assessment report › wp-content › uploads › 2020 › 06 › ...assessment report 3/6/2020...

ASSESSMENT REPORT

3/6/2020

Environmental Authorisation Amendment Application for the CTFS Development Framework Amendment, Erf 41969-RE and Erf 41968, Blue Downs and Farm 653-14, Stellenbosch (D:EA&DP REF NO.: E12/2/1-595-FARM 653, OA)

Prepared by: Chand Environmental Consultants P.O Box 238, Plumstead, 7801 Tel: 021 762 3060 Fax: 021 762 3240 www.chand.co.za

Specialists in Environmental Management and ResearchSpecialists in Environmental Management and Research

Prepared for: Cape Town Film Studios (Pty) Ltd and Dreamworld Management Company (Pty) Ltd P.O Box 682, Somerset Mall, 7173 Tel: (021) 843 2400 Fax: (021) 843 2410

www.capetownfilmstudios.co.za

http://www.chand.co.za/

http://www.capetownfilmstudios.co.za/

Executive Summary The Cape Town Film Studios (Pty) Ltd and Dreamworld Management Company (Pty) Ltd (“the Applicant”) are joint holders of the Environmental Authorisation for the Cape Town Film Studios Development Framework on Erf 41969-RE and Erf 41968, Blue Downs and Farm 653-14, Stellenbosch (“the site”). Environmental Authorisation was granted in April 2006, with an amendment approved in June 2014. Cape Town Film Studios commenced with operations in 2010 and, since then, have achieved a better understanding of their needs in the land development market as well as the most effective and economically viable way to utilise the site so as to ensure the longevity of the Film Studios itself. The Applicant, therefore, wishes to make certain adjustments to the Development Framework (DF). These adjustments would necessitate certain amendments to the project description as well as some conditions of authorisation, hence this amendment application. Broadly speaking, the proposed changes can be summarised as follows:

• Straightening and realignment of boundaries of the Outdoor Studio Zone, Testing Facility, the Renosterveld Area, as well as some other developable areas;

• The change in land use of a portion of the Cape Town Film Studios Area and some of the Renosterveld and Residential Areas to Mixed Use;

• Change in land use rights of the Outdoor Studio Zone to include rights in two portions for temporary structures without foundations, such as those in the current Backlots, access routes to the proposed backlots, as well as an area for conservation;

• Removal of berms in the DF (note that no berms have been constructed on the ground within the buffer zones between the development zones and conservation zones to-date) and replacement of the plan annotation with “buffer zone”. The exception is the berm to the west of what is currently referred to as “Residential Area 2” where the intention is to alter the land use to “mixed use” which would not require any buffer and, therefore, the buffer and berm would be removed;

• Realignment of the secondary access road at the point which it enters the northern boundary of the site. The realignment requires the addition of two traffic circles and a short segment of road (a minor area of which would encroach into the Renosterveld Area); and

• Inclusion of the service station, which has already been granted Environmental Authorisation (EA ref no. 16/3/1/1/A4/74/1070/14) as well as Consent Use from the City of Cape Town (through the Land Use approval process).

A Pre-Application meeting was held with the Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning (DEA&DP) on 1 February 2016 and in that meeting they indicated three key requirements:

• They would consider this a Part 2 Amendment Application (i.e. public participation would be required);

• Updated confirmation of service capacity would be required; and

• The Amendment Application should be combined with the RoD of 2006 and the Amended EA of 2014 and the Environmental Management Programme should also be updated to reflect the proposed amended DF.

Relevant aspects of the proposed amended DF were considered by independent specialists, namely a visual specialist, noise specialist, botanist, faunal specialist and freshwater ecologist. All specialists found that the proposed amended DF would not have any different impacts to those of the current approved DF, however in some cases they prescribed additional mitigation measures. These mitigation measures have been included in

Assessment Report

this report and have been added as conditions of environmental authorisation as part of this amendment application process. With respect to public participation, a pre-application Focus Group Meeting was held with representative from CapeNature and the DEA&DP in order to present the proposed amendments to the DF with a view to providing information for an informed and considered discussion regarding a particular condition of authorisation (i.e. condition 16) which pertains to the payment of a biodiversity offset. The outcome of the meeting was that CapeNature would like the conservation areas to be offered up as part of a stewardship agreement and that they would be happy to forfeit the payment of the offset if stewardship forms a condition of authorisation. It was also agreed, however, that the origin of the amount of the offset payment be further investigated. The offset requirement was further investigated and it was found that it was recommended by the botanist in the original Environmental Impact Assessment process as an offset for the loss of 4 ha of Renosterveld, largely along the northern boundary of (what is currently, following the 2014 amendment) the Renosterveld conservation area. The sum and area to be compensated for (i.e. wetlands and duneslack) was later increased by the DEA&DP through the appeal process. Note also that stewardship has not been added as a condition of authorisation as part of this amendment application process and would remain as a recommendation, as per the 2006 RoD. The reason for this is that the revised condition (as recommended through this Amendment Application process) would honor the original intention of the condition by ensuring that acceptable compensation is made for the loss of 4 ha of Renosterveld as well as the 14.48Ha of wetlands and duneslack that a suitable extent of conservation area is appropriately managed. On this point, note that the conservation area would increase by 6.54 ha with the amended DF as presently proposed. There is also an additional condition of authorization stemming from this amendment application which would require a Conservation Management Plan for the conservation areas, which would also include an auditing requirement. This would provide further accountability to the applicant with respect to maintaining the integrity of the conservation areas in the absence of a stewardship agreement. The Draft Amendment Application was submitted to the DEA&DP for comment, followed by submission thereof to Department of Water and Sanitation, Heritage Western Cape, City of Cape Town and CapeNature. Comments from these stakeholders have been included in- and addressed in this report. This Draft amendment application and associated documentation (including this report) is currently available to all potential and previously registered (on other related CTFS projects) I&APs for a legislated 30-day public comment period from 6 March 2020 to 6 April 2020. Comments received will be addressed in an updated amendment application and included in a Comments and Response Report, which will be submitted to the DEA&DP for final decision-making. Amendments to several conditions of authorisation have been proposed, however most of them are non-substantive and have been proposed in order to reflect appropriate corresponding area labels on the amended DF. A comprehensive document has been compiled which contains the 2006 RoD, the 2014 amendments as well as the amendments proposed as part of this amendment application process. It also includes a motivation for each proposed amendment and a consolidated Environmental Authorisation document which considers and reflects all previous and newly proposed conditions of authorisation. This table is included in Appendix H of the Amendment Application. Amendments have also been made to the Environmental Management Programme, which is included in Appendix K of the Amendment Application. Proposed changes and the supporting motivation for each are clearly indicated.

Contents

1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 4

2. LISTED ACTIVITIES AUTHORISED ............................................................................................ 6

3. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS ................................................................................................... 17

3.1 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK ............................................17

3.2 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE CONDITIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL AUTHORISATION 24

4 NEED AND DESIRABILITY OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS .................................................... 37

5 IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................. 49

5.1 VISUAL .......................................................................................................................................................49

5.2 FRESHWATER ...........................................................................................................................................55

5.3 BOTANICAL ..............................................................................................................................................62

5.4 NOISE ........................................................................................................................................................66

5.5 FAUNAL .....................................................................................................................................................71

5.6 SERVICES...................................................................................................................................................72

5.7 TRAFFIC .....................................................................................................................................................73

5.8 HERITAGE ..................................................................................................................................................75

5.9 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS ........................................................................................................................76

6 PROS AND CONS OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS ................................................................ 77

7 AMENDMENT APPLICATION PROCESS ................................................................................ 92

7.1 LEGISLATIVE CONTEXT AND STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS ...........................................................92

7.2 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION .........................................................................................................................92

8 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................... 99

Assessment Report

Applicable Appendices (of the Amendment Application)

Note that there are no appendices to this report, however it does refer to appendices which are contained

in the Amendment Application and these are listed below:

Appendix A List of landowners

Appendix B Locality map

Appendix C Project Plan

Appendix D Licenses/Permits from the Department of Environmental Affairs and Development

Planning:

(i) Copy of the current Record of Decision

(ii) Copy of the Amended Environmental Authorisation

(iii) DEA&DP comments on Draft Amendment Application

(iv) Extension request to DEA&DP

Appendix E Development Framework:

(i) Current Approved Development Framework (ii) Proposed Amended Development Framework (iii) Access and Movement Revision

Appendix F Service Capacity Letters:

(i) Electricity (ii) Sewer and Bulk Water Supply (iii) Refuse

Appendix G Specialist Report(s):

(i) Botanical Impact Assessment (ii) Freshwater Impact Assessment (iii) Visual Impact Assessment (iv) Traffic Impact Assessment (v) Noise Impact Assessment (vi) Faunal Impact Assessment

Appendix H Comparison of RoDs and current Amendment Application

Appendix I Public Participation Process:

(i) Combined Database of identified I&APs (ii) Focus Group Meeting with the Department of Environmental Affairs &

Development Planning and CapeNature (Minutes of meeting, presentation and attendance register)

(iii) Comments from State Departments: (a) CapeNature (b) City of Cape Town (c) Heritage Western Cape (d) Department of Water and Sanitation

Appendix J Stormwater Management Plan

Appendix K Amended EMPr

Assessment Report

Page 2

Appendix L Assessment Report

Appendix M 2006 Appeal submission

Appendix N Proof of rehabilitation spend to date

Appendix O Draft Landscaping Plan

Appendix P Draft Phasing Plan

Appendix Q Services Report

Appendix R Request for a Specific Fee Reference Number

Acronyms and Abbreviations

CBA Critical Biodiversity Area

CTFS Cape Town Film Studios

DEA&DP Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning

DF Development Framework

EA Environmental Authorisation

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

EMPr Environmental Management Programme

ERM Environmental and Heritage Management branch of the City of Cape Town

I&AP Interested and Affected Party

NEMA National Environmental Management Act

RoD Record of Decision

S&EIA Scoping and Environmental Impact Assessment

VIA Visual Impact Assessment

WESSA Wildlife and Environmental Society of South Africa

ZWWTW Zandvliet Waste Water Treatment Works

List of Figures

Figure 1 Current DEA&DP Approved Development Framework, as per the 2014 EA Amendment ....................... 5

Figure 2 Proposed Amended Development Framework ............................................................................................... 18

Figure 3 Proposed Interface through Mixed Use areas and the R310 (source: NMA, 2018) ............................... 22

Figure 4 Draft landscaping Plan, submitted with land use application (source:TKLA, 2018) ................................ 23

Figure 5 Sensitive botanical areas from Mr. Nick Helme’s report dated March 2005; Area 2 is within the Main

Green Corridor, note that the extent of Area 1 is not applicable .............................................................................. 25

Figure 6The site (indicated by the red polygon) according to the Khayelitsha/ Mitchells PLain & Greater BLue

Downs Spatial Development PLan, May 2014 (source: adapted from the SDF) ..................................................... 38

Figure 7 2006 Section of Approved DF prior to amended development footprint of 2014, indicating sensitive

Renosterveld area and residential block in the northern area thereof (source: extracted from NM&Associates,

2014) ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 44

Figure 8 Visual Specialist Recommendation for the Location of proposed Mixed Use Development within the

revised DF (note that the “Mixed Use Area 4” label in this image refers to a previous iteration and is currently

labeled Mixed Use Area 3 in the proposed amended DF. This detail is insignficant as that the extent and use

remain the same. ................................................................................................................................................................... 55

Assessment Report

Figure 9 The large strap shaped leaves of the bulb Haemanthus coccineus (paintbrush) on the dunes in the

outdoor studio area (source: Helme, 2018) ..................................................................................................................... 63

Figure 10 Portion of the propose amended DF illustrating the second alternative for the secondary access

road,note that this is from a previous iteration of the proposed amended DF ........................................................ 65

Figure 11 Location and extent of noise barrier options for Residential area 1 (source: Keet, 2019)................. 68

Figure 12 Condition 16 of the 2006 RoD requiring the payment of a biodiversity offset .................................... 93

Figure 13 Sensitive areas as initially idenitifed by Helme in 2005 as part of the original EIA process (source:

BOTANICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF PROPOSED DREAMWORLD FILM CITY SITE, FAURE, Nick Helme, March

15, 2005) ............................................................................................................................................................................... 94

List of Tables

Table 1 Similarly Listed Activities EIA Regulations, 2014 (as amended) (as per the July 2017 Similar Listings

Explanatory Document issued by the Department of Environmental Affairs) .............................................................. 6

Table 2 Suggested Listed Acvitivities which are Similarly listed in terms of EIA Regulations as well as the scope

of development approved- EAp Recommendation ........................................................................................................ 13

Table 3 Proposed Changes to the Current Approved DF ............................................................................................. 19

Table 4 Proposed Amendments to the Conditions of Authorisation............................................................................. 24

Table 5 Need and Desirability of proposed Amendments to the DF ......................................................................... 37

Table 6Barrier heights for Mixed Use Areas 1 and 2 for compliance with typical night-time rating level

(source: Keets, 2019) ............................................................................................................................................................ 69

Table 7 Barrier heights for Mixed Use Area 3 TO Provide For compliance with typical night-time rating level

for residences (source: Keets, 2019) ................................................................................................................................. 70

Table 8 Pros and Cons of the Proposed Amendments to the Conditions of Authorisation (amendments

highlighted in grey) ............................................................................................................................................................... 77

Table 9 Summary of Comments received to-date and manner in which issues have been addressed ................ 95

Assessment Report E N V I R O N M E N T A L A U T H O R I S A T I O N A M E N D M E N T A P P L I C A T I O N F O R T H E C T F S D E V E L O P M E N T F R A M E W O R K A M E N D M E N T, E R F 4 1 9 6 9 - R E A N D E R F 4 1 9 6 8 , B L U E D O W N S A N D F A R M 6 5 3 - 1 4 , S T E L L E N B O S C H ( D : E A & D P R E F N O . : E 1 2 / 2 / 1 - 5 9 5 - F A R M 6 5 3 , O A )

1. INTRODUCTION The Cape Town Film Studios (Pty Ltd) and Dreamworld Management Company (Pty) Ltd (“the Applicant”) are joint holders of the Environmental Authorisation for the Cape Town Film Studios Development Framework on Erf 41969-RE and Erf 41968, Blue Downs and Farm 653-14, Stellenbosch (“the site”). Environmental Authorisation was granted in April 2006 (refer to Appendix D(i) of the Amendment Application), with an amendment approved in June 2014 (refer to Appendix D(ii) of the Amendment Application). The Applicant needs to ensure continued economic viability of the site and must be able to adapt to changes in market needs. Given that the site is relatively large, the development thereof would not occur all at once and the passage of time would more than likely result in changes in the market needs. Therefore, the site requires a degree of flexibility in terms of what development would be permitted. The Development Framework (DF) has been crafted in such a way as to balance the requirement for flexible development while not compromising on the necessity for conservation on site. Cape Town Film Studios commenced with operations in 2010 and, since then, the Applicant has achieved a better understanding of their needs in the market as well as the most effective and economically viable way to utilise the site. The Applicant, therefore, wishes to make certain adjustments to the DF which is currently approved as per the 2014 Environmental Authorisation Amendment (“the current approved DF”) (refer to Figure 1 and Appendix E(i) of the Amendment Application) in order to position the site as an attractive asset in the market and to enhance operations of the CTFS.

Assessment Report

Page | 5

Figure 1 Current DEA&DP Approved Development Framework, as per the 2014 EA Amendment Broadly speaking, the proposed changes can be summarised as follows:


• The change in land use of a portion of the Cape Town Film Studios Area and some of the Renosterveld and Residential Areas to Mixed Use (denoted as Mixed Use 1, 2, 3 and 4 in the proposed amended DF);

• Change in land use rights of the Outdoor Studio Zone to include rights in two portions for temporary structures without foundations and/or structures which do not require building plan approval, such as those in the current backlots, access routes to the proposed backlots, as well as an area for conservation;

• Removal of berms in the DF (note that no berms have been constructed on the ground within the buffer zones between the development zones and conservation zones to-date) and replacement of the plan annotation with “buffer zone”. The exception is the berm to the west of what is currently referred to as “Residential Area 2” where the intention is to alter the land use to “mixed use” which would not require any buffer and, therefore, the buffer and berm would be removed);

• Realignment of the secondary access road at the point which it enters the northern boundary of the site. The realignment requires the addition of two traffic circles and a short segment of road (a minor area of which would encroach into the Renosterveld Area); and


Assessment Report

Page 6

Note that a 6.32ha portion of the site (i.e. the proposed Mixed-Use Area 4 to the west of the secondary access road) has been granted Environmental Authorisation for the development of a data centre, for which construction commenced on 2019. The details thereof are considered separate to this application and will, therefore, not be described herein. For ease of reference, the EA reference number for the data centre is 16/3/3/1/A7/4/3072/17.

2. LISTED ACTIVITIES AUTHORISED The existing Appeal Record of Decision (RoD) of April 2006 approves the following activities under the Environmental Conservation Act (No. 73 of 1989):

1. Item 1 (c)- The construction erection or upgrading of with regard to any substance which is dangerous or hazardous and is controlled by national legislation:

(i) Infrastructure, excluding road and rail, for the transportation or any such substance, and (ii) Manufacturing, storage, handling, treatment or processing facilities for any such substance.

2. Item 1(d)- The construction, erection or upgrading of roads, railways, airfields and associated structures

3. Item 1 (m)- The construction, erection or upgrading of public and private resorts and associated

infrastructure.

4. Item 7 The reclamation of land, including wetlands, below the high-water mark of the sea, and inland waters

In terms of the EIA Regulations, 2014 (as amended) (i.e. current legislation), similarly listed activities are indicated in Table 1. Table 1 provides a lengthy list of activities which are similarly listed, however, the relative simplicity of the ECA listed activities when compared to those of present day has rendered multiple and diverse current listed activities as being similarly listed in terms of ECA. Many of these may not apply to the development as approved. Furthermore, given the way the listed activities have morphed over time, there are also listed activities which are currently listed that were not listed in ECA (i.e. at the time which the DF was granted environmental authorisation) and, therefore, in terms of transitional arrangements described in Regulation 50 of the EIA Regulations, 2014 (as amended), are currently implicitly authorised for the development. It is recommended that these listed activities also be included in the amended authorisation in order to render an Environmental Authorisation which is relevant to the EIA Regulations, 2014 (as amended). The recommended listed activities for the amended Environmental Authorisation are indicated and motivated in Table 2. TABLE 1 SIMILARLY LISTED ACTIVITIES EIA REGULATIONS, 2014 (AS AMENDED) (AS PER THE JULY 2017 SIMILAR LISTINGS EXPLANATORY

DOCUMENT ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS)

ECA NEMA EIA REGULATIONS, 2014 (AS AMENDED)

Activity Reference

Activity Reference Activity Detail/ Description

Item 1 (c) Listing Notice 1: Activities 14, 51, and 59

Listing Notice 2: Activities 4, 7, 25 and 60 Listing Notice 3: Activities 10 and 22

LN1, No. 14 The development and related operation of facilities or infrastructure, for the storage, or for the storage and handling, of a dangerous good, where such storage occurs in containers with a combined capacity of 80 cubic metres or more but not exceeding 500 cubic metres.

