 75 & 76. On the municipal accounts it is reflected as River road 68. I shall appreciate it if you will acknowledge receipt and keep me informed. Kind regards Gerrit Pretorius Response by Mr Pretorius Email, 28 August 2013) Thanks.

Response by Sandy van der Waal (Email, 22 May 2013) Dear Mr Pretorius Thank you for your response regarding the above mentioned Basic Assessment. I believe Mr Dylan Weyer has been in touch with you. We are currently compiling our Draft Basic Assessment Report and thus obtaining more information which we will be able to release to the public in due course. Just to clarify, is your property No. 72 River Road? I’ve just quickly looked up Erf 72 and wanted to confirm if your house is Erf 72 (see pic attached) or No. 72 River Road? Many thanks Sandy Response by Sandy van der Waal (Email, 22 May 2013) Thanks for such a prompt reply Mr Pretorius, I will update our records accordingly. I’ll be in touch with the architects soon and will keep you informed. Response by Sandy van der Waal (Email, 28 August 2013) We are currently compiling our Draft Basic Assessment Report for the proposed construction activities occurring at the above mentioned property. I believe that Mr Dylan Weyer was previously in touch with you regarding this assessment and received the following response from you: “Our immediate concern is what impact, if anything, the proposed development will have on the view from erf 72." To which he responded via email: "The building plans for the proposed development will be included in our Draft Basic Assessment Report which will be made available

Page | 36

Raised by Date of initial correspondence

Method of communication

Issue Response

to the public for review. We will keep you informed regarding the release of this document and how to access a copy." This email serves to inform you that I have since taken over the public liaison from Mr Weyer and would like to inform you of the following details: The Draft Basic Assessment Report will be submitted to DEDEAT in Port Elizabeth and will be available for public review from the 02 September – 07 October. You will be able to access a hard copy from the Kenton On Sea Public Library and an electronic copy of the documents on our website (www.cssgis.co.za/documents) for the duration of the public review period. In response to your concerns regarding the view from Erf 72; although the building designs are still to be finalised, it is the intention that the ‘ground level’ for the structure will be at the current street level. Therefore the view (and height) from the street (and from Erf 72), will be that of a single story house (in line with the stipulations of the Town Planning Regulations for Bushman’s River). Given the slope of the property, the house will have a second ‘storey’ below this level, thus making it a two storey building. Provisional design drawings will be available in the Draft Basic Assessment Report. Response by Sandy van der Waal (Email, 18 October 2013) This email serves to keep you informed about the progress of the Basic Environmental Assessment for the above mentioned project and provide you with more information that you have previously requested. The municipal drawing set for the proposed residential building has now been obtained from FDT Architects. With regards to your previous concerns about the height of the building (and the view of the structure from your property), please see the attached drawing. It is possible to note

Page | 37

Raised by Date of initial correspondence

Method of communication

Issue Response

from the attached plan that the proposed height of the building (from the street level to the highest point of the roof) is given as 4882mm (4.9m). We will be updating the Draft Basic Assessment Report to include the additional plans (including the attached) and releasing the documents again for the public to review. You will however, be kept informed as to when this additional review period will be. Many thanks, Sandy

Adriaan van den Berg

27.01.14 Email Please find attached explaining our great concern regarding the proposed new dwelling on 67 River Street. I will be obliged if you could respond as soon as possible.

Please see Appendix E4.5 –Letter of objection Response by Mr van den Berg (Email, 11 February 2014) I am sending you this e-mail in response to a verbal discussion I had with Richard regarding our objection raised as per my previous note to you. What we hope to achieve is to minimize the impact on our property without compromising the owner's objectives and requirements to the satisfaction of both parties. In the first instance I would like to point out that the obstruction of our view is in fact worse than indicated in my previous letter since we took the height measurement from the pavement and not from the actual highest point some 9m further. We accept that the owner is executing the project within his rights and according to the relevant laws but would request that some serious consideration be given to the lowering of the roof line.

Response by Sandy van der Waal (Email, 28 January 2014) Dear Mr van den Berg Thank you for your correspondence regarding the proposed dwelling at 67 River Street. I will include your letter of objection and (details of the expected visual impact) in our Final Basic Assessment Report, which will be considered by Environmental Affairs. With regards to your request for an urgent meeting, I will notify the owner of the property and let you know the outcome. Erika, I received your email requesting access to the Draft BAR documents again. Would you like me to send you a drop box link to these files (as they will be too big to email)? Response by Sandy van der Waal (Email, 12 February 2014) Thank you very much for your email. I will forward this onto Mr Smith shortly and provide you with feedback as soon as possible. Many thanks

Page | 38

Raised by Date of initial correspondence

Method of communication

Issue Response

This can be achieved by a combination of three ways: Please see Appendix E4.5

Email objection letter 2 Response by Mr van den Berg (Email, 04 March 2014) Hi Sandy, Please find my letter concerning the withdrawal of our Objection. As you will notice, we have not yet received any written confirmation of any firm commitment to reduce the building height from the Owner/Architect? We have also agreed to meet with the owner and architect in April at Boesmans to resolve any outstanding issues. Regards,

Please see Appendix E4.5 Withdrawal of Objection

Email from Sandy van der Waal (Email, 04 March 2014) Dear Mr van den Berg I have heard from Mr Smith and Chris Hattingh at FDT Architects. Chris noted the following: “I spoke to Adriaan van den Beg telephonically on Wednesday this week regarding the meeting that took place in Sedgefield Wednesday 19th of February. Francois Theron, Principal Architect, from FDT Architects met with the complainant, Mr Adriaan van den Berg to discuss his objection regarding the new dwelling at ERF 1327 Bushmans River Mouth. Francois went there with the intention of being proactive regarding Mr van den Berg's concerns. Mr van den Berg verbally confirmed that he would officially withdraw his objection, and he noted that we are operating within our legal parameters. He just mentioned as well that he would still like the Architectural Practice, FDT Architects cc, to look at possibly lowering the level of the roof pitch. This matter will be looked into further within the next couple of weeks.” Please could confirm that the above details are correct and that you are no longer objecting to the proposed activities on Erf 1327 (67 River Street)? Many thanks, Sandy Email from Sandy van der Waal (Email, 05 March 2014) Dear Mr van den Berg

Page | 39

Raised by Date of initial correspondence

Method of communication

Issue Response

Thank you so much for your prompt response. I have noted that the withdrawal of your objection is subject to all efforts being made to “achieve the target lowering of the building by 1 meter”. Thank you again for your input, Sandy

Chris Hattingh (FDT Architect)

28. 02.14 Email Hi Sandy I spoke to Adriaan van den Beg telephonically on Wednesday this week regarding the meeting that took place in Sedgefield Wednesday 19th of February. Francois Theron, Principal Architect, from FDT Architects met with the complainant, Mr. Adriaan van den Berg to discuss his objection regarding the new dwelling at ERF 1327 Bushmans River Mouth. Francois went there with the intention of being proactive regarding Mr. van den Berg's concerns. Mr. van den Berg verbally confirmed that he would officially withdraw his objection, and he noted that we are operating within our legal parameters. He just mentioned as well that he would still like the Architectural Practice, FDT Architects cc, to look at possibly lowering the level of the roofpitch. This matter will be looked into further within the next couple of weeks. Kind Regards

Erika van den Berg

23.01.14 Email Dear Sandy I would like to view the said report again, but am unable to access your website. Could you perhaps e-mail the document to me?

Response by Sandy van der Waal (Email, 29 January 2014) Hi Erika

Page | 40

Raised by Date of initial correspondence

Method of communication

Issue Response

Response by Erika van den Berg (Email, 28 January 2014) Hi Sandy Thank you for the reply to my husband. I have obtained a copy of the report. After reading the report again, I again noticed that you made mention of residents indicating loss of view as a possible negative impact (Section D, Item 1.). Nowhere in the report it has been taken on board and no impacts have been recorded in terms of the built environment. The main emphasis of the report deals with the natural environment. I do think a visual impact analysis is necessary, negative impacts should be recorded and design alternatives to mitigate the negative impacts should be explored. For interest sake I would like to mention that my daughter is an architect, my son-in-law a structural engineer and I am a landscape architect. I think we may be able to have a meaningful discussion and get the best outcome for all involved.

Thank you for your email. The potential negative impacts on neighbouring properties (in terms of the view) was not considered to be a highly significant one during the compilation of the Draft BAR. Reasons for this included the compliance of the proposed plans (more specifically, the height of the roof at street level) with the Bushman’s River Mouth Municipal bylaws. However, as part of the Public Participation Process, interested and affected parties have the right to comment on proposed activities and play a valuable role in the overall environmental assessment process. Thank you again for coming forward with your concerns. Mr van den Berg’s letter of objection and details regarding the proposed new dwelling’s effect on your view will be included in the Final BA Report. This will provide a measure of the impact to all who occupy the house at 68 River street. Thank you for your offer to contribute to discussions given your (and your family’s) experience in these cases. I have informed the property owner of the request to meet to and/or discuss this matter. I will let you know once I have heard from him. I will be in touch when I have more details for you.