LN1, No. 51 The expansion and related operation of facilities for the storage, or storage and handling, of a dangerous good, where the capacity of such storage facility will be expanded by more than 80 cubic metres. LN1, No. 59

Assessment Report

Page | 7

The expansion and related operation of facilities or infrastructure for the refining, extraction or processing of gas, oil or petroleum products where the installed capacity of the facility will be increased by 50 cubic metres or more per day, excluding facilities for the refining, extraction or processing of gas from landfill sites. LN2, No. 7 The development and related operation of facilities or infrastructure for the bulk

transportation of dangerous goods─ (i) in gas form, outside an industrial complex, using pipelines, exceeding 1 000 metres in length, with a throughput capacity of more than 700 tons per day; (ii) in liquid form, outside an industrial complex, using pipelines, exceeding 1 000 metres in length, with a throughput capacity of more than 50 cubic metres per day; or (iii) in solid form, outside an industrial complex, using funiculars or conveyors with a throughput capacity of more than 50 tons per day. LN2, No. 25 (also similarly listed for ECA activity 1n- sewage treatment plants- not applied or assessed at the time of RoD, so not relevant)

The development and related operation of facilities or infrastructure for the treatment of effluent, wastewater or sewage with a daily throughput capacity of 15 000 cubic metres or more. LN 2, No. 4 (this is post-ECA, first appearing in 2006 EIA Regulations, so is considered similarly listed by the EAP) The development and related operation of facilities or infrastructure, for the storage, or storage and handling of a dangerous good, where such storage occurs in containers with a combined capacity of more than 500 cubic metres. LN 1, No. 60 (this is post-ECA, first appearing in 2006 EIA Regulations, so is considered similarly listed by the EAP) The expansion and related operation of facilities or infrastructure for the bulk

transportation of dangerous goods─ (i) in gas form, outside an industrial complex, by an increased throughput capacity of 700 tons or more per day; (ii) in liquid form, outside an industrial complex or zone, by an increased throughput capacity of 50 cubic metres or more per day; or (iii) in solid form, outside an industrial complex or zone, by an increased throughput capacity of 50 tons or more per day. LN3, No. 10 The development and related operation of facilities or infrastructure for the storage, or storage and handling of a dangerous good, where such storage occurs in containers with a combined capacity of 30 but not exceeding 80 cubic metres. i. Western Cape

i. Areas zoned for use as public open space, conservation or an equivalent zoning;

ii. All areas outside urban areas; or iii. Areas inside urban areas:

(aa) Areas seawards of the development setback line or within 200 metres from the

high-water mark of the sea if no such development setback line is determined; (bb) Areas on the watercourse side of the development setback line or within 100 metres from the edge of a watercourse where no such setback line has been determined; or (cc) Areas on the estuary side of the development setback line or in an estuarine functional zone where no such setback line has been determined. LN 3, No. 22 The expansion and related operation of facilities or infrastructure for the storage, or storage and handling of a dangerous good, where such storage facilities or infrastructure will be expanded by 30 cubic metres or more but no more than 80 cubic metres.

Assessment Report

Page 8

i. Western Cape i. Areas zoned for use as public open space, conservation or an equivalent

zoning; ii. All areas outside urban areas; or iii. Areas inside urban areas:

(aa) Areas seawards of the development setback line or within 200 metres from the high-water mark of the sea if no such development setback line is determined; (bb) Areas on the watercourse side of the development setback line or within 100 metres from the edge of a watercourse where no such setback line has been determined; or (cc) Areas on the estuary side of the development setback line or in an estuarine functional zone where no such setback line has been determined.

Item 1(d) Listing Notice 1: Activities 24, 56, 61and 64 Listing Notice 2: Activities 8, 12, and 27 Listing Notice 3: Activities 4, 7, 18, and 19

LN1, No. 24 The development of a road—

i. a road for which an environmental authorisation was obtained for the route determination in terms of activity 5 in Government Notice 387 of 2006 or activity 18 in Government Notice 545 of 2010; or

ii. a road with a reserve wider than 13,5 meters, or where no reserve exists where the road is wider than 8 metres;

but excluding a road— (a) [roads] which [are] is identified and included in activity 27 in Listing Notice 2 of

2014; (b) [roads] where the entire road falls within an urban area; or (c) which is 1 kilometre or shorter.

LN1, No. 56 The widening of a road by more than 6 metres, or the lengthening of a road by more than 1 kilometre—

i. where the existing reserve is wider than 13,5 meters; or ii. where no reserve exists, where the existing road is wider than 8 metres;

excluding where widening or lengthening occur inside urban areas. LN1, No. 61 The expansion of airports where the development footprint will be increased. LN1, No. 64 The expansion of railway lines, stations or shunting yards where there will be an increased development footprint, excluding—

i. railway lines, shunting yards and railway stations in industrial complexes or zones;

ii. underground railway lines in mines; or iii. additional railway lines within the railway line reserve.

LN 2 No. 8 The development of— (i) airports; or (ii) runways or aircraft landing strips longer than 1,4 kilometres. LN 2, No. 12 The development of railway lines, stations or shunting yards excluding —

(i) railway lines, shunting yards and railway stations in industrial complexes or zones;

(ii) underground railway lines in a mining area; or (iii) additional railway lines within the railway line reserve.

LN 2, No. 27 The development of a road—

Assessment Report

Page | 9

(i) a national road as defined in section 40 of the South African National Roads Agency Limited and National Roads Act, 1998 (Act No. 7 of 1998);] …

(ii) a road administered by a provincial authority;] … (iii) a road with a reserve wider than 30 metres; or (iv) a road catering for more than one lane of traffic in both directions;

but excluding [the development and related operation of] a road— (a) for which an environmental authorisation was obtained for the route determination

in terms of activity 5 in Government Notice 387 of 2006 or activity 18 in Government Notice 545 of 2010, in which case activity 24 in Listing Notice 1 of 2014 applies;

(b) which is 1 kilometre or shorter; or (c) where the entire road falls within an urban area.

LN3, No. 4 The development of a road wider than 4 metres with a reserve less than 13,5 metres. i. Western Cape

i. Areas zoned for use as public open space or equivalent zoning; ii. Areas outside urban areas;

(aa) Areas containing indigenous vegetation;

(bb) Areas on the estuary side of the development setback line or in an estuarine functional zone where no such setback line has been determined; or

iii. Inside urban areas: (aa) Areas zoned for conservation use; or (bb) Areas designated for conservation use in Spatial Development Frameworks adopted by the competent authority. LN3, No. 7 The development of aircraft landing strips and runways 1.4 kilometres and shorter. i. Western Cape i. All areas outside urban areas. LN3, No. 18 The widening of a road by more than 4 metres, or the lengthening of a road by more than 1 kilometre. Western Cape

i. Areas zoned for use as public open space or equivalent zoning; ii. All areas outside urban areas:

(aa) Areas containing indigenous vegetation; (bb) Areas on the estuary side of the development setback line or in an estuarine functional zone where no such setback line has been determined; or

iii. Inside urban areas: (aa) Areas zoned for conservation use; or (bb) Areas designated for conservation use in Spatial Development Frameworks adopted by the competent authority. LN3, No. 19 The expansion of runways or aircraft landing strips where the expanded runways or aircraft landing strips will be longer than 1,4 kilometres in length.

i. Western Cape i. All areas outside urban areas.

Item 1 (m) Listing Notice 3: Activities 5, 6 and 17

LN3, No. 5 The development of resorts, lodges, hotels, tourism or hospitality facilities that sleep less than 15 people… no detailed listing for Western Cape LN3, No. 6 The development of resorts, lodges, hotels, and tourism or hospitality facilities that sleeps 15 people or more. i. Western Cape

Assessment Report

Page 10

i. Inside a protected area identified in terms of NEMPAA; ii. Outside urban areas; (aa) Critical biodiversity areas as identified in systematic biodiversity plans adopted by the competent authority or in bioregional plans; or (bb) Within 5km from national parks, world heritage sites, areas identified in terms of NEMPAA or from the core area of a biosphere reserve; - excluding the conversion of existing buildings where the development footprint will not be increased. LN3, No. 17 The expansion of a resort, lodge, hotel, and tourism or hospitality facilities where the development footprint will be expanded and the expanded facility can accommodate an additional 15 people or more. i. Western Cape

i. Inside a protected area identified in terms of NEMPAA; ii. Outside urban areas:

(aa) Critical biodiversity areas as identified in systematic biodiversity plans adopted by the competent authority or in bioregional plans; or

(bb) Within 5km from national parks, world heritage sites, areas identified in terms of NEMPAA or from the core area of a biosphere reserve; - excluding the conversion of existing buildings where the development footprint will not be increased.

Item 7 Listing Notice 1: Activities 12, 48, 49, and 55 Listing Notice 2: Activities 16 and 23 Listing Notice 2: Activities 14 and 23

LN 1, No.12 The development of—

i. dams or weirs, where the dam or weir, including infrastructure and water surface area, exceeds 100 square metres; or

ii. infrastructure or structures with a physical footprint of 100 square metres or more;

where such development occurs— (a) within a watercourse; (b) in front of a development setback; or (c) if no development setback exists, within 32 metres of a watercourse, measured

from the edge of a watercourse; — excluding— (aa) the development of infrastructure or structures within existing ports or harbours that will not increase the development footprint of the port or harbour; (bb) where such development activities are related to the development of a port or harbour, in which case activity 26 in Listing Notice 2 of 2014 applies; (cc) activities listed in activity 14 in Listing Notice 2 of 2014 or activity 14 in Listing Notice 3 of 2014, in which case that activity applies; (dd) where such development occurs within an urban area; [or] (ee) where such development occurs within existing roads, [or] road reserves or railway line reserves; or (ff) the development of temporary infrastructure or structures where such infrastructure or structures will be removed within 6 weeks of the commencement of development and where indigenous vegetation will not be cleared.

LN 1, No. 48 The expansion of—

i. (i) infrastructure or structures where the physical footprint is expanded by 100 square metres or more; or

ii. dams or weirs, where the dam or weir, including infrastructure and water surface area, is expanded by 100 square metres or more;

where such expansion or expansion and related operation occurs—

Assessment Report

Page | 11

(a) within a watercourse; (b) in front of a development setback; or (c) if no development setback exists, within 32 metres of a watercourse, measured from the edge of a watercourse; excluding— (aa) the expansion of infrastructure or structures within existing ports or harbours that will not increase the development footprint of the port or harbour; (bb) where such expansion activities are related to the development of a port or harbour, in which case activity 26 in Listing Notice 2 of 2014 applies; (cc) activities listed in activity 14 in Listing Notice 2 of 2014 or activity 14 in Listing Notice 3 of 2014, in which case that activity applies; (dd) where such expansion occurs within an urban area; or (ee) where such expansion occurs within existing roads, road reserves or railway line reserves. LN 1, No. 49 The expansion of -

i. jetties by more than 100 square metres;

ii. slipways by more than 100 square metres; iii. buildings by more than 100 square metres; iv. boardwalks by more than 100 square metres; or v. infrastructure or structures where the physical footprint is expanded by 100

square metres or more; where such expansion or expansion and related operation occurs- (a) within a watercourse; (b) in front of a development setback; or (c) if no development setback exists, within 32 metres of a watercourse, measured from the edge of a watercourse; excluding (aa) the expansion of infrastructure or structures within existing ports or harbours that will not increase the development footprint of the port or harbour; (bb) where such expansion activities are related to the development of a port or harbour, in which case activity 26 in Listing Notice 2 of 2014 applies; (cc) activities listed in activity 14 in Listing Notice 2 of 2014 or activity 14 in Listing Notice 3 of 2014, in which case that activity applies; (dd) where such expansion occurs within an urban area; or (ee) where such expansion occurs within existing roads or road reserves. LN 1, No. 55 Expansion—

(i) in the sea; (ii) in an estuary; (iii) within the littoral active zone; (iv) in front of a development setback; or (v) if no development setback exists, within a distance of 100 metres inland of the

high-water mark of the sea or an estuary, whichever is the greater; in respect of —

(a) facilities associated with the arrival and departure of vessels and the handling of cargo;

(b) piers; (c) inter- and sub-tidal structures for entrapment of sand; (d) breakwater structures; (e) coastal marinas; (f) coastal harbours or ports; (g) tunnels; or (h) underwater channels;

but excluding the expansion of infrastructure or structures within existing ports or harbours that will not increase the development footprint of the port or harbour.

Assessment Report

Page 12

LN 2, No. 16 The development of a dam where the highest part of the dam wall, as measured from the outside toe of the wall to the highest part of the wall, is 5 metres or higher or where the highwater mark of the dam covers an area of 10 hectares or more. LN 2, No. 23 The reclamation of an island or parts of the sea. LN 3, No. 14, The development of—

(i) dams or weirs, where the dam or weir, including infrastructure and water surface area exceeds 10 square metres; or

(ii) infrastructure or structures with a physical footprint of 10 square metres or more; where such development occurs—

(a) within a watercourse; (b) in front of a development setback; or (c) if no development setback has been adopted, within 32 metres of a watercourse, measured from the edge of a watercourse; excluding the development of infrastructure or

structures within existing ports or harbours that will not increase the development footprint of the port or harbour. i. Western Cape

(i) Outside urban areas: (aa) A protected area identified in terms of NEMPAA, excluding conservancies; (bb) National Protected Area Expansion Strategy Focus areas; (cc) World Heritage Sites; (dd) Sensitive areas as identified in an environmental management framework as contemplated in chapter 5 of the Act and as adopted by the competent authority; (ee) Sites or areas listed in terms of an international convention; )ff) Critical biodiversity areas or ecosystem service areas as identified in systematic biodiversity plans adopted by the competent authority or in bioregional plans; (gg) Core areas in biosphere reserves; or (hh) Areas on the estuary side of the development setback line or in an estuarine functional zone where no such setback line has been determined. LN 3, No. 23 The expansion of— (i) dams or weirs where the dam or weir is expanded by 10 square metres or more; or

(ii) infrastructure or structures where the physical footprint is expanded by 10 square metres or more;

where such expansion occurs— a) within a watercourse; (b) in front of a development setback adopted in the prescribed manner; or (c) if no development setback has been adopted, within 32 metres of a watercourse, measured from the edge of a watercourse; excluding the expansion of infrastructure or structures within existing ports or harbours that will not increase the development footprint of the port or harbour. Western Cape

i. Outside urban areas: (aa) A protected area identified in terms of NEMPAA, excluding conservancies;

(bb) National Protected Area Expansion Strategy Focus areas; (cc) World Heritage Sites; (dd) Sensitive areas as identified in an environmental management framework as contemplated in chapter 5 of the Act and as adopted by the competent authority; (ee) Sites or areas listed in terms of an international convention; (ff) Critical biodiversity areas or ecosystem service areas as identified in systematic biodiversity plans adopted by the competent authority or in bioregional plans;

Assessment Report

Page | 13

(gg) Core areas in biosphere reserves; or (hh) Areas on the estuary side of the development setback line or in an estuarine functional zone where no such setback line has been determined.

TABLE 2 SUGGESTED LISTED ACVITIVITIES WHICH ARE SIMILARLY LISTED IN TERMS OF EIA REGULATIONS AS WELL AS THE SCOPE OF DEVELOPMENT

APPROVED- EAP RECOMMENDATION

ECA Listed Activity

EIA REGULATIONS, 2014 (AS AMENDED) LISTED ACTIVITY

Notes on applicability

Item 1 (c) Listing Notice 2, Activity No. 4 The development and related operation of facilities or infrastructure, for the storage, or storage and handling of a dangerous good, where such storage occurs in containers with a combined capacity of more than 500 cubic metres.

Item 1 (c) under ECA related to the storage and handling of dangerous goods. From a development perspective this activity authorises the storage, use, and handling of the dangerous goods that may be required on site, particularly regarding certain production activities at the studios. Activity 4 of Listing Notice 2 applies to the development and is considered applicable in terms of the regulations as it covers this

activity on site and, much like Item 1 (c) of ECA, does not stipulate a maximum volume of such substances. This listed activity was promulgated post-ECA in the 2006 EIA Regulations and, therefore, in terms of transitional arrangements described in Regulation 50 of the EIA Regulations, 2014 (as amended), is applicable now. The activities detailed in Table 1which refer to expansion would not apply to the development given that there is no expansion applied for in terms of the current approved footprint of and type of activities on site. Expansion activities do not apply, given that the initial scope started with an undeveloped site and not an existing facility. The activities from Table 1which refer to development, operation and expansion of infrastructure for bulk transportation of dangerous goods in gas, liquid or solid format also do not apply as the development is not typically heavy industrial or energy-production in nature. There are also no bulk lines for this type of transportation included in the DF or associated service plans. The activities in Table 1which refer to Listing Notice 3 do not apply as they relate to a maximum volume on the dangerous goods and, in spite of watercourses on the site, Listing Notice 2, Activity No. 4 would cover the activity anywhere on the site, within the appropriately designated land uses (e.g. this would not occur in the conservation areas as no development and activities other than conservation management are permitted there in terms of the environmental authorisation. These areas also have buffers.). The similarly listed activity in Table 1also does not apply as it pertains to a sewage treatment plant, which is not part of the original or amended scope of development. If it were part of the original scope, Item 1(n) of ECA would have been included in the RoD.

Item 1 (d) Listing Notice 3, Activity No. 4 The development of a road wider than 4 metres with a reserve less than 13,5 metres. i. Western Cape

iv. Areas zoned for use as public open space or equivalent zoning;

v. Areas outside urban areas; (aa) Areas containing indigenous vegetation; (bb) Areas on the estuary side of the development setback line or in an estuarine functional zone where no such setback line has been determined; or

The Listing Notice 3 activity presented herein could be considered relevant (or at least the most relevant of all similarly listed activities indicated in Table 1), given that an access road to the Outdoor Studio zone would be required through the conservation area and an area which would contain some indigenous vegetation, which is indicated as such in the DF. The remaining internal road network (still to be developed) would also be in areas which contain indigenous vegetation. Also, even though the reference to indigenous vegetation was only included in subsequent EIA Regulations which post-date the original RoD, the impacts of this have been considered throughout the various EIA

Assessment Report

Page 14

vi. Inside urban areas: (aa) Areas zoned for conservation use; or (bb) Areas designated for conservation use in Spatial Development Frameworks adopted by the competent authority.

processes, from the variety or specialist impact assessments in order to obtain the initial RoD, the botanical and freshwater assessments for the 2014 amendment, as well as the botanical, freshwater and faunal assessments undertaken as part of this assessment process. Note that the entire site currently falls within an urban area and was also in an urban area at the time of the initial EIA process. It was indicated for urban development in terms of the 1996 Metropolitan SDF for the City of Cape Town. Note also that, even though the District Plan indicates the Renosterveld Conservation Area and the Green Corridor as “conservation”, this has been replaced by the 2018 Municipal Spatial Development Framework which identifies the entire site as a Consolidation Area (Consolidation Areas are areas where the City is committed to servicing existing communities and where new development will be subject to infrastructure capacity). When compared to the project description and the similarly listed

activities in Table 1, this listed activity indicated approval for the development of roads for the DF. These roads would be internal roads and any access roads which would be necessary. Many of the activities for the construction of a road under the EIA Regulations, 2014 (as amended) now have the exclusion of a site/activity within an urban area, which was not contemplated in the ECA regulations. The entire site falls within an urban area (and also did at the time of the original EIA) so most of those activities no longer apply, however those listed activities which permit the construction of roads and do not have the urban area exclusion are considered to be appropriate and relevant to the development and the revocation of those would prejudice the Applicant, who is currently permitted, in terms of the RoD, to develop the internal and access roads as indicated in the current approved DF in Appendix E(i). All similarly listed activities indicated in Table 1which refer to airports, airstrips, railway stations and shunting yards do not apply to the development as these aspects are not, and never were, included in the proposed scope or DF layout.