Hennie Stassen 04.03.14 Email Hi Sandy, My name is Hennie Stassen and was at the meeting referred to. I believe that Mr. van den Berg will still inform you in writing of his decision. However, I need to correct you in your interpretation of the meeting. The retraction of the objection was on an agreement that the roof line on apex of the new house will be lowered by 1 (one) meter from that currently shown on plan. This was a compromise from the 1.88 meter that would be required to have no impact on our current view. In our opinion this will be achievable and it was not agreed that the architect will “look at

Response by Sandy van der Waal (Email, 04 March 2014) Dear Hennie Thank you for that clarification. I have spoken to Mr. van den Berg and I’m expecting his response via email this evening. I will however, include this information into our Final report. Many thanks,

Page | 41

Raised by Date of initial correspondence

Method of communication

Issue Response

possibly” lowering the roof line. It was also going to be looked into rather earlier than later. Regards, Hennie Stassen Pr. Eng

Lynn Basson 12.04.13 Email I have read the notification for Erven 75&76, Bushmans River Mouth with great interest. I am concerned about the destruction and depletion of the indigenous bush in the village, and especially on the river bank. I trust that adequate environmental assessment and due diligence will be followed to assure sensible and appropriate protection of the erfs' natural flora. In compromise is there any way that a win/win opportunity to save some of the vegetation that can be viably relocated? I for one would be very willing to transplant small trees and shrubs in our property. If we can 're-housed' at least some of the flora we can retain as much of the biodiversity as possible. In this way the village can at least benefit in part by what is ostensibly over exploitation of our natural resources. Bushman's River after all is known for its nature and that is the appeal that we stand to lose by wanton over exploitation such as this development implies. Yours faithfully Lynn Basson Response by Lynn Basson (Email, 30 September 2013) Dear Sandy In principle we would be happy to re-house some of the vegetation. Do you know what needs to re-planted, how much/many and the sizes? Would we need to dig the plants out ourselves and at our cost? Ie for larger trees/bushes? When would this happen? As we live in Cape Town, but will

Response by Dylan Weyer (Email, 12 April 2013) Thank you very much for your response. We are currently awaiting the completion of a Specialist Ecological Assessment for this proposed construction, which will address the vegetation on site. This, along with a 'comments and responses report', into which your comments will be placed, will then appear in our Draft Basic Assessment Report (BAR), which will be made available to the public for review. I have registered you as an interested and affected party (I&AP) and will notify you of the release of this document. Best regards Dylan Weyer Response by Sandy van der Waal (Email, 28 August 2013) We are currently compiling our Draft Basic Assessment Report for the proposed construction activities occurring at the above mentioned property. I believe that Mr Dylan Weyer was previously in touch with you regarding this assessment. Thank you for your input. This email serves to inform you that I have since taken over the public liaison from Mr Weyer and let you know the progress of the Basic Assessment process: The Draft Basic Assessment Report (BAR) will be submitted to DEDEAT in Port Elizabeth and will be available for public review from the 02 September – 07 October. You will be able to access a hard copy from the Kenton On Sea Public Library and an electronic copy of the documents on our website (www.cssgis.co.za/documents) for the duration of the public review period.

Page | 42

Raised by Date of initial correspondence

Method of communication

Issue Response

be in Bushmans for most of October. We could also be here from the end of January next year. Would we get advice on how and where to re-plant and the aftercare? Thanks for keeping me informed. Lynn Basson Response by Lynn Basson (Email,02 October 2013) Hi Sandy To simplify things, I have no problem with you giving the relevant parties my contact details. My understanding is that the Aloe and Strelitzia will potentially also be re-planted on our property and we will then need to have the permit? Is this correct? Thanks for keeping in touch. Kind regards Lynn

In response to your concerns regarding the removal of vegetation on site (email on 12 April 2013), the Environmental Management Programme (Appendix F of the Draft BAR) will include recommendations to transplant indigenous vegetation where possible. Further response by Sandy van der Waal (Email, 30 September 2013) We are busy finalizing the details for our Final Basic Assessment Report for the proposed construction of a new residential dwelling at 67 River Road. After consultation with the Environmental Affairs office in Grahamstown (responsible for issuing permits for the removal/moving of protected plant species), we have established that the protected Aloe Species and the Strelitzia’s on the property may be removed and either planted in another location on the same property, or the landowner is free to donate these to whoever he wishes as long as a letter of donation accompanies the transport of these plants off the site. Following your offer to “transplant small trees and shrubs in (y)our property” in a previous email (dated 13 April 2013), would you like me to pass on your contact details, should the landowner want these plants removed from site and if so, may ‘donate’ these protected plants to you for replanting elsewhere? I will wait for your response before passing on your details. Response by Sandy van der Waal (Email, 02 October 2013) Thank you for your willingness to help. We are not sure yet of exactly which plants/trees will be removed as the land owner will need to make this decision. What I will recommend is that the owner (or architects) identify

Page | 43

Raised by Date of initial correspondence

Method of communication

Issue Response

which individuals will need to be removed (including those protected by law) and liaise with you directly as to which ones are permitted to leave the property. Protected species (Aloe and Strelitzia) will need to be accompanied by a letter from the land owner authorising their removal and transplanting. I will also recommend that it will be the contractor’s responsibility (and for the contractor’s expense) to remove all unwanted indigenous vegetation within the development footprint in a manner that would allow for transplanting. This should be done before the construction phase commences. I believe that it is the intension for construction to begin early next year, however this will be subject to approval and authorisation by the Ndlambe Municipality and Environmental Affairs. I will follow up about the relevant people or organisation who would be able to assist you with regards to where to replant relevant plants/trees and how to provide adequate care. Response by Sandy van der Waal (Email, 02 October 2013) Hi Lynn I will pass on your details, thank you. It is my understanding that if you receive the plants with the necessary letter from the property owner, that would be enough. I will request that the property owner confirms this and subsequently liaises with you directly.

Mr John Perrott, owner of house, No. 70 River street

01.05.13 Letter There is just one point about which we are concerned in the proposal as submitted. This is in regard to be an elevation of the roof of the existing garage. At present the height of the roof of the existing garage, whose position we note will remain, allows us the only view of the river we have from the veranda on No. 70 River Rd. we would be quite happy to see the present garages retained as they are, but should it be felt

Response by Sandy van der Waal (Email & Letter, July 2013) With regards to your concern about the new height of the building at road level, these details, along with the necessary environmental impact assessment and supporting documentation will be presented in a draft Basic Assessment Report, which will be available for public review. As a registered Interested and Affected Party, you

Page | 44

Raised by Date of initial correspondence

Method of communication

Issue Response

necessary to raise the roof height, we feel it would be necessary to submit an objection to the Scheme.

will be informed of the dates that this document will be available and where to access a copy. Please note that all correspondence received by the public, including your comments to date, will be included in this Assessment Report. Response by Sandy van der Waal (Email & Letter, August 2013) We are currently compiling our Draft Basic Assessment Report, which will be submitted to DEDEAT in Port Elizabeth and available for public review from the 02 September – 07 October. You will be able to access a hard copy from the Kenton On Sea Public Library and an electronic copy of the documents on our website (www.cssgis.co.za/documents) for the duration of the public review period. In response to your previous concerns regarding the view from Erf 72 (your correspondence via post); Although the building designs are still to be finalised, it is the intention that the ‘ground level’ for the structure will be at the current street level. Therefore the view (and height) from the street, will be that of a single story house (in line with the stipulations of the Town Planning Regulations for Bushman’s River). Given the slope of the property, the house will have a second ‘storey’ below this level, thus making it a 2 storey building. Provisional design drawings will be available in the Appendices of the Draft Basic Assessment Report that will be released next week. Response by Sandy van der Waal (18 October, 2013) Dear Mr Perrott I trust all is well with you. This email serves to keep you informed about the progress of the Basic Environmental Assessment for the above mentioned project and provide you with more information that you (Mr John Perrott) had previously requested. The municipal drawing set for the proposed residential building has now been obtained from FDT Architects. With regards to your

Page | 45

Raised by Date of initial correspondence

Method of communication

Issue Response

previous concerns about the height of the building, please see the attached drawing. It is possible to note from the attached plan that the proposed height of the building (from the street level to the highest point of the roof) is given as 4882mm (4.9m). We will be updating the Draft Basic Assessment Report to include the additional plans (including the attached) and releasing the documents again for the public to review. You will however, be kept informed as to when this additional review period will be. Many thanks, Sandy