Item 1 (m) Listing Notice 3, Activity No. 6 The development of resorts, lodges, hotels, and tourism or hospitality facilities that sleeps 15 people or more. i. Western Cape i. Inside a protected area identified in terms of NEMPAA; ii. Outside urban areas; (aa) Critical biodiversity areas as identified in systematic biodiversity plans adopted by the competent authority or in bioregional plans; or

(bb) Within 5km from national parks, world heritage sites, areas identified in terms of NEMPAA or from the core area of a biosphere reserve; - excluding the conversion of existing buildings where the development footprint will not be increased.

This listed activity is similarly listed and applicable to the hotel and conferencing component of the development, which would accommodate more than 15 people. The similarly listed activity in Table 1 referencing fewer than 15 people would not be applicable as the hotel would accommodate more than 15 guests and the activity which refers to expansion would also not apply as it is the development of the hotel and accommodation facilities which is approved for the development and no expansion to the footprint or nature of development is

proposed given that the initial scope started with an undeveloped site and not an existing tourist facility.

Item 7 Listing Notice 1, Activity No. 19 Item 7 under ECA related to the “reclamation of land” and specifically adds “including wetlands”. From a development

Assessment Report

Page | 15

The infilling or depositing of any material of more than 10 cubic metres into, or the dredging, excavation, removal or moving of soil, sand, shells, shell grit, pebbles or rock of more than 10 cubic metres from a watercourse; but excluding where such infilling, depositing, dredging, excavation, removal or moving—

(i) will occur behind a development setback; (ii) is for maintenance purposes undertaken in

accordance with a maintenance management plan; [or]

(iii) falls within the ambit of activity 21 in this Notice, in which case that activity applies;

(iv) occurs within existing ports or harbours that will not increase the development footprint of the port or harbour; or

(v) where such development is related to the development of a port or harbour, in which case activity 26 in Listing Notice 2 of 2014

applies.

perspective, the infilling (or partial infilling) of some wetlands would be required. This listed activity was promulgated post-ECA in the 2006 EIA Regulations and, therefore, in terms of transitional arrangements described in Regulation 50 of the EIA Regulations, 2014 (as amended), is applicable now. ECA neglects to define “reclamation”, however the Cambridge Dictionary defines it as “the activity of making land that is underwater or is in poor condition suitable for farming or building on”1. This definition would align with the infilling and/or depositing of material into wetlands and is, therefore, argued by the EAP to be similarly listed. Furthermore, the impacts on wetlands were assessed in the original EIA, the 2014 amendment as well as in this amendment application. Although there are watercourses on site, the similarly listed activities included in Table 1 which refer to development of infrastructure within 32m of a watercourse would not apply as

they have the exclusion of an urban area, which is what the site is located in, and was located in at the time of the original EIA. Also, any expansion-related activities indicated in Table 1 would not apply as the development was intended to occur on an undeveloped site and the scope was (and remains) to develop a new facility and not to add to an already existing one. There are also similarly listed activities indicated in Table 1 which relate to develop within 100m of the HWM of the sea as well as development relating to ports and harbours. None of these apply to the development given that it is inland and located well beyond the HWM of the sea and any estuaries. There is also a similarly listed activity indicated in Table 1 for development of dam, however this is not, and was never included in the project scope and, therefore, does not apply to the development. Furthermore, the development of a dam was also permissible under ECA through approval of Item 1(i), which was not included in the application for environmental approval at the time, another indicator of the irrelevance of the listed activity.

- Listing Notice 2, Activity No. 15 The clearance of an of an area of 20 hectares or more of indigenous vegetation, except where such clearance of vegetation is required for-

i. The undertaking of a linear activity; or ii. Maintenance purposes undertaken in

accordance with a maintenance management plan.

Listing Notice 3, Activity No. 12

The clearance of an area of 300 square metres or more of indigenous vegetation except where such clearance of indigenous vegetation is required for maintenance purposes undertaken in accordance with a maintenance management plan. i. Western Cape

Some indigenous vegetation, located in a critically endangered vegetation type, would need to be cleared in the realization of the development, noting that there is also a significant proportion of the development which includes conservation areas. Listed activities in terms of the EIA Regulations, 2014 (as amended) for clearing of indigenous vegetation would apply. Listed activities which dealt with the clearing of indigenous vegetation were only promulgated from the 2006 EIA Regulations and subsequently refined through the various revisions in the legislation. Therefore, the Regulations under which the RoD was

issued were silent on the clearing of indigenous vegetation and, therefore, could not be applied for at the time. It is also worth noting that the similarly listed guidelines provided by the DEA indicate that the indigenous vegetation clearing listed activities are similarly listed to the following activities under ECA:

1 https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/reclamation [accessed on 18 February 2020]

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/reclamation

Assessment Report

Page 16

i. Within any critically endangered or endangered ecosystem listed in terms of section 52 of the NEMBA or prior to the publication of such a list, within an area that has been identified as critically endangered in the National Spatial Biodiversity Assessment 2004; ii. Within critical biodiversity areas identified in bioregional plans; iii Within the littoral active zone or 100 metres inland from high water mark of the sea or an estuarine functional zone, whichever distance is the greater, excluding where such removal will occur behind the development setback line on erven in urban areas; iv. On land, where, at the time of the coming into effect of this Notice or thereafter such land was zoned open space, conservation or had an equivalent zoning; or v. On land designated for protection or conservation purposes in an Environmental Management Framework adopted in the prescribed manner, or a Spatial

Development Framework adopted by the MEC or Minister.

• 2(c) The change in land use from agricultural or zoned undetermined use or an equivalent zoning to any other land use;

• 2(d) The change in land use from use for grazing to any other form of agricultural use; and

• 2(e) The change in land use from use for nature conservation or zoned open space to any other land use.

Although that may be the case, the focus on removal of indigenous vegetation was not clear in the law at the time and was rather hinged on the current vs proposed land use. In the case of the development, the site was previously earmarked for development and was zoned as Industrial for a period. However, as the zoning rights were not exercised, the zoning automatically reverted to Agricultural. The land was NOT, however, used for agricultural purposes, a fact which is echoed in the Scoping Report from the EIA process “although the site is zoned as agricultural, active farming has not occurred probably due to its ecological and

substrate conditions”. The land was also not zoned open space. Therefore, at the time, that land was not used as agricultural, nature conservation or zoned open space and would not have required approval for those listed activities under ECA. As the legislation evolved, the clearance of indigenous vegetation on site would have become applicable, however, in terms of the transitional arrangements, they would implicitly be approved under the RoD. The impacts of these activities have, however, been thoroughly assessed from the initial EIA process (botanical, freshwater and faunal impact assessments were done), as well as in the 2014 amendment application (botanical and freshwater statements were submitted as part of the amendment application) and are further assessed for the proposed amendments to the DF in this amendment application. This amendment application includes a botanical and freshwater impact assessment of the proposed changes, as well as an assessment from a faunal specialist. Mitigation measures from the historic and current assessments have been written into the current RoD and Amended EA and would further be incorporated into the Amended and amalgamated EA which would result from this amendment application process (if granted by the DEA&DP). It is, therefore, recommended by the EAP that these listed activities be included in the amended and amalgamated Environmental Authorisation (if granted) in order to align with current legislation and to tighten up the administrative aspects of the environmental authorisation.

If these are not included, this would not preclude the Applicant from developing as per the approved DF, given that the transitional arrangements would apply (i.e. Regulation 50 (2) of the EIA Regulations, 2014- as amended) and the development would be permitted to continue as approved.

Assessment Report

Page | 17

Regulation 50 of the EIA Regulations details the transitional arrangements as follows:

(1) Any actions undertaken in terms of the ECA regulations and which can be undertaken in terms of a provision of these Regulations must be regarded as having been undertaken in terms of the provisions of these Regulations.

(2) Any authorisation issued or exemption from obtaining an environmental authorisation granted in terms of the ECA regulations, must be regarded to be an environmental authorisation issued in terms of these Regulations.

With regard to transitional arrangements, it is typical that, should an EA currently be granted under certain regulation where certain listed activities were not listed at the time of approval, such activities are considered approved, even if they became listed at a later stage. In light of the above, it is suggested that the additional listed activities suggested in Table 2 be included in the amended Environmental Authorisation (if granted by the DEA&DP) in order to tie-up the administrative aspect of the approval and to align it with current legislation. Furthermore, given the extensive impact assessment carried out from a freshwater ecology, botanical and faunal perspective, the impacts associated with these activities were assessed in the original S&EIA, the 2014 amendment to the EA and have been further assessed and considered in this amendment application. The no-go areas set by those specialists were taken on from the original DF which clearly indicated areas demarcated for conservation use as well as the RoD which contained the suggested mitigation measures by those specialists as conditions of authorization. The 2014 amendment further considered these aspects through the revision of the proposed development footprint in the north-east corner of the site which moved development out of the most sensitive Renosterveld areas and maintaining the extent of the Renosterveld Conservation Area. Notwithstanding the above, should these activities not be deemed necessary by the DEA&DP to include in the amended Environmental Authorisation, Regulation 50 allows for the development to continue as approved.

Note that the Listed Activity 18 of Listing Notice 1 was also considered: Residential, mixed, retail, commercial, industrial or institutional developments where such land was used for agriculture, game farming, equestrian purposes or afforestation on or after 01 April 1998 and where such development:

i. will occur inside an urban area, where the total land to be developed is bigger ii. than 5 hectares; or iii. will occur outside an urban area, where the total land to be developed is bigger than 1 hectare;

excluding where such land has already been developed for residential, mixed, retail, commercial, industrial or institutional purposes. This activity is not deemed applicable, given that the site was earmarked for urban development in terms of the 1996 Metropolitan SDF for the City of Cape Town. Furthermore, the initial zoning of Industrial would have precluded the need for approval for this activity. Despite the later agricultural zoning, the land was never used for agricultural purposes, specifically not on or after April 1998.

3. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

3.1 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK

It is proposed that the DF be amended according to the plan shown in Figure 2 (refer to Appendix E (ii) of the

Amendment Application for a larger image of the proposed amended DF).

Assessment Report

Page 18

Figure 2 Proposed Amended Development Framework Broadly speaking, the proposed changes can be summarised as follows:


• The change in land use of a portion of the Cape Town Film Studios Area and some of the Renosterveld and Residential Areas to Mixed Use (denoted as Mixed Use 1, 2, 3 and 4 in the proposed amended DF);

• Change in land use rights of the Outdoor Studio Zone to include rights in two portions for temporary structures without foundations and/or structures which do not require building plan approval, such as those in the current backlots, access routes to the proposed backlots, as well as an area for conservation;

• Removal of berms in the DF (note that no berms have been constructed on the ground within the buffer zones between the development zones and conservation zones to-date) and replacement of the plan annotation with “buffer zone”. The exception is the berm to the west of what is currently referred to as “Residential Area 2” where the intention is to alter the land use to “mixed use” which would not require any buffer and, therefore, the buffer and berm would be removed

• Realignment of the secondary access road at the point which it enters the northern boundary of the site. The realignment requires the addition of two traffic circles and a short segment of road (a minor area of which would encroach into the Renosterveld Area). The secondary access road would be a Class 4 public road; and


The specific amendments proposed to the DF as well as the associated motivation are included in Table 3.

TABLE 3 PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE CURRENT APPROVED DF

No. KEY ASPECT PROPOSED AMENDMENTS IN LAND USE AND BOUNDARIES

1 Film studios and open film lots

• Northern 11.12 ha portion of central film studio area would be separated and allocated for other mixed use (denoted as Mixed Use 4 on the Site Plan in Appendix F of the Amendment Application) by other developers.

• The access road to the Minor Northern Gateway (marked as “3” in the Current Approved DF in Appendix E (i) of the Amendment Application) would extend eastwards (to border the new Mixed Use 4 in Appendix E (ii) of the Amendment Application and further discussed in item 3 below) along the primary access road and would require two turning circles (which encroach into the Renosterveld Area). The botanical implications of the road and turning circles required have been considered by a botanist and found to be acceptable (the full report is contained in Appendix G (i)(a) and Appendix G(i)(b) of the Amendment Application) and the same goes for the freshwater ecologist (refer to Appendix G (ii) of the Amendment Application for the full report).

• Reduced area for Film studios and open film lots to 38.19 ha in the central portion of the site.

• Testing Facility- north western corner reduced to 4.44ha through straightening of eastern boundary and inclusion of a buffer zone (i.e. 0.16ha conceded to Main Green Corridor).

• Slight realignment of access to the Outdoor Studio Zone would provide more direct access through the northern-most point of the Outdoor Studio Zone, rather than a north-westerly aligned access point. Note that a freshwater ecologist has considered this realignment and found it to be preferred (and acceptable) (refer to Appendix G (ii) of the Amendment Application for the full report), with the implementation of mitigation measures (which have been added to the conditions of EA in this Amendment Application).

• Outdoor Studio Zone (for outdoor film shooting), along the Kuils River Braid, would increase from 6.98ha to 7.91ha through consolidation of boundaries for straighter edges.

• The land use rights would also change from natural rights (i.e. use what is located there naturally) to rights similar to those in the current backlots whereby temporary sets (i.e. structures without foundations and/or structures which do not require building plan approval) may be established therein. Change in land use rights would require the removal and/or flattening of dunes, which is considered acceptable by a freshwater ecologist only in certain areas of the Outdoor Studio Zone. Therefore, two portions (totalling 2.33 ha) of the Outdoor Studio Zone have been earmarked as backlots (along with an access route of approximately 0.16 ha), while the remainder (5.42 ha) has been conceded to conservation. This aspect, the above point, as well as the required access over the Kuils River Braid, has been assessed by a freshwater ecologist and found to be acceptable, however certain recommendations have been made with regard to the access road across the Kuils River braid (refer to Appendix G (ii) of the Amendment Application for the full report). These recommendations have been added as conditions of authorisation as part of this Amendment Application.

2 Residential land use on south-western and eastern portion

• The 12 ha residential land area south of the main access road would be amended to mixed use and is labelled as Mixed Use 1 in the proposed amended DF in Appendix E (ii) of the Amendment Application. Note that Mixed Use Area 1 would also comprise the mixed use area south of the primary access road currently approved.

• The 11.25 ha residential in central portion (labelled as Residential Area 1 in the proposed amended DF in Appendix E (ii) of the Amendment Application and Residential Area 3 in Appendix E (i) of the Amendment Application) would remain as is,

with the inclusion of an indigenous landscaped buffer with the main green corridor.

• The 2.29 ha residential area (Residential Area 1b in the current approved DF in Appendix E (i) of the Amendment Application) (triangle along R310) would be enlarged to 2.59ha and amended to mixed use (refer to Mixed Use Area 3 in Appendix E (ii) of the Amendment Application). The maximum allowable building height (of approximately 8m) would be retained. The visual impacts of the change of use from residential to mixed use has been assessed and found to be appropriate (refer to Appendix G (iii) of the Amendment Application for the full visual assessment).

Assessment Report

Page 20

• The 9.46 ha residential area (i.e. “revised development area”) north of the primary access road in the current approved DF would be amended to mixed use (labelled as Mixed Use 2 in the proposed amended DF) and the boundaries reconfigured in order to accommodate additional access roads. This revision of boundaries would affect the Renosterveld Area boundaries, but not the total extent thereof as additional Renosterveld Area along the canal would be demarcated (refer below to number 4 in this table for more detail on the reconfiguration thereof into the Renosterveld Area). The realignment of the northern access road (i.e. moving further west, down the primary access road) occurs in this area and includes two turning circles. The encroachment into the Renosterveld Area has been considered by a botanist and found to have a slightly higher impact, Medium (-), (without mitigation) than the current approved DF in this area, Low (-), but that there is no particular preference for either the current approved or the proposed amended DF (refer to Appendix G (i) of the Amendment Application for the full report). The botanical impact of this encroachment remains lower than that of the overall botanical impact of the DF identified in the initial S&EIA.

• The building height of buildings along the R310 in the mixed-use areas would be limited to 8m.

• The visual impacts of the change in land use from residential to mixed use for mixed use areas 1, 2, and 3 have been

assessed by a specialist as those areas are located along the R310 (a scenic route). The impacts were found to be similar or less than those identified in the S&EIA and contained in the RoD, and are therefore considered acceptable, provided that the height limit of two storeys along that edge is adhered to. Key mitigation measures with regard to building height limits for buildings along the R310 as well as landscaping have been adopted as part of the proposed amended DF and associated landscaping plan. The full visual assessment report can be found in Appendix G (iii) of the Amendment Application.

3 Hotel, commercial and retail area

• The mixed-use land uses (including hotel, commercial and retail land uses) accommodated in the north western corner would remain in the Mixed Use 1-4 areas.

4

Conservation area Most of the conservation/green areas would remain the same and would comprise of strictly conservation areas and some landscaping areas. The exception is the addition of a conservation area labelled the OSZ Conservation area which is 5.42 ha in extent. The following amendments are proposed:

• The size of the Renosterveld area would remain at 15.11ha.

• The defined sensitive Renosterveld area would remain conserved – due to the proposed realignment of the boundaries of the development areas.

• A portion of the less sensitive Renosterveld area would be lost to the proposed access road for the triangular mixed-use area (ST653-14) along the R310. The impacts have been assessed by an independent botanist and freshwater ecologist and have been found to be the same as those of the current approved DF (refer to Appendices G (ii) and Appendix E (ii) of the Amendment Application for the full reports). The botanist has emphasised the importance of the conservation of this area and some additional recommendations have been included in the conditions of authorisation in the EA.

• A small portion of the less sensitive Renosterveld area would be lost to the development of a traffic circle and the realigned northern access road. The impacts have been assessed by an independent botanist and freshwater ecologist and have been found to be acceptable and no different to that of the current approved DF (refer to Appendices G (ii) and Appendix E (ii) of the Amendment Application for the full reports).

• Additional OSZ conservation of 5.42 ha.

• Reconfiguration of boundaries and removal of berms results in a gain in the Main Green Corridor of 0.5 ha.

Assessment Report

Page | 21

• The removal of berms (on plan) in the dune slack and environmental connection area to provide and increased area of 9.23ha.

Note that, overall, the conservation area would be increased by approximately 6.54ha (i.e. 65, 400m2) through the following:

• Reduced area of the Testing Facility (0.16ha gain);

• New Outdoor Studio Zone conservation area (5.42ha gain);

• Increased area of the Dune Slack and Environmental Connection (0.46ha gain); and

• Increased Main Green Corridor (0.5ha gain). The Detention Area would be reduced by 0.04ha to 7.18ha and would remain in the same location, furthermore, it is earmarked for landscaping. Landscaping is distributed throughout the site and the total extent of landscaped areas is 18.51ha.

5 Portions 1,2 as indicated in

Appendix 1 not to be used as ‘Backlots” and shall be retained for conservation purposes

The area would be increased as a result of the removal of the berm indicated in the site plan (again, it is important to note that no

actual berms would be removed from the site near the conservation zones, and no berms currently exist in the buffer zones between the development areas and conservation areas) for the current approved DF (Appendix E (i)) of the Amendment Application and is indicated in the Dune Slack Wetlands and Environmental Connection area in the proposed amended DF in Appendix E (ii). The extent thereof would be increased from 8.77 ha to 9.23ha, providing a gain of 0.46ha in conservation area.

6 Eskom power line servitude(6.65ha)

Eskom power line servitude would remain in the same location and would be increased by 0.01ha therefore totalling 6.66ha in extent.

7 Buffers are indicated throughout the site in Appendix 1 of the RoD.

• The removal of reference to berms in the site plan for the proposed amended DF (Appendix E (ii) of the Amendment Application) is proposed. Note that this would not preclude the requirement for landscaping and buffers, but these buffers would not take the form of berms (i.e. they would be landscaped or incorporated into conservation areas, depending on their location). Essentially, the proposal would revert to the original intentions of the 2006 RoD.

• The original intention for the berms surrounding the Film studios area was largely to be used as a noise buffer, however, given the proposed change of eastern adjacent land use from residential to mixed use, the demonstration of the operations of the studios to not be as noisy as anticipated, as well as the security aspect of managing the Main Green Corridor, it is not believed that berms are essential and may be assessed on a case by case basis as development unfolds within the Mixed Use area.

• The aspect of removing the mapped berms indicated adjacent to the N2 (which was originally recommended by a visual specialist) has been re-assessed by a visual specialist and it was found that there would not be significant improvements with the construction of berms in that area (refer to Appendix G (iii) of the Amendment Application for the full visual report). The removal of berms from the plans has also been considered by a freshwater ecologist and it has been confirmed that it would be acceptable. It has further been recommended that, should the establishment of a berm be desired in the future, this should be dealt with on a case by case basis where individual method statements can be compiled in the Environmental Management Programme for the project or in a Maintenance and Management Plan for the wetland areas within the site for the specific aspect of each berm once the detail becomes available and a wetland specialist can provide very specific recommendations for the proposed berms.

With respect to the changes in land use from residential to mixed use, areas along the R310 would be limited to a

maximum height of two storeys/ 8m. Figure 3 has been included in the land use application and demonstrates how

the scenic nature of the R310 would be respected.

FIGURE 3 PROPOSED INTERFACE THROUGH MIXED USE AREAS AND THE R310 (SOURCE: NMA, 2018)

These adjustments would necessitate certain amendments to the project description as well as some conditions of authorisation, hence this amendment application. A draft landscaping plan has been developed (and submitted with the land use application) which focuses on the implementation of buffer zones which would be planted with locally indigenous vegetation, as well as removal of alien vegetation in conservation zones. The landscape plan also includes direction for a corridor to Vergenoegd Farm as well as dictating no pedestrian access into the Renosterveld conservation area. The most recent version of the landscape plan is included in this report in Figure 4 as well as Appendix O (for a larger image thereof). Note that the landscape plan may be updated to include more detail at a precinct level, however these would have to be approved by the City of Cape Town during the applicable town planning process and would have to be aligned with the overall landscape plan as indicated in this report. The EMPr also clarifies that while intentional landscaping may be done in the development areas, the conservation areas should be subject to management under a conservation management plan.

Assessment Report

Page | 23

FIGURE 4 DRAFT LANDSCAPING PLAN, SUBMITTED WITH LAND USE APPLICATION (SOURCE:TKLA, 2018)

Construction for Phase 1 technically started in 2019 with the commencement of construction of the Data Centre (noting

that the Data Centre is part of this phase and it has already been granted EA) with Phase 1 taking approximately

3 years to complete, Phase 2: 4 – 6 years, Phase 3: 7 – 10 years and Phase 4 10+ years. A draft phasing plan has

been included in Appendix P.

Roads and access points have also been considered according to the phases as follows:

• Phase 1:

o The Secondary Access Road (Dune Road) would be constructed up to the bell-mouth at the Data

Centre (note that the construction of this section was completed in June 2019). The extension of Dune

Road to Old Faure Road would be completed before Phase 3 starts.

o Class 5 access road off Film City Boulevard to access the service station.

o The realignment of the Quarterlink to intersect with the realigned R310/Old Faure Road intersection

and to intersect with the R102 in the vicinity of the Faure station access road (part of the PGWC

contract and not the applicant’s responsibility).

o Signalisation of all intersections on R310, including the CTFS Main Access, between the N2 (including

N2 ramp terminal) and R102 (part of the PGWC contract and not the applicant’s responsibility).

o The dualling of the remaining section of the R310 up to the N2 is currently under construction due

for completion June 2020 at the earliest, detailed design being undertaken by EFG Engineers and

the proposed layouts have been taken into account for the start of Phase 1.

Assessment Report

Page 24

• Phase 3:

o Secondary Access Road (Dune Road) onto Old Faure Road with turning lanes.

3.2 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE CONDITIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL

AUTHORISATION

The amendment to various aspects of the DF as indicated in Table 3 would necessitate certain amendments to the

Environmental Authorisation in terms of the project description as well as certain conditions of authorisation.

Conditions of authorisation are proposed for amendment in respect of updating the Environmental Authorisation to

reflect the latest property information, the latest applicable legislation, accurate reference to the corresponding

areas/ labels in the DF (as some of the land use labels and associated areas have been revised), as well the

particular conditions pertaining to environmental sensitivities on site.

The proposed amendments to the RoD and amended EA are provided in Table 4. Note that, upon the request of

the DEA&DP, a comprehensive table has been compiled which consolidates historic and the current amendment

application into a single Environmental Authorisation and which includes a motivation for each line item of the

Environmental Authorisation where amendments have been made and/or proposed. This table is included in

Appendix H of the Amendment Application and should form a key component of the decision-making process.

TABLE 4 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE CONDITIONS OF AUTHORISATION

NO. PROPOSED CHANGES TO CONDITIONS OF AUTHORISATION- CONSOLIDATED IN 2020 EXPLANATORY NOTES

A Dreamworld Management Company (Pty) Ltd and Cape Town Film Studios (Pty) Ltd propose to develop a film “city” that would provide a service to the local and international filming industry. The proposed activity will comprise the following:

• Film studios and open film lots (i.e. “Testing Facility”, “Cape Town Film Studios” and “OSZ Backlot”) of up to approximately 44.96 hectares;

• Within the up to approximately 44.96 hectares mentioned above, a particular Outdoor Studio Zone comprising two backlots (“OSZ Backlot”) totalling up to approximately 2.33 hectares in extent would be allocated for use which allows the establishment of temporary structures and /or sets which do not have foundations and do not require a building plan.

• Additional access routes to the Outdoor Studio Zone Backlots;

• A residential component (“Residential Area 1”) which will be located on the south-western portion of the site comprising of up to approximately 11.25 hectares;

• Mixed Use Areas (“Mixed Use 1”, “Mixed Use 2”, “Mixed Use 3”, and “Mixed Use 4”) in the western half of the site totalling up to approximately 34.04 hectares;

• A service station/ diner at the entrance to the site, along the R310, of up to approximately 0.96 hectares;

• Conservation and associated buffer areas of up to approximately 76.46 hectares;

• Landscaped areas of up to approximately 18.51 hectares; and

• Associated access roads and servitudes. The Dune Slack and Environmental Connection as indicated in the Site Plan is not be used as “Backlots” and shall be retained for conservation purposes.

The project description has been updated to reflect the amended DF in this amended application.

A The drafting of this component of the amended and consolidated Environmental Authorisation (EA) would be at the discretion of the DEA&DP, however it is recommended that the similarly listed activities in terms of the NEMA be included. Suggested similarly listed activities have been included in section 2 of this report.

-

B The listed activities will take place on the Remainder of Erf 41969-RE, Erf 41968, Blue Downs and Farm 653-14, Stellenbosch. The SG 21-digit codes are: C06700240004196900000, C06700240004196800000,and C0670000 00000653 00014 Co-ordinates: Erf 41969-RE: 34o02‘04.61“S, 18o43‘15.98“ Erf 41968: 34o01‘54.42“S, 18o43‘08.42“ E Farm 653-14: 34o01‘38.80“ S, 18o43‘55.44“ E Hereinafter referred to as “the property/site”.

Additional and updated property information has been indicated.

Assessment Report

Page | 25

C, as amended in 2014

The Board of Directors Dreamworld Management Company (Pty) Ltd and Cape Town Film Studios (Pty) Ltd c/o Mr. N. Dekker P.O Box 682 Somerset Mall 7173 Tel: (021) 843 2400 Fax: (021) 843 2410

Note the minor change in contact details whereby the Board of Directors has been included.

D, as amended in 2014

Chand Environmental Consultants c/o Sadia Chand P.O Box 238 Plumstead 7800 Tel: (021) 762 3050 Fax: 086 665 7430

There are new consultants managing the amendment application.

5 The mitigation/rehabilitation measures and recommendations detailed by Nick Helme of Nick Helme Botanical Surveys (refer to Appendix 2), as amended in 2020, must be adopted and implemented.

This change has been made to reflect the fact that additional mitigation measures have been included in the EA as part of this Amendment Application.

5.1 Planning Phase Should this development be approved, peak water levels need to be carefully monitored, and measures need to be put in place to prevent prolonged raised levels.

-

5.5 No development or infrastructure of any sort (e.g. pipelines) should impact on the high conservation value areas identified, namely the Renosterveld Area and Area 2 within the Main Green Corridor (refer to Figure 5 for the extent of Area 2).

FIGURE 5 SENSITIVE BOTANICAL AREAS FROM MR. NICK HELME’S REPORT DATED

MARCH 2005; AREA 2 IS WITHIN THE MAIN GREEN CORRIDOR, NOTE THAT THE EXTENT

OF AREA 1 IS NOT APPLICABLE

Area 2 should have an ecological buffer of at least 10m around all edges.

This condition has been amended to reflect the applicable areas as they are labelled in the amended DF. An image has been included to clarify the extent of “Area 2”. The extent of the Renosterveld area is also indicated, noting that this differs from the Area 1 indicated in Error! Reference source not found.. The requirement for a 10m buffer area around Area 1 is a discrepancy which should not have been incorporated into the original RoD as Alternative 5 indicated development in some portions of Area 1, which has been approved since 2006. Therefore, the requirement for a buffer around Area 1 has been removed. Note that the condition that no development take place in the Renosterveld Area remains, which would serve to protect the Renosterveld Area as indicated in the amended DF. Furthermore, the reference to “the exact buffer dimensions should be taken from the freshwater specialist’s recommendations” has been removed as no additional buffers were included as mitigation measures for the approved alternative in the freshwater impact report in the initial S&EIA.

5.7 All conservation areas on site should be demarcated for conservation or open space use. With reference to the amended DF Site Plan, these areas specifically include those labelled as:

• OSZ Conservation;

• Main Green Corridor;

• Dune Slack and Environmental Connection; and

• Renosterveld.

This condition has been changed from a requirement for zoning as Private Open Space for conservation areas to a requirement for “demarcation” for use as open space and conservation. The specific areas, as per the DF, as also listed to avoid ambiguity. Note that, although no zoning as Private Open Space is presently being considered, the designation of those areas as conservation and the associated requirements for alien clearing and rehabilitation is merely an alternative mechanism which serves the same purpose.

Assessment Report

Page 26

Furthermore, there would be administrative difficulties in the demarcation of land within these areas which would provide access to them, access which is currently approved.

5.8, as amended in 2014

• No species may be used anywhere on the development which are classified as Category 1,2 or 3 within the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (Act No. 10 of 2004) (NEM:BA) legislation. Kikuyu grass should not be allowed anywhere on the property, as this species is highly invasive, especially in wetland areas and is water thirsty.”

• A spreading-potential risk assessment of the exotic species to be utilised must be undertaken prior to introducing any such new species and specific mitigation measures that could be applicable to these species based on the overall risk of spread must be determined. This assessment must also address the nature of reproduction of each species and the likelihood of successfully preventing spreading and planting of these species in planter boxes.

• Any non-locally indigenous or exotic species used must be monitored on an annual basis, and any plants that have spread from their original points of introduction must be removed during this monitoring programme. The success of this monitoring and management must be verified by an independent botanist every three years. The annual monitoring results and proof of verification by an independent botanist must be submitted to the Environmental Monitoring Committee every 3 years.

• Where species characterised as water intensive have been identified for use, investigate whether a less water-thirsty alternative with the same visual character (that would meet the requirements of the particular film shoot), exists. If appropriate, utilise the alternative species. The success of this monitoring and management must be verified by an independent botanist every 3 years.

• Residents should be encouraged to plant local indigenous species.

This change speaks to the latest legislation given the NEMBA has replaced CARA in terms of categorising invasive species.

5.9 The Deeds of Sale for all properties bordering on Area 1 (i.e. the Renosterveld Area) should include clauses which acknowledge that they are aware of the management requirements in this area which mandates the controlled burning of the vegetation at least once every 10 – 15 years, and will not lodge any objections at the time of such management decisions or actions by the property managers.

This change has been made to refer to the appropriate label in amended DF.

5.16 Another key element of the EMP should be a management plan for alien invasive plant control. Important invasive aliens in the area are currently Acacia saligna (Port Jackson), Acacia cyclops (rooikrans), Pinus radiate Monterey pine), and Eucalyptus sp. bluegum. No invasive alien vegetation should be allowed on the conservation areas (see NEM:BA legislation for listings), and there should be ongoing annual alien invasive plant removal.

This change has been made to reflect the latest legislation in this regard.


1.2.2.1 The rehabilitation of all the underdeveloped natural areas is highly recommended and will add value to what is currently mostly a highly degraded area. The public spaces may however be landscaped with non-invasive exotic species subject to 5.8 above. The same inclusions in the Deed of Sale as noted should be continued when the properties change hands, including when speculators or investors buy a property but sell it on before building”. 1.2.2.2 Any non-locally indigenous and exotic species used must be monitored on an annual basis, and any plants that have spread from their original points of introduction must be removed during this monitoring programme. The success of this monitoring and management must be verified by an independent botanist every three years. The annual monitoring results and proof of verification by an independent botanist must be submitted to the Environmental Monitoring Committee every 3 years.

Amended cross-referencing to reflect the amended Environmental Authorisation. Should the DEA&DP choose to number the amended EA differently, this cross-reference should be noted.

NEW (suggested numbering: 5.18)

A carefully prepared drainage and stormwater plan is required to ensure that the Renosterveld conservation areas are not flooded by stormwater and runoff backing up on the upslope sides of the new developments. The stormwater and drainage plan must ensure that the existing soil moisture regime in the conservation area is not be altered by the development.

This is a new recommendation based on the botanical statement included in Appendix G (i)(a) which was used to inform this Amendment Application.


Ongoing rehabilitation of the Renosterveld conservation area will be required in order to keep it ecologically valuable and viable. An invasive alien vegetation management plan has been prepared by Grobler & Boucher (2014), which should be referred to. Reintroduction of suitable, locally indigenous plant species is not extensively discussed in the management plan, but reference is made to this idea, which is here supported (see below), provided it is supervised and planned in consultation with an experienced botanist familiar with the study area and relevant vegetation type.

This is a new recommendation based on the botanical statement included in Appendix G (i)(a) which was used to inform this Amendment Application.


Within one year of project approval the botanist should be contracted to supervise and undertake the reintroduction of selected, locally indigenous plant Species of Conservation Concern, such as Lachenalia corymbosa, Lachenalia arbuthnotiae, Arctotheca forbesiana, Pauridia alba, Leucadendron lanigerum var lanigerum, Ruchia geminiflora, Cliffortia hirta, Leucadendron levisanus, Leucadendron linifolium, Echiostachys incanus, Elegia verreauxii, marasmodes polycephala, Isoetes capensis and Diosma dichotoma. The reintroduction of the selected specimens should be completed within two years of any project approval.

This is a new recommendation based on the botanical statement included in Appendix G (i)(a) which was used to inform this Amendment Application. A minor revision has been included by the EAP, at the suggestion of CapeNature, to ensure that the condition can be implemented. The EAP has replaced “including but not limited to” with “such as”, which would still provide a list of appropriate species and still require

Assessment Report

Page | 27

the input of a botanist, but would avoid a non-compliance on account of a certain single specimen not being available at the time.


With regard to development in the Outdoor Studio Zone (i.e. “OSZ Backlot 1” and “OSZ Backlot 2”), when the dunes are (fully or partly) flattened it is strongly recommended that all bulbs on site (notably approximately 2000 plants of Haemanthus coccineus (paintbrush) and approximately 1000 plants of Zantedeschia aethiopica (arum lily)) should be rescued and translocated prior to earthmoving. They should be translocated to Driftsands Nature Reserve (managed by CapeNature), which supports similar habitat (Cape Flats Dune Strandveld) that is in need of rehabilitation. This translocation should be undertaken just after the leaves start to shrivel in early summer (probably October), as the plants are going dormant for the dry season, but when they are still visible above ground. Translocation should happen immediately, avoiding the need for lengthy storage in a nursery. An alternative to the translocation thereof would be to use these species in the indigenous landscaping on the property due to their horticultural potential.

This is a new recommendation based on the botanical statement included in Appendix G (i)(b) which was used to inform this Amendment Application. The aspect on usage in the landscaping has been added in response to comment received from CapeNature (refer to Appendix I (iii) for their comment).


Removal of all woody alien vegetation in the wetlands in the conservation area of the outdoor studio zone (i.e. OSZ Conservation”) should be carried out.

This is a new recommendation based on the botanical statement included in Appendix G (i)(b) which was used to inform this Amendment Application.


Efforts should be made to limit access to livestock in the Outdoor Studio zone. This is a new recommendation based on the botanical statement included in Appendix G (i)(b) which was used to inform this Amendment Application.

6 The mitigation/rehabilitation measures and recommendations detailed by Marius Burger of Sungazer (refer to Appendix 3), as amended, must be adopted and implemented.


6.3 The developer should further undertake to improve the quality of wetland habitat surrounding Residential Area 1. This would include preventing against further pollution, and actively combating the alien vegetation infestations.



Improve the control of Acacia saligna on the renosterveld patch so that the site can be adequately rehabilitated and managed as renosterveld habitat.

This is a new recommended condition of authorisation from the updated faunal assessment (refer to Appendix G(vi)).


Conduct a targeted survey during the middle to late winter to determine the presence/absence of Cape Caco within the CTFS site. This is achievable in a single season if it is not a below-average rainfall year. Such a survey would require about five night-time visits during the peak of the annual rainfall season. Conclusive results (i.e. presence or absence of Cape Caco) should be achievable within three surveying stints, i.e. within three years.