Sheila Swanepoel Chair, BRRAG

15-08-13 Email One of our portfolio members visited the neighbours of the proposed alteration and it would appear that whilst they have no objection to the alteration being carried out, they are very worried and concerned about the final roof apex height of the building. Should the building obscure the neighbours’ view of the river and river bank, they have grave concerns regarding how this will affect both their properties value and their own living styles. What will be considered “ground level” in this matter because the ground floor of the current house is well below the street level? What are the Municipal building by-laws rules regarding this point – I cannot find anything that specifically refers to this point. Can you put me in the picture please? Response by Sheila Swanepoel (Email, 15 August 2013) Thanks for your comments. The only challenge we face is that Kenton-on-Sea have their own rules, Port Alfred have their own rules and Bushmans has its own set of building regulations. (This is as a result of the area being made up its own little municipalities many years ago), and Bushmans does not fall under Kenton’s, or any of the other areas’ regulations.

Response by Sandy van der Waal (Email, 15 August 2013) Thank you for your comments. Although the building designs are still to be finalised, it is the intention that the ‘ground level’ for the structure will be at the current street level. Given the slope of the property, the house will have a second ‘storey’ below this level, thus making it a 2 storey building. The view (and height) from the street, however, will be that of a single story house. There are regulations in place that govern all residential structures including existing Municipal by-laws for the Ndlambe Municipality, which are available on their website: http://www.ndlambe.gov.za/index.php?option=com_docman&task=cat_view&gid=70&Itemid= There are also Town Planning Schemes available on the Ndlambe Municipality website for Port Alfred and Kenton: http://www.ndlambe.gov.za/index.php?option=com_docman&task=cat_view&Itemid=&gid=110 The Kenton Town Planning Scheme includes regulations regarding building heights that I believe are still adhered to today in all

Page | 46

Raised by Date of initial correspondence

Method of communication

Issue Response

Dr Bill Northrop is the Portfolio Manager and he has all the relevant information at his fingertips - his email is [email protected]. Response by Sheila Swanepoel (Email, 21 October 2013) Hi Sandy, The proposed alteration, as we have seen in the documentation provided, seems to be illegal, as the stands are not consolidated. On condition that they are, we would support the EIA process (the same problem all persons close to the River has), unless there is something in the plans which are picked up later that may offend. BUT this portion of the application, we support, subject to the erven being consolidated and subject to our rights to inspect (and object, if so advised) the eventual plans for the dwelling. Kind regards, Sheila Swanepoel

building designs. I will confirm this for you with the relevant architects. Response by Sandy van der Waal (Email,19 August 2013) Just to let you know the Town Planning Scheme for Bushman’s River is also on Ndlambe Municipality’s website. You are right, Bushman’s has their own set of building regulations. I’ve attached these in case you wanted a copy. Thank you for Dr Northrop’s details. Response by Sandy van der Waal (Email,18 October 2013) This email serves to keep you informed about the progress of the Basic Environmental Assessment for the above mentioned project and provide you with more information that was previously requested. The municipal drawing set for the proposed residential building has now been obtained from FDT Architects. With regards to your previous concerns about the height of the building, please see the attached drawing. It is possible to note from the attached plan that the proposed height of the building (from the street level to the highest point of the roof) is given as 4882mm (4.9m). We will be updating the Draft Basic Assessment Report to include the additional plans (including the attached) and releasing the documents again for the public to review. You will however, be kept informed as to when this additional review period will be. Many thanks, Sandy Response by Sandy van der Waal (Email,23 October 2013) Thank you for your response. I was informed this week that the consolidation process has been

Page | 47

Raised by Date of initial correspondence

Method of communication

Issue Response

completed. The (combined) property is now Erf 1327. Take care, Sandy

Walter Biggs, BRRAG committee member

12.08.13 Email I have no issues with this proposal Response by Sandy van der Waal (Email, August 2013) Your response is noted, thank you.

Page | 48

E-4.4 Proof of correspondence with Interested & Affected Parties and Juristic Organs of State

Page | 49

E-4.5 Letter of Objection – Mr Adriaan van den Berg & Email objection letter 2

Page | 50

E-4.6 Permit issued by the Eastern Cape Provincial Heritage Resources Authority

Page | 51

Appendix F: Environmental Management Programme (EMPr)