This is a new recommended condition of authorisation from the updated faunal assessment (refer to Appendix G(vi)).

7 The mitigation/rehabilitation measures and recommendations as detailed by Justine Ewart-Smith of the Freshwater Consulting Group (refer to Appendix 4), as amended, must be adopted and implemented.


7.4 A detailed stormwater management plan should be compiled for the site, aimed at minimising changes in the quantity and quality of runoff entering remnant seasonal wetlands.

This change has been made to reflect the fact that Alternative 5 has been authorised.

7.6 Where crossing of remnant wetlands is required, to allow access to infilled areas, wide-span bridges/culverts rather than roads should be used, and a freshwater ecologist should provide specialist input to bridge design, to minimise obstruction of flow through these areas.

Note that the additional recommendations provided by the freshwater ecologists (and included as conditions of authorisation in this amendment application) are in line with this recommendation.

7.7 To reduce the vulnerability of the remaining wetland habitats to the potential impacts associated with anthropogenic disturbances created by filming activities and the construction of sets, all remnant sensitive wetland areas (indicated as Main Green Corridor and OSZ Conservation) and their associated dunes should be managed as conservation areas.

This change has been made to refer to the appropriate label in amended DF. Refer to notes on condition 5.7 above for details on the zoning.

7.9 Considering the overall extent and importance of wetlands on the Dreamworld Film City Site as a whole, any filming or construction activities on this portion of the site (particularly in the outdoor film sets in OSZ Backlot 1 and OSZ Backlot 2 and in close proximity to wetland area 2- Cape Town Film Studios western edge), throughout the construction and operational phases on the project, should be guided by a detailed Environmental Management Plan and executed under the command of an Environmental Control Officer with special sanctions for non-compliance.

This change has been made to refer to the appropriate label in amended DF. The EMPr has also been updated to reflect the rights of the OSZ Backlots.


The route of the proposed northern access road should be located immediately next to (south) the Eskom servitude where the wetland has already been significantly disturbed. The crossing of the old Kuils River braid, onto the Outdoor Studio Zone should be orientated perpendicular to the old stream channel and should be placed on culverts interspersed with permeable material to ensure that the section of road through the permanently inundated areas does not impede flow in the channel.

This is a new recommendation based on the freshwater report included in Appendix G (ii) which was used to inform this Amendment Application. Note that the proposed amended DF reflects the appropriate alignment of the road.

Assessment Report

Page 28


The culvert structures mentioned above should not be placed higher or lower than the natural base level of the base level in the braid to ensure that flow in the channel is not impeded. The culvert structures should also be placed within the natural drainage channels in the Kuils River braid.

This is a new recommendation based on the freshwater report included in Appendix G (ii) which was used to inform this Amendment Application.


The culverts under the road will need to be inspected at least on an annual basis, at the end of the dry period, to ensure that the culverts are not blocked with sediment and debris that would further impede flow in the old braid.



Construction work associated with the northern access road that is within the wetland areas should be undertaken during the drier summer months. The spatial (i.e. minimising the extent of the road within permanently inundated areas and align it outside of the green corridor as far as possible) and temporal extent of the works should be limited as far as possible and the disturbed areas rehabilitated afterwards (reshaping of the banks of the road to at least a 1 in 3 gradient and revegetating if necessary). All waste material associated with the construction activities should be removed from the wetland areas after construction is complete.



Should the establishment of a berm be required in future, this should be dealt with on a case by case basis where individual method statements can be compiled in the Environmental Management Programme for the project or in a Maintenance and Management Plan for the wetland areas within the site for the specific aspect of each berm once the detail becomes available and a wetland specialist can provide very specific recommendations for the proposed berms.



Monitoring and management of alien vegetation growth in the wetland areas must be undertaken and this activity must form part of the alien vegetation clearing programme for the site.



Limited access and disturbance to the delineated conservation areas should be permitted. This is a new recommendation based on the freshwater report included in Appendix G (ii) which was used to inform this Amendment Application.


The Renosterveld Conservation Area and its associated wetlands should be demarcated as a no-go zone and no construction activities should be allowed take place within this area. Over the longer term, the conservation area should be properly fenced off to ensure that access and trampling of the wetland area is limited. The area between the developed area and the wetlands should be buffered as far as possible by providing for some buffer area that consists of largely local indigenous plants. The introduction of exotic and alien invasive plants for landscaped areas should be avoided. This would ensure that the seasonal wetland areas are adequately buffered from poor quality stormwater runoff from the developed site and the opportunity for alien invasive plant growth in the conserved areas is minimised.

This is a new recommendation based on the freshwater report included in Appendix G (ii) which was used to inform this Amendment Application. Note that the landscaping plan complies with this recommendation.


The stormwater management plan for the Renosterveld Area in particular should ensure that post-development runoff is directed away from the wetland area so as to minimise the risk of changes in the seasonality of this habitat. The stormwater management plan for the area should form an integral part of the stormwater management plan for the entire site.

This is a new recommendation based on the freshwater report included in Appendix G (ii) which was used to inform this Amendment Application. This condition has been addressed in the Stormwater Management Plan.


Contaminated runoff from the construction site(s) should be prevented from directly entering the wetland areas. Where construction sites are located near the wetlands, all materials on the construction sites should be properly stored and contained. Disposal of waste from the sites should also be properly managed. Construction workers should be given ablution facilities at the construction sites that are located away from the streams (at least 50m) and regularly serviced. These measures should be addressed, implemented and monitored in terms of the Environmental Management Programme (EMP) for the construction phase.



The stormwater management plan should ensure that the surface and subsurface flow from the developed area is directed away from the wetland area.



As mentioned in the previous mitigation measures, the access road to the outdoor studio and testing site should be located and constructed in such a manner to minimise its impact on the local surface and sub-surface flow and in particular prevent flow from being impeded at the road. This can be achieved by minimising the extent of the road within permanently inundated areas and by making use of sufficient culverts and permeable material under the road within the areas that are inundated.



A programme must be carried out at the Precinct Plan level for each of the Mixed Use / Residential Area, whereby comments from the freshwater ecologist on the associated stormwater management plan could be incorporated into the Precinct Plan submission. The comment from the freshwater ecologist should note and include the following considerations:

• Potential changes in stormwater run-off resulting from previous development;

• Note on whether adjustments to overall stormwater management plan is required, as well as the site-level stormwater management plan;

This is a new recommendation based on the freshwater review of the stormwater management plan included in Appendix G (iii) which was used to inform this Amendment Application. This review was requested by CapeNature in their comment on the Draft Amendment Application.

Assessment Report

Page | 29

• Note whether any changes in flow patterns and inundation patterns within wetland systems on site have occurred following the approval of the amendment application and/or previous site development plan submission (whichever the case may be) and make recommendations to mitigate this, if needed; and

• Note whether any changes in water quality within wetland systems on site have occurred following the approval of the amendment application and/or previous site development plan submission (whichever the case may be); and make recommendations to mitigate this, if needed.


A freshwater ecologist should have input to the landscaping of these areas (i.e. the outdoor studio zone and access road) to ensure that they effectively function as ecological corridors.



All roads within the site should be constructed on a rock blanket or other permeable material to offset impacts associated with changes in the direction of surface and subsurface flow.


8 The mitigation/rehabilitation measures and recommendations detailed by Piet Louw Architects, Urban Designer, City Planner and Dave Dewar City and Regional Planner (refer to Appendix 5), as amended, must be adopted and implemented.



An independent visual specialist must be consulted for input during the design and implementation phase for individual outdoor sets, such that specific visual impacts can be identified and suitably addressed on a case by case basis. Special focus must be placed on high impact areas such as those visible from the N2 and the R310, to ensure that views are not dominated by scaffolding and support structures. An independent visual specialist must also be consulted for input during the design phase of the proposed mixed use (i.e. labelled as Mixed Use Area 3) development along the northern boundary.


8.6 A 100m building line should establish the eastern edge of the mixed-use zones (i.e. Mixed Use Areas 1 and 2) facing the R310, noting that the maximum height for development along the R310 is two storeys/ 8m. A transparent perimeter fence on the western edge of the canal could provide the security line, while the space between the eastern edge of the canal and the R310 should be landscaped for public amenity.

This has been amended to reflect the proposed change in use, removal of housing as well as the confirmation that two storeys remains the maximum, given the recommendation of the visual specialist.

8.7 Access to Residential Area 1 and Mixed Use Area 1 along the eastern edge of the site should be via a perimeter route lined with development on the one side of the route only, i.e. the access road should be on the edge of the development area, between the development area and the green buffer abutting the canal.

This has been amended to reflect the proposed change in use and appropriate areas on the DF.


As part of the proposed DF, it is suggested that the berms approved as part of the existing DF (see Figure 2.3) are replaced by landscaped buffer strips.

This is a new recommendation based on the visual report included in Appendix G (iii)(a) which was used to inform this Amendment Application.


Appoint a professional Landscape Architect to design the landscaped buffer strips to ensure that:

• Appropriate indigenous vegetation is utilised in the design.

• Sufficient visual screening is provided to the proposed development from the scenic R310 route and the relevant portions of the N2.

• Low level vegetated berm areas with appropriate planting are used in strategic places to provide visual screening.

• The landscaped buffer area is designed so that the height of the vegetation grades gradually towards the height of the buildings (i.e. shrubs or groundcovers in the foreground with larger trees in the background).

• Sufficient tree planting is provided in appropriate places to provide visual screening.



Limit the height of Mixed Use 2 north of the service station, as well as all Mixed Use areas along the R310, to 8m to ensure that it does not cause visual intrusion and creates a balanced composition, also ensure that roof structures do not intrude above the allowed height restrictions.



Ensure that the buildings within the mixed-use areas along the R310 are cohesively designed to create a uniform architectural character with positive visual impacts on the surrounding area. The buildings in the area should be designed cohesively, within set parameters determined for the development area, by a qualified professional architect registered with SACAP.



All buildings within the development area should be screened sufficiently from the R310 by the implementation of appropriate landscape strategies. Landscape strategies can include possible low berming and must include planting in the green belt/ buffer strip. It should be noted that berming is not considered essential to reduce visual impacts. However, appropriate screening measures using planting and potential strategic berming must be identified during the design phase to ensure that visual impacts are reduced.

This is a new recommendation based on the visual report included in Appendix G (iii) which was used to inform this Amendment Application.

NEW Design the screening vegetation in the green belt/ buffer zone along the entire interface of the CTFS and the R310 cohesively in response to the natural environment and the individual

This is a new recommendation based on the visual report included in Appendix

Assessment Report

Page 30

(suggested numbering: 8.14)

development proposals at the CTFS. The design of the screening planting and landscape strategy in the entire green belt/ buffer zone should be overseen by a professional Landscape Architect and should ensure that sufficient screening is provided such that the proposed development does not detract from the scenic quality of the route. The design should be contextually appropriate, not visually intrusive and sensitive to the rural context.

G (iii) which was used to inform this Amendment Application.


Ensure that sufficient visual screening is allowed to reduce the potential visual exposure of the development DF (through the use of appropriately designed screening vegetation, including indigenous trees and groundcovers).



Ensure that ecological factors are incorporated into the landscape design. Ecological factors should also be taken into consideration in the screening planting design, including planting with indigenous shrubs and trees to create a visual buffer, while blending into the natural surroundings. Low berms (where necessary) should be designed sensitively to appear natural rather than man-made, with minimal slopes.



Retain existing (non-invasive) screening vegetation (including wetland vegetation that provides important ecological functions and provides low level screening) as far as possible.



Ensure that fencing is visually permeable, contextually appropriate and softened with planting to provide visual screening. Use appropriate colours such as dark grey, charcoal and black that are visually recessive. The design thereof should be overseen by a professional Landscape Architect.



Appoint a professional Landscape Architect to oversee the preparation of a landscape master plan and guideline document for the relevant sub-divisional areas to ensure that the design of buildings and surrounding landscapes includes sufficient vegetation to provide visual screening over time.



Ensure that the architectural articulation of buildings and the landscape design of the sub-divisional areas take the following factors into consideration:

• Ensure that the visual impacts of the architecture when viewed from the R310 are carefully considered and taken into account in the design articulation of the building elements.

• Ensure that buildings are well-integrated into the landscape and do not appear as monolithic elements.

• Ensure that sufficient vegetation is provided to allow the development to become visually integrated within the surrounding environment over time.

• Ensure that building facades are appropriately articulated and that buildings are integrated into their context within the landscape as far as possible.

• Configure buildings and articulate walls and other structures so as to maintain the flow of vegetation around buildings and neighbouring developments to reduce their visibility.

• Use exterior colours that have low reflectivity value and blend with the surroundings.

• Design streetscape elements (e.g. paving, street furniture, lighting etc.) in a manner that responds to the local context.

• Make use of natural, contextually appropriate materials that do not detract from the surrounding environment.

• Keep reflective surfaces to a minimum or ensure that these areas are shaded by roof overhangs, where possible.



Design lighting appropriately along the following guidelines:

• Use low level lighting.

• Limit neon, spot or up-lighting.

• Screen and filter lights sources as far as possible.

• Shield external lights on buildings to cast light only upon the area required to be illuminated.

• Ensure that naked light sources are not visible from beyond the site.

• Ensure that no light is emitted into the sky.

This is a new recommendation based on the visual report included in Appendix G (iii)(a) and (b) which was used to inform this Amendment Application.


Make allowance for on-going landscape maintenance to allow site vegetation to mature sufficiently to allow the environment to achieve maximum visual absorption capacity.



Ensure that the SDP that is prepared takes the visibility of various elements within the development footprint into consideration. Ensure that the architectural design is sensitive to the surrounding context and is of an appropriate height and scale to reduce visual intrusion as far as possible.

This is a new recommendation based on the visual report included in Appendix G (iii) (b) which was used to inform this Amendment Application. Note that “possible berming” is referred to. The word “possible” has been deliberately included by the visual specialist in order to provide an example of a mechanism which may be

Assessment Report

Page | 31

employed if required or deemed necessary, but that a berm is not a specific requirement.


For Mixed Use Area 3, ensure that fencing is unobtrusive and screened effectively and that large scale infrastructure, parking areas and security fencing are not visible from the R310.

This is a new recommendation based on the visual report included in Appendix G (iii)(b) which was used to inform this Amendment Application.


For Mixed Use Area 3, ensure that no signage or billboards are visible from the R310. No free-standing signage should be permitted.



For Mixed Use Area 3, appoint a professional Landscape Architect to oversee the

landscape design of the screening elements and planting in the green belt and the

perimeter fencing to ensure that the design is contextually appropriate, not visually intrusive

and sensitive to the rural context.



Beyond the lighting requirements listed in condition 8.21 stemming from the visual assessment for both Mixed Use Area 3 and the remaining mixed use areas and planned berm removal, the following additional measures on lighting design were recommended in the visual assessment which just considered Mixed Use Area 3: o Implement the minimum lighting required to allow operation after sunset o Prohibit the use of large-scale security lighting/ flood lighting


9 The recommendation contained in the “Environmental Impact Assessment Addendum: Dreamworld Film City and Residential Development, Faure Oostenberg’ (The Environmental Partnership, June 2005) (pages 41-45), as amended, shall be complied with and implemented.


9.1.2 The mixed use area adjacent to the Renosterveld (i.e. Mixed Use Area 2) to be conserved must have a solid barrier, such as a low wall, between the gardens of the dwellings and the Renosterveld to ensure that the Renosterveld is not compromised in any way.

This aspect has been amended to reflect the proposed land use and appropriate area in the amended DF.

9.1.4 All conservation areas on site should be earmarked for use as conservation and an Environmental Management Plan for the construction phase and an Environmental Management System (EMS) for the operational phase must have strict measures in place to ensure the conservation of these areas.

Refer to notes on condition 5.7 above for details on the zoning.

9.1.5 Within the Outdoor Studio Zone of up to approximately 7.91ha located approximately in the centre of the Kuils River Wetlands on site, the zones indicated OSZ Backlot 1 and OSZ backlot 2 may be used as backlots, which allows for the construction of temporary structures without foundations which do not require a building plan. The OSZ conservation area should be treated as a conservation area.

This has been updated to reflect the revisions to the Outdoor Studio Zone in terms of allocation for land use rights therein, the specific requirements for this area which have been recommended by the freshwater ecologist and botanist as listed in section 5 and 7 of this table.

9.1.12 Due to the prevalence of wetlands in this area, the construction of under-road culverts would be deemed necessary.

It is recommended that this item be removed as it is already mentioned under condition 6.6 and is a mere duplication.

9.2.1 The dune proposed along the southern boundary should appear as natural as possible and therefore should not have an engineered, man-made appearance. This dune will block a view of the development from the N2 Freeway.

It is proposed that this be removed and replaced with the additional visual mitigation measures as described in section 8 of the amended Environmental Authorisation. The visual assessment has found that the berms along the N2 would not make a significant difference (refer to Appendix G (iii)(a) for the full specialist report).

9.2.3 The pockets of development on the western portion of the site should be ‘screened out’ by green ‘walls’ or appropriate landscaping guided by the inputs of a professional landscape architect. These serve to deflect views upwards towards the mountains and to frame views over the wetlands. They also create place defining-elements in the flat landscape.

The reference to a planted berm has been removed and the need for appropriate landscaping has been included. A visual assessment has found the removal of berms on the DF to be appropriate and have included additional mitigation measures, which have been included as conditions of the amended Environmental Authorisation.

9.2.7 On the eastern edge, with the exception of the edge treatment for the service station and diner adjacent to Mixed Use Area 2, large trees can be introduced through which the R310 runs. This recreates a spatial language which is common in the Western Cape and will enhance the quality of the scenic experience along the R310.

The exception of the edge treatment for the service station and diner, which has been approved in Environmental Authorisation reference 16/3/1/1/A4/74/1070/14.

9.2.8 On the eastern edge, with the exception of the edge treatment for the service station and diner adjacent to Mixed Use Area 2, large trees can be introduced through which the R310 runs.

This has been amended to clarify that the Applicant can only undertake activities on land which they own.

Assessment Report

Page 32

This recreates a spatial language which is common in the Western Cape and will enhance the quality of the scenic experience along the R310.

9.2.9 Access to housing along the eastern edge of the site should be via a perimeter route lined with housing on one side of the route only, ensuring that backs of houses do not face onto the R310. Along the northern boundary of the site adjacent to the overhead power lines a swathe of trees and planting should create a visual barrier and screen.

It is proposed that this be removed as it is a duplication of items listed in Appendix 5 of the RoD of 2006.

9.3.5 Where the development footprint does extend into wetland habitats, it is recommended that all rare / endangered plant species are identified and removed, together with other appropriate vegetation that can be used for replanting of disturbed areas and those earmarked for rehabilitation – a botanist with sound knowledge of wetland vegetation should visit the site in late winter / spring to identify sites and plants. This is particularly true for the Renosterveld Area, OSZ Backlot 1, OSZ Backlot 2 and the Dune Slack and Environmental Connection Area.


9.5.1, as amended in 2014





• Residents should be encouraged to plant local indigenous species.

This change has been made to reflect the latest applicable legislation in this regard.

9.5.2 The Deeds of Sale for all properties bordering on Area 1 (i.e. the Renosterveld Area) should include clauses which acknowledge that they are aware of the management requirements in this area which mandates the controlled burning of the vegetation at least once every 10 - 15 years, and will not lodge any objections at the time of such management decisions or actions by the property managers.

Delete as it is a repetition of 5.9.

9.5.4 A key element that needs to be included in the Environmental Management System is a fire management plan that allows for the Renosterveld Area to be burnt once every 10 –15 yrs. This should preferably be a controlled fire, conducted in April, to yield optimum regeneration. A maximum of 60% of the site should be burned in the designated year, followed by the remainder the following year. Without fire for periods longer than 15 years the vegetation is likely to become woody and moribund, and the shorter-lived species may disappear due to predation of their seed bank, etc. Fire more often than this will lead to local extinction of slower growing reseeding species, which is not desirable. Due to the increase in fuel load the risk of a runaway wildfire will also increase dramatically.


9.5.5 Another key element of the Environmental Management System should be a management plan for alien invasive plant control. Important invasive aliens in the area are currently Acacia saligna (Port Jackson), Acacia cyclops (rooikrans), Pinus radiata (Monterey pine), and Eucalyptus sp. (bluegum). No invasive alien vegetation should be allowed on the conservation areas (see NEM:BA legislation for listings), and there should be ongoing annual alien invasive plant removal.

This change has been made to reflect the latest applicable legislation in this regard.

9.5.6 The rehabilitation of all the undeveloped natural areas is highly recommended and will add value to what is currently mostly a highly degraded area. The landscaped and conservation spaces should be landscaped with suitable locally indigenous plant species, many of which were listed in the relevant section of the Scoping Report (Helme 2004). The same inclusions in the Deeds of Sale as noted should be continued when properties change hands, including when speculators or investors by a property but sell it on before building.

This has been clarified to ensure there is no misunderstanding regarding the zoning of the conservation areas.

9.5.7 The proponent must ensure that adequate funding is made available for the long-term ecological management of the site. It is suggested that they set up an Environmental Management Trust Fund. This Fund should yield sufficient money annually to fund all necessary activities such as alien plant management, fire management and erosion control.

The remainder of the condition was merely a suggestion by the specialist to achieve the outcome of adequate funding for long term ecological management. The Department may add to this to ensure annual proof thereof is submitted to them; however, this statement reflects the core of the

Assessment Report

Page | 33

condition and is what should remain in the EA.

9.8 Traffic and Transportation Recommendations

NEW (suggested numbering: 9.8.1)

A perimeter fence should be installed in strategic locations to ensure that people only access the site via the two access intersections.

This is a new recommendation which has been extracted from the updated Traffic and Transportation Impact Assessment report included in Appendix G (iv).


A sidewalk on the northern side of Film City Boulevard, as well as on both sides of the Secondary Access Road (Dune Road) and the realigned Quarterlink to Faure station are required.



Safe pedestrian facilities including dropped kerbs at all future signalised intersections should be constructed.



Safe pedestrian crossing facilities at roundabouts and unsignalised intersections should be established.



An internal non-motorised transport network plan to facilitate NMT movement should be established.



Bicycle facilities such as adequate lock up and end user facilities at the film studio, retail, industrial and office developments should be put in place.



Street lighting will need to be introduced at all signalised intersections (150m on all approaches) as well as along all of the pedestrian routes.



With regard to the level of responsibility to be dedicated to each road upgrade, infrastructure payment is determined through negotiations with the City of Cape Town, which will be undertaken as part of their Services Agreement with CTFS. Therefore, the responsibility of construction of roads is not placed upon the application in the amended environmental authorisation, but rather it would be their responsibility to engage the City of Cape Town on the matter. The amended EA would provide for the approval of the overall road, while the details around the phasing and financing thereof would be concluded at a later stage.



A public transport interchange in the vicinity of the proposed mixed use and film studio security control point, i.e. at the intersection of Film City Boulevard and the Secondary Access Road (Dune Road), should be integrated with the proposed mixed-use activity centre to facilitate efficient transfer of passengers and minimise walking distances.



Roadside bus/taxi embayments complete with shelters along Old Faure Road in the vicinity of the Secondary Access Road (Dune Road) intersection would be required.



Bus and taxi stops with shelters along Film City Boulevard and Secondary Access Road (Dune Road) for the accommodation of picking-up and dropping-off passengers at strategic locations are recommended. Each of these locations would need to be identified as part of each precinct plan.



A feeder service should be provided between the Faure Station and the proposed public transport interchange.



The existing bus and taxi services along the R310 and Old Faure Road, or those within close proximity to these routes should be reviewed to determine whether they could be adjusted to serve this development, or whether new services (MyCiti feeder) would have to be instituted to service the development. At such time there are no scheduled feeder or trunk routes proposed along Old Faure Road or the R310 as part of the Integrated Public Transport Network (IPTN) for 2032. Feeder routes through the development will require stops at strategic points which should allow for the public transport interchange to become redundant once scheduled services would become operational.


Assessment Report

Page 34


The parking layout should be addressed at the detailed precinct development planning and detailed design stage. It may also be possible to motivate for lower parking ratios under the shared parking premise and once a proper public transport network is operated through the development giving it PT1 or PT2 zone status.


12 The Detention Area should be designed to attract certain bird species (e.g. by establishing heronries).


14.2 The EMS must incorporate the conditions of authorisation given in this Environmental Authorisation as appropriate to the operational phase of the project.

This amendment has been proposed given than a Record of Decision is now referred to as an Environmental Authorisation.

16.1 (amended numbering to accommodate item below)

An amount of R1, 840,000.00 should be deposited into a ring-fenced account whereby the interest generated could be used to implement additional conservation management on site (or for other sensitive renosterveld areas beyond the site boundaries should funds be left over and no further on-site conservation is required for a particular year) beyond that which is carried out in terms of the annual environmental budget. Items that would be addressed as part of the annual budget include the following:

• Regular alien clearing activities; and

• Implementation of a burning programme. The R1, 840,000.00 shall be deposited into the above-mentioned account within 30 months of date of issue of this EA. Bi-annual (twice a year) statements of this account must be provided to the DEA&DP and CapeNature as evidence that it remains in existence and that no spending unrelated to conservation is taking place.

An initial amount of R300, 000.00 was recommended as the offset, however this was appealed, and, through the appeals process, it was resolved that an amount of R100, 000.00 would be paid per hectare of conservation-worthy land lost. Refer to section 6.1.5.3 of Appendix M for a motivation from the DEA&DP and response to the appeals to the 2006 RoD for evidence. Although there would be gains in conservation area as a result of the amended DF, the total sum remains the same. The Applicant is obliged to ensure adherence to the other conditions of authorisation in the Environmental Authorisation and should make budget provisions for those requirements, therefore certain activities have been specified as being related to the budget in order to avoid a scenario where no monies are budgeted for conservation and the interest from the environmental fund would be the only source of financial provision for conservation activities. The mitigation measure was also originally provided as mitigation for loss of Renosterveld, therefore provision has been made for the conservation of off-site Renosterveld areas should there be no requirement for spending the interest on site (i.e. if conservation efforts have resulted in acceptable conservation of all conservation areas through the annual budget and funds are left over in the environmental fund for external conservation activities). The original condition is linked to the development of a specific number of houses, which was originally envisioned to occur within approximately two and a half years of authorisation (i.e. October 2008). However, no houses have been constructed to-date and the payment has not yet been made. Therefore, the amended condition is not linked to a particular developmental milestone, but rather provides a specific and reasonable timeframe within which the capital may be raised. The addition of the provision of statements to CapeNature and the DEA&DP provides for transparency and accountability, given that the funds

Assessment Report

Page | 35

would not be managed by the DEA&DP and CapeNature directly. The condition would be amended to remove management of monies by CapeNature and the DEA&DP as it was indicated in the Focus Group Meeting with both parties that CapeNature is not structured to manage such a fund (refer to the meeting minutes in Appendix I (ii)). Furthermore, the DEA&DP is the competent authority and it could present a conflict of interest should they have to manage said monies. It is worth noting that, at the FGM with CapeNature and the DEA&DP, CapeNature also suggested that the payment of monies may be forfeited should the Applicant enter into a Stewardship agreement (as included in G of the 2006 RoD as a recommendation) (refer to the meeting minutes in Appendix I (ii)), however the two conditions have not been associated with each other previously and need not be done so now.

16.2 (New item, suggested numbering)

A Management Plan (which also includes requirements for annual audits) for all conservation areas on site must be compiled within the first two years of the approval of the amendment application and the expenditure of funds described in 16.1, as well as general environmental budget over and above those funds, should be in accordance with the management plan. This plan and the audits should be made available to state departments/ authorities upon request and progress should be reported on at the regular EMC meetings.

This is an additional condition added in response to a recommendation from CapeNature (refer to their comment in Appendix I (iii)). Note that the audit and disclosure to state departments requirements have been included by the EAP in order to add further comfort that the area would be properly managed in the absence of a Stewardship agreement.

20 The applicant shall be responsible for ensuring compliance with the conditions contained in the Environmental Authorisation by any person acting on his behalf, including but not limited to, an agent, servant, employee or any person rendering a service to the applicant in respect of the activity, including but not limited to contractors and consultants.


22 Departmental officials shall be given access to the property referred to in B above for the purpose of assessing and/or monitoring compliance with the conditions contained in this Environmental Authorisation, at all reasonable times.


NEW (suggested numbering: 23)

With respect to temporary in situ sewage treatment facilities (which could be decommissioned once the capacity is available at the Zandvliet Waste Water Treatment Works as a result of the imminent upgrades), the developer is to ensure that the facilities installed are compliant with applicable legislation, including, but not limited to the National Environmental Management Act (No. 107 of 1998), as amended, the National Environmental Management: Waste Act (No. 59 of 2008), as amended and the National Water Act (No. 36 of 1998). Should the facility trigger the requirements of the applicable legislation, the necessary permit/ authorisation must be obtained. In other words, only Phase 1 may commence with development until such time as the upgrades to the WWTW have been completed and availability of capacity if provided by the municipality, or, alternatively, if another manner of treatment is sourced/utilised and appropriate under any relevant legislation.

This is a new recommendation, given the current lack of capacity at the Zandvliet Waste Water Treatment Works for Phase 2 onwards. Note, however, that the current timing of the upgrade would result in the WWTW upgrade being complete prior to the initiation of construction for Phase 2, which is when capacity would be required.

NEW (suggested numbering: 24)

Operation of each phase of development may only commence upon availability of electrical services and the notification of commencement as well as written confirmation of capacity from Eskom is to be provided to the DEA&DP prior to the initiation of operational for each phase.

This is a new recommendation, given that Eskom is in the process of upgrading their related infrastructure.

25.1 Adhere to mitigation measures stipulated in the Noise Impact Assessment by JKA dated 26 November 2019: For Residential Area 1, erect an 8m high noise barrier close to the NR road reserve, or an alternative barrier would be to erect an 8m high noise barrier at the boundary of Residential Area 1 (between the area and the N2). The noise barrier along the N2 would need to extend from the off ramp in the east to beyond the river in the west, noting that restricting the extent of the barrier at the river would expose a large portion of Area 1 to road traffic noise further westward. The alternative noise barrier at the boundary of Area 1 would need to “wrap” around and extend north-eastward to remove line-of-sight with the N2.

This is a new condition of authorisation stemming from the NIA (refer to Appendix I (iii)), which was requested by the City of Cape Town in their comment on the Draft Amendment Application.

25.2 For Mixed Use Areas 1 and 2, one of three possible noise barriers may be elected. The first option would be to erect a noise barrier (either 2.5m high for a single-storey residence or

This is a new condition of authorisation stemming from the NIA (refer to

Assessment Report

Page 36

5.5m high for a double-storey residence) at mixed use boundary (just outside the boundary closest to the R310), or erect a noise barrier (either 2.5m high for a single-storey residence or 4.5m high for a double-storey residence) along the western side of the canal facing the mixed use area, or, thirdly, locate continuous row of commercial/retail buildings (of equal height and without gaps) along the mixed use area boundary. Noting that this condition only applies if mitigation for noise sensitive receptors (i.e. residential use) is included in Mixed Use Areas 1 and 2.

Appendix I (iii)), which was requested by the City of Cape Town in their comment on the Draft Amendment Application. Note that the EAP has added the clarity regarding the applicability of this condition as it relates to the types of uses within the area (i.e. if there are no noise-sensitive receptors in Mixed Use Area 1 and 2, then no mitigation for such receptors is required).

25.3 For Mixed Use Area 3, one of two possible barrier alternatives may be elected, namely erect a noise barrier (2.5m high if there are single storey residences and 4.5m high if there are double-storey residences) just outside the road reserve boundary approximately 30 m from the median centreline of the upgraded two carriageways R310, or locate a continuous row of commercial/retail buildings (of equal height and without gaps) along mixed use boundary. The placement and extent of the commercial buildings must be such that no noise sensitive receptor is in line-of-sight of the road. Noting that this condition only applies if mitigation for noise sensitive receptors (i.e. residential use) is included in Mixed Use Area 3.

This is a new condition of authorisation stemming from the NIA (refer to Appendix I (iii)), which was requested by the City of Cape Town in the comment on the Draft Amendment Application. Note that the EAP has added the clarity regarding the applicability of this condition as it relates to the types of uses within the area (i.e. if there are no noise-sensitive receptors in Mixed Use Area 3, then no mitigation for such receptors is required).

G

G1 That CapeNature be engaged in to consider the conservation areas in terms of its Stewardship Programme. Should the Department consistently not be satisfied with the conservation efforts of the Applicant and be able to provide a sufficient supporting evidence thereof, they may require that a stewardship agreement form part of the conditions of authorisation.

Although CapeNature has requested that this recommendation become a condition of authorisation (refer to the FGM meeting minutes in Appendix I (ii)), the nature of this item as a recommendation should remain as such. Given that the primary intention is to ensure conservation of the sensitive areas on the site, it is believed that earmarking the areas for conservation in the DF and the implementation of other conditions of authorisation contained in Environmental Authorisation would serve the same purpose. The anticipated impacts would be reduced as effectively with the conservation efforts required by the Environmental Authorisation as with a stewardship agreement; therefore, it would be superfluous to have a stewardship agreement. The proviso has been added for the DEA&DP to demand stewardship should the Applicant ignore the conservation requirements. This would provide additional motivation for the Applicant to maintain conservation efforts on site. The CTFS has been engaged in constant efforts to rehabilitate the sensitive Renosterveld area under “Area 1” identified by the botanist as well as the Dune Slack wetland areas and they have been successful in doing so to-date. Refer to Appendix N for evidence of money spent on this rehabilitation.

G (suggested numbering: G2)

There should be an ecological corridor 100m wide between the Renosterveld Area and the Vergenoegd Renosterveld area. This corridor area will require extensive rehabilitation. Negotiations with the responsible roads authority should also be initiated, with the aim of securing permission to rehabilitate that portion of the Stellenbosch road reserve crossed by the corridor strip.


G A limited network of footpaths should be encouraged in the Renosterveld Area, with the aim being to allow people to enjoy and appreciate the open space, but to limit impact by

Assessment Report

Page | 37

(suggested numbering: G3)

channelling movement. Footpaths should not be wider than 2m. No footpaths should be allowed in Area 2 (within the Main Green Corridor, refer to Error! Reference source not found.) due to high sensitivity vegetation and wetland soils.



Conduct a survey within developed and conservation nodes to determine the extent of invasion by Cape Dwarf Gecko. A single specimen was observed during the November 2019 site visit. The ideal timing for such a survey is during the spring and summer seasons, and is achievable with a one-day surveying effort. The results will most likely be academic of nature, with no specific management actions needed.

This is a new recommendation which came from the updated faunal assessment (refer to Appendix G(vi)). Note that it has been recorded as a non-essential recommendation by the specialist which would be good-to-have recommendations that would inform and improve the general conservation management of the CTFS site.


Conduct a survey of the artificial wetlands to determine which species of fish are present. Such a survey can be conducted during any season, with winter or spring being more suitable. Such a survey is achievable with a one or two-day surveying effort.



Conduct annual baseline surveys of mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibian communities within the CTFS site. These should initially be done by a faunal expert that would then also provide training to CTFS environmental staff to conduct these in future. The ideal timing for such surveys is during the spring and summer seasons, and is achievable with a week-long surveying effort. The results should be recorded in a CTFS biodiversity database (see below).



Establish an electronic database to log faunal observations within the CTFS site. This is a new recommendation which came from the updated faunal assessment (refer to Appendix G(vi)). Note that it has been recorded as a non-essential recommendation by the specialist which would be good-to-have recommendations that would inform and improve the general conservation management of the CTFS site.

4 NEED AND DESIRABILITY OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS In their comment, dated 2 July 2019, on the Draft Amendment Application, the DEA&DP indicated that the need and

desirability for the proposed amendments to the DF should be clarified. Hence, this section of the report has been

included, with the bulk of the information contained in Table 5.

In 2014 an Environmental Amendment Application for the CTFS Development Framework (DF) was granted by the

DEA&DP that allowed for the reconfiguration of the Renosterveld area and immediate surrounding development

areas to allow for development along the northern boundary of the main access road (Film City Boulevard) while

maintaining the extent (15.11ha) of the conservation worthy Renosterveld area.

A Market Demand Analysis Report was commissioned by CTFS on the basis of the 2014 amended DF which reviewed

the existing development rights, the current demand for the site as it exists and the projected demand for film related

activities, the demand for other property markets within the area and the compatibility between current market

trends and the direct and indirect activities associated to the film studio component of the site. The outcome of this

report was an updated land use budget.

Together, the Environmental Amendment application and the Market Demand Analysis Report formed the basis for

the revised DF and basket of rights currently being applied for under the town planning process.

TABLE 5 NEED AND DESIRABILITY OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE DF

1. Is the activity permitted in terms of the property’s existing land use rights? YES NO Please explain

Assessment Report

Page 38

Note that, although the response indicated herein is “no”, this refers specifically to the rights associated with the amendments to the DF as proposed in this

application. There are currently land use rights in place for the property.

Although the DF was amended in 2014 at an environmental level, this was not carried out in the town planning realm at the time. From a town planning

perspective, the 2006 DF is still in effect as an application to amend the town planning approval (and DF) was not made at the time. Therefore, a separate

process for the amendments to land use rights throughout the DF is currently underway.

2. Will the activity be in line with the following?

(a) Provincial Spatial Development Framework (PSDF) YES NO Please explain

Part of the City of Cape Town’s vision for 2040 is that the Cape Town should be a place of possibility and innovation. The continued growth of the Cape

Town Film Studio and its service offering in response to market needs will facilitate this goal. The amendments to the DF are minor and largely relate to land

use instead of “footprint”. In the areas where the development footprint has been altered, this would result in an increase in conservation area from that

which is currently approved.

(b) Urban edge / Edge of Built environment for the area YES NO Please explain

The 2014 City of Cape Town Khayelitsha Mitchells Plain Greater Blue Downs District Plan includes the site within the urban edge (refer to Figure 6).

FIGURE 6THE SITE (INDICATED BY THE RED POLYGON) ACCORDING TO THE KHAYELITSHA/ MITCHELLS PLAIN & GREATER BLUE DOWNS SPATIAL

DEVELOPMENT PLAN, MAY 2014 (SOURCE: ADAPTED FROM THE SDF)

(c) Integrated Development Plan and Spatial Development Framework of the Local Municipality (e.g.

would the approval of this application compromise the integrity of the existing approved and

credible municipal IDP and SDF?).

YES NO Please explain

The new Municipal Spatial Development Framework (MSDF) was approved in April 2018 which is in accordance with the 5-year IDP review cycle and the

Municipal Systems Act, 2000 (NMA, 2019). The MSDF guides inward growth and the enhancement of its social, economic and natural resources within the city

(NMA, 2019). The MSDF is largely informed by the 2016 Transit-Orientated development (TOD) Framework and TOD Comprehensive Land Use Model that

advocates the structuring of urban form around existing and emerging transport networks and directing growth to better resourced and serviced parts of the

city (NMA, 2019).

The site is identified now as an economic area as per ECAMP (Economic Area Management Programme) by the MSDF. The site and its surrounding area are

identified as areas for consolidation by the MSDF. Areas of consolidation are seen as the focus of co-investment between the public and private sectors where

development charges and the city budget allocations can jointly cover capital costs of infrastructure.

Economic development in the area is seen as a means to address low incomes and lack of economic opportunities for those residing in the Metro-South East.

This is especially important given the lack of investment in non-residential development in the south east sector by the private sector. The MSDF recognises

media, film and knowledge industries as growing sectors within the growing service driven economy. It also acknowledges the film media sector as a significant

job intensive growth sector within Cape Town although highly dependent on good connectivity.

The implications of the proposed development as it relates to the MSDF are provided by NMA (2019) as follows:

• The 2018 MSDF identifies the site and its surrounding areas as “consolidation areas’. This supports private sector investment and growth in the

area.

• The MSDF generally promotes utilising land more intensively with a mix of activities to utilise land and infrastructure more effectively.

Assessment Report

Page | 39

• The MSDF recognises the changed landscape and promotes development and economic growth around CTFS to address needs in the Metro South

East.

• The MSDF states that city is committed to protecting and enhancing the city’s critical natural assets and it should be included in all developments

that is surrounded by protected areas and scenic landscapes. The 2006 Dreamworld DF took precautionary measures to protect, enhance and

ensure all environmental requirements were followed. It also facilitated a scenario in which the private sector helps to protect a portion of the

larger public open space network. The amended DF continues to promote these principles.

The Amendment Application and associated Impact Assessment process will ensure that the natural and built environment will not be compromised and that

the development, if approved, is implemented in the most sustainable manner. The proposed uses are in accordance with the CTSDF which categorizes the

site as New Urban Infill.

(d) Approved Structure Plan of the Municipality YES NO Please explain

The Cape Town Spatial Development Framework is the approved Structure Plan for the City of Cape Town Municipality. Refer to the comments for (c) above.

(e) An Environmental Management Framework (EMF) adopted by the Department

(e.g. Would the approval of this application compromise the integrity of the existing environmental

management priorities for the area and if so, can it be justified in terms of sustainability considerations?)


The EMF promotes sustainable economic growth in line with the SDF, which is the aim of the proposed amendments to the DF. This aim is demonstrated through

the inclusion of more mixed use areas to supply market demand, while increasing overall conservation area (or at the very least, as is the case of the

Renosterveld conservation area, keeping conservation areas to the same size as currently approved).

With reference to the SDF and associated environmental assets indicated thereon, Figure 6 depicts the SDF with initial version of the DF as approved in the

2006 RoD. This would be updated through the town planning process which is currently underway in parallel with this amendment application. Figure 6 still

indicate residential development along the northern edge of the Renosterveld conservation area, which has been amended in terms of NEMA and associated

EIA Regulations, in the 2014 amendment that was approved. The proposed amendments to the DF under this application would require minor encroachment

into aspects of the core buffer area indicated in the north-east corner of the site (in Figure 6), hence the specialist assessments which have been carried out.

Overall, the botanical assessment found no preference between the current approved DF and the proposed amendments. Although the botanist would prefer

no development at all in the areas identified as sensitive in and around the Renosterveld conservation area, the current approved DF is used as a point of

departure.

Specialist assessments for activities proposed in the western core buffer areas confirm that impacts would not be unacceptable. Mitigation measures have

been recommended by specialist and included in the EMPr and/or suggested conditions of authorization in the amended EA to limit negative impacts to

acceptable levels.

Notwithstanding the above, the MSDF which replaced the SDF identifies the site as an economic area.

Full specialist reports are available in Appendix G.

(f) Any other Plans (e.g. Guide Plan) YES NO Please explain

No other relevant plans.

3. Is the land use (associated with the activity being applied for) considered within the timeframe

intended by the existing approved Spatial Development Framework (SDF) agreed to by the relevant

environmental authority (i.e. is the proposed development in line with the projects and programmes

identified as priorities within the credible IDP)?


The proposed amendments would feed into the greater development of the surrounding area which (along with the site itself) has been earmarked as an

economic area in the recently approved MSDF. The conservation area would also be increased, which would support the MSDFs goal of protecting and

enhancing the City’s natural assets.

4. Should development, or if applicable, expansion of the town/area concerned in terms of this land

use (associated with the activity being applied for) occur here at this point in time? YES NO Please explain

The approval of the proposed amendments to the DF could occur now, provided the necessary additional environmental mitigation measures are implemented

(and included in the amended EA by the DEA&DP). However, the development of the remainder of Phase 1 would be the only phase which may commence

“immediately” as development in the entire catchment is currently throttled by service provision by the City of Cape Town, namely for sewer and wastewater

treatment. However, this would be rectified in the short-term as, based on the City’s comment, it is anticipated that the waste-water treatment works would

be upgraded by 2024. Additional conditions of authorisation have been added through this amendment application to ensure that development moves

ahead in synergy with service provision capabilities and, if it wishes to transcend the service capacity of the municipality, the solutions would be subject to

the need for any necessary approvals under applicable law (for example, the NEMWA).

Full development within the realm of the DF would not (and is not intended to) occur immediately or simultaneously, but rather in phases over time. This would

be dictated by the market and service provision from the City of Cape Town.

5. Does the community/area need the activity and the associated land use concerned (is it a societal

priority)? (This refers to the strategic as well as local level (e.g. development is a national priority,

but within a specific local context it could be inappropriate.)


The existing DF as it stands does bring investment into the area, however, given that the proposed amendments are aligned with current market demands, it

is anticipated that the proposed land mix would better extend the service offering of the Cape Town Film Studios. This is also aligned with the Social

Development Strategy (SDS).

NMA (2019) explains that the SDS aims to articulate the role of the city in promoting and maximising social development, specifically for those who are poor

or marginalised. The core focus is to address poverty, inequality and past equities by including external stakeholders to contribute to the city’s IDP pillars to

build towards an opportunity, safe, caring, inclusive and well-run city (NMA, 2019). The SDS is also closely connected to the Economic and Growth Strategy

(EGS). NMA (2019) summarises that the SDS is structured around five high-level objectives, which include the following:

• Maximise income generating opportunities for people who are excluded or at risk of exclusion

• Build and promote safe households and communities

• Support the most vulnerable through enhancing access to infrastructure and services

• Promote and foster social integration

• Mobilise resources for social development

Assessment Report

Page 40

The 2006 DF was aligned with the CCT’s IDP pillars and the amended DF aims to continue to contribute towards an opportunity, safe, caring, inclusive and

well-run city (NMA, 2019). Through promoting flexible mixed use zoning and encouraging investment in the public realm, future development of the site hopes

to contribute to an improved public environment and a development that contributes long term to social development of residents of Cape Town especially

those residing in the Metro South East (NMA, 2019).

6. Are the necessary services with adequate capacity currently available (at the time of application),

or must additional capacity be created to cater for the development? YES NO Please explain

Refer to Appendix F.

7. Is this development provided for in the infrastructure planning of the municipality, and if not what

will the implication be on the infrastructure planning of the municipality (priority and placement of

services and opportunity costs)? (Comment by the relevant Municipality in this regard must be

attached to the final Basic Assessment Report as Appendix E.)


The response to this question is yes and no. There is currently service capacity for the first phase of the development of the DF in its entirety, which meets

with the intentions of the applicant. However, there are certain capacity needs which would only be met by the City of Cape Town in future.

This is not necessarily problematic as the DF is intended to be developed over the long term over several phases. Therefore, development would only occur

(within the limits of the uses prescribed in whichever version of the DF is approved at the time) when enough service capacity becomes available. The

applicant does have the option of managing the services themselves, however whatever means used to achieve this would be subject to

approval/authorisation under applicable law (e.g. a waste water treatment works may require a license under the NEMWA) and these associated processes

would also take time.

Refer to Section 5.6 for more information in this regard.

8. Is this project part of a national programme to address an issue of national concern or importance? YES NO Please explain

The proposed development would service the needs of the local community and market and is not a matter of national importance.

9. Do location factors favour this land use (associated with the activity applied for) at this place?

(This relates to the contextualisation of the proposed land use on this site within its broader

context.)


Keep in mind that this refers only to the proposed amendments to that which is currently approved. The amendments to the DF would result in a more

marketable and economically viable development and would also include and increased extent in terms of conservation area. This is largely because the

intention is to replace much of the intended residential use of the current approved DF with a mixed-use designation. This would serve to provide more

flexibility to respond quickly to a dynamic market, while still ensuring specific development footprints, and conservation footprints, are adhered to. The

proposed amendments would also serve to provide an increase in conservation area in the western half, while simultaneously putting CTFS is a position to

expand upon its service offering to allow backlots in the outdoor studio zone.

Ultimately the positioning of the development footprint has not been altered other than to a minor degree around the Renosterveld conservation area in

order to respond to the requirements of the TIA in terms of road geometry. The overall extent of Renosterveld would, however, remain the same as that

currently approved. One other area where the development footprint would be altered through this amendment application is in the Outdoor Studio zone,

which would require more intense use within the limits of the development footprint but concedes most of the footprint to the conservation area.

10. How will the activity or the land use associated with the activity applied for, impact on sensitive

natural and cultural areas (built and rural/natural environment)? YES NO Please explain

The anticipated impacts of the proposed amendments to the DF have been found to be similar to or lower than those of the current DF and are all, therefore,

considered acceptable. It must be noted that, form a visual perspective, the maximum permissible building height along the R310 for Mixed Use Area 3

should be two storeys and not the three storeys initially proposed as part of this amendment application. There are no heritage impacts anticipated and

the noise impacts of the proposed development are also anticipated to be negligible provided that the necessary noise barriers/buildings be implemented

as recommended in the NIA.

Additional mitigation measures have been proposed by the specialists and these have been added as conditions of authorisation in this amendment

application. A few measures have not been added, but a motivation has been provided where this is the case.

11. How will the development impact on people’s health and wellbeing (e.g. in terms of noise,

odours, visual character and sense of place, etc.)? YES NO Please explain

A NIA has been carried out at the level of the DF (and not just he proposed changes) which has concluded that noise impacts would be negligible if the

recommended mitigation measures are implemented. These measures have been included in the proposed amended EA as conditions of authorisation.

There would be no further impacts in terms of sense of place as there is already development approved on the site. HWC has also confirmed in writing

(refer to Appendix I (iii)(c)) that there would be no heritage impacts of the proposed amendments.

The anticipated visual impacts of the proposed amendments would not be higher than those currently approved, particularly given that the proposed

maximum building height for the mixed-use area would remain the same as the current approved residential area along the R310. Further mitigation

measures in this regard have been added to the proposed amended EA for consideration by the DEA&DP.

Assessment Report

Page | 41

With respect to the proposed re-alignment of the development footprint around the Renosterveld Area specifically,

the proposed amendments would alter the footprint configuration of an area which is already authorized for

development. The proposed alterations to the development footprint would be minor and the overall extent of the

Renosterveld conservation area would remain the same. The RoD issued in 2006 and the amended EA of 2014

already set the footprint and extent of the Renosterveld conservation area. This was based on rigorous specialist

assessment and the contemporary necessary legal protocol in terms of NEMA.

Odours would not really be different to those which may emanate from the current approved DF, given that the nature of the uses proposed are benign in

that regard. The replacement of the industrial area with mixed-use may even serve to further reduce potential odours. However, no noxious industry is

proposed within the approved DF and the proposed amendment thereto.

12. Will the proposed activity or the land use associated with the activity applied for, result in

unacceptable opportunity costs? YES NO Please explain

There may be a loss to the applicant in potential revenue to be generated through residential opportunities associated with the proposed change in land

use to mixed-use, however this designation would still allow for some residential use and further uses which are presently more aligned with market demands.

There would be no environmental opportunity costs through the implementation of the proposed amendments given that:

1) The extent of the Renosterveld conservation area would remain the same as that currently approved; and

2) The extent of the conservation area in the western half of the site would, indeed, increase compared to that which is currently approved.

13. What will the cumulative impacts (positive and negative) of the proposed land use associated

with the activity applied for, be? YES NO Please explain

Potential positive cumulative impacts could include:

• Job creation in the local community;

• Improvements to the offering of the Cape Town Film Studios;

• Further attraction of worldwide attention for South Africa through the success Cape Town Film Studios;

• Expansion and success of the South African film industry;

• Increased extent of conservation area;

• Provide a suitable mix of land use desired by the market which is in alignment with the aims of the MSDF (2018) to create an economic hub in the area;

• Aid in overall positive guest experience at the Cape Town Film Studios (which received many international guests with high influence); and

• Additional tourism to the area (and Stellenbosch Wine Route) provided by the mixed use/commercial aspects of the proposed amendments.

Potential neutral cumulative impacts could include:

• Increased development in the area; and

• Increase in traffic in the area which could result in lower level of service from the road network. However, this would be sufficiently mitigated with the implementation of the measures recommended in the TIA (refer to Appendix G (iv)).

Potential negative cumulative impacts could include:

• Increased visual impacts which are inconsistent with the current scenic environment, however there are not considered greater than the visual impact of the current approved DF. These impacts may also fade over time given the impetus placed on developers by the MSDF (2018) for the area to be an economic hub.

14. Is the development the best practicable environmental option for this land/site? YES NO Please explain

Currently much of the site is approved for residential development but remains undeveloped due to economic constraints.

Given the current market, it is believed by the studios and DMC that the proposed amendments to the land use mix would yield a higher return on investment

than the predominantly residential rights currently in place.

15. What will the benefits be to society in general and to the local communities? Please explain

The inclusion of the site in the MSDF-intended economic hub would serve to provide a platform for further economic growth in the area. It would also serve

to provide other convenience opportunities where required by the market because mixed use can include commercial, residential and retail use as well.

Possible benefits to the local community could include:

• Job creation;

• Increased revenue in the area;

• The convenience of having residential opportunities in an area which is targeted for economic intensification, which would potentially allow people to live closer to their places of work;

• The convenience of having commercial services in the vicinity; and

• The convenience of having retail services in the vicinity.

Assessment Report

Page 42

A town planning approval was also granted for the 2006 development footprint. This was for a Structure Plan

Amendment, Rezoning and Development Framework for the Cape Town Studios Development (which was then called

Dreamworld Film City).

From an environmental perspective the current amendment proposes relatively minor amendments to the 2014

DEA&DP approved DF, mainly in relation to the configuration of the Renosterveld and adjacent development area,

mostly as a result of the necessary road geometry requirements for the secondary access road. The impacts of the

current vs the proposed amended development footprint in that area are considered to be the same from a botanical

perspective and no detailed assessment in this regard is considered necessary, given that there is already a

development footprint approved for that area and there would not be any overall loss of Renosterveld area with

the proposed amendments in place (i.e. the extent/m2 would remain as is today, in the current approved DF).

These amendments are more significant from a town planning perspective (as they incorporate the amendments made

to the 2014 DF) as it will provide for mixed use development along the northern boundary of Film City Boulevard.

From a town planning perspective, the DF indicates where the respective land uses are in relation to each other, the

proposed access network and the areas set aside for conservation. The DF allocates rights spatially in response to

urban and environmental objectives, and with guidelines provided in the town planning motivation report, specifies

obligations on behalf of the landowner towards the environmentally sensitive areas and the urban public environment.

Although the DF was amended in 2014 at an environmental level, the town planning process is a step behind and

so, from a town planning perspective, the 2006 DF is still in effect as an application to amend the town planning

approval (and DF) was not made at the time. This current environmental amendment application, as well as the town

planning application, which is running in parallel, seek to amend the CTFS DF in order to provide an aligned and

amended development footprint and basket of rights.

From a spatial perspective, the motivation for the amendment to the DF within the Renosterveld conservation area

are as follows:

• The 2014 DEA&DP approved DF was where the major reconfiguration of the Renosterveld and adjacent

development areas took place. The current amendment application merely alters the development footprint to

a minor degree to make way for the circles and alignment required for the secondary access road, but also to

retain developable land.

• The proposed amendments to the 2014 DF are required in response to a detailed design process being

undertaken.

• The proposed amendments to the DF propose Mixed Use Development along the northern boundary of Film City

Boulevard in lieu of the previous residential use; thereby creating two-sided mixed-use development along Film

City Boulevard.

• This two-sided mixed-use development is economically feasible as it takes advantage of services that are

available along Film City Boulevard thereby recovering development costs.

• It would create a consolidated and efficient development footprint as opposed to the fragmented development

footprints proposed in the botanical impact assessment (dated July 2018).

• The proposed Mixed-Use Development would be able to take advantage of the visual exposure along the

northern edge of the Film City Boulevard, thereby increasing the value of the land and increasing the economic

return to the landowner.

Assessment Report

Page | 43

• The most intense activity on the site would be around the middle and northern part of the Boulevard along which

the retail and office developments are planned.

• The Boulevard presents an opportunity to create a mixed-use environment that can support the site as a major

future economic hub and iconic destination focussed around the activities of the CTFS. The proposed Boulevard

interfaces require commercial activities (retail in particular) to occupy the ground floor, and the first floors that

look over the Boulevard space, to accommodate either residential or further commercial uses such as offices.

These would ensure surveillance over the NMT friendly Boulevard kerbside zones.

• The proposed two to three storey edges and tree planting along the Boulevard would ensure some level of

protection from the wind. Two to three storey buildings together with tree planting would also provide legibility

at the scale of the site, which is predominantly flat and featureless.

• The edges overlooking the Renosterveld are also considered important interface conditions to consider in view

of the potential for the Renosterveld to become an amenity for those working and residing on site in the future

and the need to provide surveillance over the open space from a security and management perspective. It is

therefore proposed that the Renosterveld is edged on the south eastern and eastern edge by a public walkway

and 2 to 3 storey buildings overlooking the walkway and the open space beyond. The Conceptual Design

Framework suggests that the south eastern edge of the open space be edged by residential, and the eastern

edge of the open space by a hotel and potential conference centre to ensure 24-hour surveillance over the

walkway and the open space.

Furthermore, the current approved DF and associated development footprint in the north-eastern corner of the site

is the point of departure for this amendment application. A development footprint on either side of Film City

Boulevard is already approved under the 2014 appeal decision (i.e. a decision taken by the Minister and, therefore,

seen as final) (refer to Appendix E (i)), with the reasons (as copied from the decision) being:

• “During an exercise undertaken to rationalise the and use rights of the applicant, the botanical study found that

the area indicated in the approved development framework for conservation due to the existence of renosterveld

vegetation is not correctly aligned with the sensitive renosterveld area as ground-truthed. As such, it was

proposed that the layout be re-aligned to accommodate the sensitive portion.

• The re-aligned layout will provide for development on both sides of the existing road, creating a corridor of

development so as to harness the benefits of increased accessibility along Film City Boulevard.

• The revised layout would not result in a change in the extent of land under conservation and it will provide for

the correct portion of land with sensitive vegetation coverage as ground-truthed to be protected from

development.”

For ease of reference, Figure 7 provides an indication of the initial approved DF, overlaid with the sensitive

Renosterveld area identified in the 2014 amendment. This is presumably the same sensitive area “along the northern

edge of Area 1 (refer to Figure 13 and section 7.2)” which largely initiated the need for a biodiversity offset given

the loss of approximately 4Ha of irreplaceable Renosterveld. Note that the proposed amendments to the DF which

are currently posed remain beyond the sensitive Renosterveld area mapped in Figure 7 (specifically no longer in the

northern edge of Area 1) and still would not reduce the extend of the Renosterveld conservation area overall. The

wetland/ duneslack areas which were later incorporated into the offset requirement through the appeal period

would also see an increase in conservation area as a result of the proposed amendments to the DF.

Although the current development footprint or proposed amendments are not preferred from a botanical perspective,

the current footprint is approved, and the impacts have been assessed to be the same as the current approved

version. The current approved DF carries with it several mitigation measures (including a biodiversity offset as well

Assessment Report

Page 44

as various management aspects) that would render the impacts acceptable, and which ultimately are included as

conditions of authorisation in an Environmental Authorisation which remains valid.

FIGURE 7 2006 SECTION OF APPROVED DF PRIOR TO AMENDED DEVELOPMENT FOOTPRINT OF 2014, INDICATING SENSITIVE RENOSTERVELD AREA

AND RESIDENTIAL BLOCK IN THE NORTHERN AREA THEREOF (SOURCE: EXTRACTED FROM NM&ASSOCIATES, 2014)

General Objectives of Integrated Environmental Management

Section 23 of NEMA lists the objectives of Integrated Environmental Management. The proposed amendments to the

DF and this associated impact assessment process has aligned with those objectives as follows:

The general objective of integrated environmental management is to-

Assessment Report

Page | 45

a) Promote the integration of the principles of environmental management set out in section 2 into the making of all decisions which may have a significant effect on the environment;

This assessment has been undertaken in accordance with the National Environmental Management Act (Act 107

of 1998), as amended, as well as with the EIA Regulations, 2014 (as amended). Furthermore, the proposed

amendments to the DF are largely aligned with the intentions depicted in the MSDF, but also guided by site

specific considerations such as the environmental sensitivities thereon.

The needs of the local people and businesses have been adequately considered and the proposed amendments

to the DF would not have greater environmental impacts that the current approved DF but may increase the socio-

economic opportunities in the area. Furthermore, there would be a larger conservation area than currently

approved.

b) Identify, predict and evaluate the actual and potential impact on the environment, socio-economic conditions and cultural heritage, the risks and consequences and alternatives and options for mitigation of activities, with a view to minimizing negative impacts, maximising benefits, and promoting compliance with the principles of environmental management set out in section 2.

The anticipated impacts of the proposed amendments to the DF have been found to be similar to or lower than

those of the current DF and are all, therefore, considered acceptable. It must be noted that, form a visual

perspective, the maximum permissible building height along the R310 for Mixed Use Area 3 should be two storeys

and not the three storeys initially proposed as part of this amendment application. There are no heritage impacts

anticipated and the noise impacts of the proposed development are also anticipated to be negligible provided

that the necessary noise barriers/buildings be implemented as recommended in the NIA.

Additional mitigation measures have been proposed by the specialists and these have been added as conditions

of authorisation in this amendment application. A few measures have not been added, but a motivation has been

provided where this is the case

An alternative road alignment was assessed by an independent botanist, but it found a high (-) impact with

mitigation for the loss of Swartland Shale Renosterveld, hence this alternative was discarded and not assessed or

considered further.

Lastly, the mitigation of adverse impacts as well as the enhancement of positive impacts has been considered and

detailed in the Environmental Management Programme (EMPr) (Appendix H), as well as included as additional

conditions of authorisation in the proposed amended EA.

c) Ensure that the effects of activities on the environment receive adequate consideration before actions are taken in connection with them

The effects of the various activities on the environment have been well taken into consideration by various relevant

specialists (i.e. freshwater, botanical, service provision, noise, faunal, visual and traffic) through this process and

are detailed in Section 5, as well as appended as Appendix G of this report. Input was also sought from various

state departments and their advice taken on through updating this report and associated application.

Furthermore, HWC confirmed there are no heritage issues with the proposed amendments (refer to Appendix I

(iii)(c)) and DWS confirmed that the proposed amendments would not change the WUL that is currently in place

(refer to Appendix I (iii)(d)).

Assessment Report

Page 46

d) Ensure adequate and appropriate opportunity for public participation in decisions that may have a significant effect on the environment

Minimum legal requirements in terms of NEMA have been observed in this amendment application process.

Meaningful public engagement has also taken place over and above the legislated requirements through

provision of a draft Application and associated Impact Report for comment to key authorities as well as a Focus

Group Meeting with the DEA&DP and CapeNature. Refer to Section 7.2 of this report for the detailed

methodology.

e) Ensure the consideration of environmental attributes in management and decision-making which may have a significant effect on the environment;

A variety of specialist studies have been undertaken in support of this impact assessment process and the

recommendations of each specialist, as well as the EAP, have been incorporated into the EMPr. The EMPr assists

management and decision-making in the construction and operation phase of the development in order to support

and protect environmental concerns.

f) Identify and employ the modes of environmental management best suited to ensuring that an activity is pursued in accordance with the principles of environmental management set out in section 2

The proposed amendments to the DF have been assessed in terms of their fit with regard to current approved

and future development and management plans for the site and greater area, the socio-economic development

of the area and the impacts that the proposed development would have on the internal and surrounding

environment. Mitigation measures to reduce adverse impacts identified in the specialists’ studies have been

proposed and included in the proposed amended EA as additional conditions of authorisation.

In summary, the modes of environmental management employed in the assessment of the impacts of the proposed

development are adequate and informed by specialists as well as state departments. It will further be informed

by the comments received during the public review period.

Principles of Environmental Management

The principles of environmental management as set out in Section 2 of NEMA have been considered. The principles

relevant to this activity include:

The assessment has been guided by the principles of NEMA and sustainable development, applied through the

impact assessment and specialist assessments which have culminated in an assessment of risks to the environmental

with the recommendation of mitigation measures which would place them at an acceptable level.

This process, as well as the proposed development places people and their needs at the forefront of its concern,

and serves their physical, psychological, cultural and social interests equitably, where relevant. Specifically, in this

case, the socio-economic aspirations of the proposed amendments are better (when compared to the current

approved DF) aligned with the market needs as well as the intention of the MSDF to develop the area as an

economic hub.

Assessment Report

Page | 47

The proposed amendments to the DF are considered to be socially, environmentally and economically sustainable

as they would better serve the socio-economic goals of the municipality for the are through provision of a more

attractive investment, as well as to avoid environmentally sensitive areas and indeed providing and increased

conservation area. The proposed amendment to the condition of authorisation pertaining to the payment of the

biodiversity offset also serves to commit the applicant to this payment sooner than the current EA does and would

be better aligned with the development envisioned for the site.

4a) The proposed development has applied sustainable development to the following factors:

• Avoidance of disturbance to ecosystems and loss of biological diversity, or, where they cannot be altogether avoided, are minimised and remedied- the Renosterveld conservation area would remain the same as per the current approved DF albeit in a slightly realigned space and the conservation area in the west would be increased in extent;

• Pollution and degradation to the environment has been avoided, or, where they cannot be altogether avoided, are minimised and remedied- this would be avoided through the stormwater management plan, which has also been endorsed by the freshwater ecologist. Further measures at more detailed planning stages would also have to be carried out;

• Cultural heritage would not be impacted through the proposed amendments to the DF, which has been confirmed by HWC (refer to Appendix I (iii)(c));

• That waste is avoided, or where it cannot be altogether avoided, minimised and re-used or recycled where possible and otherwise disposed of in a responsible manner, which is controlled operationally in the EMPr (refer to Appendix K;

• That the use and exploitation of non-renewable natural resources is responsible and equitable, and considers the consequences of the depletion of the resource which is controlled operationally in the EMPr (refer to Appendix K;

• That a risk-averse and cautious approach is applied, which considers the limits of current knowledge about the consequences of decisions and actions; and

• That negative impacts on the environment and on people’s environmental rights be anticipated and prevented, and where they cannot be altogether prevented, are minimised and remedied.

These impacts are documented in this report, with corresponding mitigation measures in the report and in the EMPr

(refer to Appendix K).

b) This Impact Assessment process has employed sound Environmental Management, acknowledging that all elements of the environment are linked and interrelated, and has taken into account the effects of decisions on all aspects of the environment and all people in the environment by pursuing the selection of the best practicable environmental option It has done so by respecting the conservation areas in the current approved DF through maintaining the same extent in the Renosterveld conservation area as well as expanding on the conservation area in the western portion of the site. Furthermore, the impact of the proposed amendments has been assessed by a range of specialists who have provided additional mitigation measure which would have to be implemented, if the amendment is granted by the DEA&DP.

c) Environmental justice has been pursued so that adverse environmental impacts shall not be distributed in such a manner as to unfairly discriminate against any person, particularly vulnerable and disadvantaged persons. The impacts anticipated would largely be localized, except for the visual impacts, which would be mitigated. Noise impacts have been considered and mitigation has also been included in this amendment application.

e) This Impact Assessment and resultant EMPr provides responsibility for the environmental health and safety consequences of this project throughout its life cycle, with the EMPr being significantly updated through this amendment process.

Assessment Report

Page 48

f) The participation of all interested and affected parties in environmental governance has been promoted, and all potential I&APs have had the opportunity to develop the understanding, skills, and capacity necessary for achieving equitable and effective participation. Key state departments were afforded an opportunity to comment on the draft Assessment Report, and their comments have been addressed in this version, which is also being distributed for a 30-day public comment period from 6 March 2020 to 6 April 2020. The amendment application has also been advertised locally to facilitate the distribution of the notification of the applicant’s intentions.

g) The assessment process has considered the needs of affected parties to-date through engagement with key state departments and responding to their comments. Further engagement with I&APs will occur through the 30-day comment period and comments received (i.e. local knowledge) would be addressed.

h) Community wellbeing and empowerment is considered with the proposed development as whole, particularly from the perspective of the CTFS, which has employed a significant number of local people and upskilled them in work related to the film industry.

i) The social, economic and environmental impacts of activities, including disadvantages and benefits, have been considered, assessed and evaluated, and it is believed that enough information has been presented to support confident and informed decision making.

j) The right of workers to refuse work that is harmful to human health or the environment and to be informed of dangers will be respected and protected. This will be implemented through the EMPr but would also be covered in terms of Health and Safety legislation.

k) Decisions with regard to the development of this amendment to the DF would been taken in an open and transparent manner (as is detailed in this Assessment Report), and access to information has been provided to I&APs in accordance with the law throughout this Amendment Application process.

l) There must be intergovernmental co-ordination and harmonizing of policies, legislation and actions relating to the environment. This should be achieved through the integration of the various comments received from State Departments, any comments which may be received during the 30-day public comment period (from 6 March 2020 to 6 April 2020), as well as the internal process at DEA&DP.

m) Conflict resolution procedures will be employed should significantly conflicts of interest between organs of state arise, however this has not been the case to-date. Certain key organs of state have already provided their comments on the Draft Assessment Report (and associated amendment application) and their comments have been addressed in this Assessment Report (and associated application). The public participation process also allows for all relevant organs of state to provide further comments and these will be holistically considered.

p) The costs of remedying pollution, environmental degradation and consequent adverse health effects and of preventing, controlling or minimising further pollution, environmental damage or adverse health effects will be borne by the applicant, through the conditions of authorisation (if same is granted by the DEA&DP).

I&AP Feedback

CapeNature strongly recommends that the highly sensitive botanical areas as identified by Heme (2016 and 2018)

are retained as conservation area (note that motivation regarding why the development footprint would remain is

included above), they have noted that freshwater recommendations in terms of road alignment and outdoor studio

zoned have been included in the proposed amended DF and has confirmed support for the removal of the planned

berms (see their comment in Appendix I (iii)(a))

CapeNature also requested that the faunal conditions of authorisation be reviewed by a specialist to confirm whether

they remain relevant to the current context both from a biophysical aspect as well as from a best practice point of

view. A faunal specialist has been appointed and confirmed that the impacts anticipated as a result of the proposed

amendments are the same as those of the original DF, however certain recommendations have been made which

have been included in the amended EA (refer to Appendix G(vi)). Regarding conditions of authorisation,

CapeNature would prefer that the need for stewardship of conservation areas be made a condition of authorisation

Assessment Report

Page | 49

rather than a recommendation and that a conservation plan be added as a requirement to the condition pertaining

to payment of biodiversity offsets. CapeNature has also confirmed agreement with remaining amendments to

conditions of authorisation.

5 IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS Where aspects of the proposed amendments to the DF were considered to possibly have an impact on environmental sensitivities, the input of independent specialists related to the environmental sensitivity was obtained. Specialist input was also sought in response to comments on the Draft Amendment Application received from the City of Cape Town and CapeNature. Significantly, a Noise Impact Assessment (NIA) (refer to Appendix G (v)) has been carried out in response to comments from the City of Cape Town and a Faunal study (refer to Appendix G (vi)) and Freshwater Ecologist endorsement (refer to Appendix G (ii)) of the Stormwater Management Plan have been included in this application in response to comments from CapeNature. During the impact assessment, a second alternative for the alignment of the secondary access road was assessed by the botanist, who found the impacts to be high (-). Given the findings, this alternative was discarded and, therefore, no assessment thereof by any other specialists was undertaken. Their findings have been incorporated into this assessment and any additional conditions of authorisation proposed have been included in this amendment application as new conditions of Environmental Authorisation and/or additional specifications in the EMPr. Note that, in their comment on the Draft Amendment Application, the DEA&DP indicated that they require clarity in

terms of whether all the recommendations from the specialist studies have been included in the Amendments to the

EMPr. Therefore, notes have been added to each condition which explains the link to the EMPr.

5.1 VISUAL

A visual specialist assessed the following aspects of the proposed amended DF in the visual impact assessment (VIA)

included in Appendix G(iii)(a) and Appendix G(iii)(b) of the Amendment Application:

• The removal of reference to “berms” in the DF (i.e. not on the ground as none have been constructed to-date

within the buffer zone);

• Change in land use from residential to mixed use in Mixed Use Area 1, 2, and 3 (with buildings being a

maximum height of two to three stories along the R310) of the proposed amended DF.

The VIA for the removal of the berms from the site plans has been conducted as recommendations for certain berms

emanated from visual specialists during the initial Scoping and Environmental Impact Assessment (S&EIA) process.

The VIA of the proposed change in land uses for three areas along the R310 (namely the segments of Mixed Use

Areas 1, 2, and 3 which run along the R310) has been conducted given that the R310 is considered a scenic route

passing through the Cape Winelands area. It was originally the intention to increase the maximum building height

for buildings along the R310 in the mixed use areas to three storeys (approx.10.8m), however following the visual

assessment, it was confirmed that a maximum height of two storeys (approx. 8m) would be more appropriate.

Mixed Use Area 3 was assessed given that it presents a change over a large area of the site and is a portion of the

site on its own. The current approved height limit of two storeys (approx. 8m) would remain in this area.

With regard to the berms, it was found that the overall visibility of the site with the proposed removal of the berms

(in the site plan) would be similar to that of the current approved DF and the berms would, in fact, not necessarily

Assessment Report

Page 50

reduce the overall visibility of the proposed DF to surrounding receptors. It was further found that it is likely that the

berm structure itself would intrude on the receptor’s FOV in this area.

With regard to the development of Mixed Use areas along the R310, it was found that the impact would be high

(-) with the development of a three-storey building, however it would be medium (-) to low (-) with the development

of the two storey building (as per the current approved DF). Note that the maximum building heights along the R310

would be limited to two storeys/ 8m (refer to Figure 3).

With regard to Mixed Use Area 3, it was found that the impact would be high (-) without mitigation, however it

would be medium (-) to low (-) with mitigation (as per the current approved DF). As above, note that the maximum

building heights along the R310 would be limited to two storeys/ 8m (refer to Figure 3).

Visual Impacts in the Immediate Vicinity of Mixed Use Areas 1 and 2

Assessment Criteria

Nature Consequence Extent Duration Probability Intensity Significance

Without Mitigation

Negative Visibility of the proposal and disruption to the rural character of the area. Note, however, that there is much development approved for the site and surrounding area which will change its character over time.

Medium (Site and local surrounds)

High (long-term)

High High, but reducing to Medium over time

High (-)

With Mitigation

Negative Medium (Site and local surrounds)

High (long-term)

High Medium, but reducing to Low over time

Medium (-) to High (-) Reducing to Medium over time.

Extent to which Impact can be avoided, managed or mitigated

Impact can be partially managed and mitigated

Proposed mitigation Reduce maximum permissible building height to two storeys. Implement mitigation measures included in Environmental Authorisation, included latest mitigation measures recommended by Square 1.

Extent to which Impact can be reversed

Irreversible

Extent to which Impact may cause irreplaceable loss of resources

None

Note: The visual impacts would reduce over time, given that there is significant development approved in the surrounding area. The context of the site and area is changing.

Visual Impacts at greater distances from Mixed Use Areas 1 and 2

Assessment Criteria


Without Mitigation

Negative Visibility of the proposal and disruption to the rural character of the area. Note, however, that there is much development approved for the site and surrounding area which will change

Medium (local surrounds)

High (long-term)

High Medium High (-)

With Mitigation

Negative Medium (local surrounds)

High (long-term)

High Low Medium (-) to Low (-) Reducing to Low over time.

Assessment Report

Page | 51

its character over time.



Proposed mitigation Reduce maximum permissible building height to two storeys. Implement mitigation measures included in Environmental Authorisation, included latest mitigation measures recommended by

Square 1.


Irreversible


None


Visual Impacts in the Immediate Vicinity of Mixed Use Area 3

Assessment Criteria


Without Mitigation


Medium (Site and local surrounds)

High (long-term)

High High, but reducing to Medium over time

High (-)

With Mitigation

Negative Medium (Site and local surrounds)

High (long-term)

High Medium, but reducing to Low over time

Medium (-) to High (-) Reducing to Medium over time.



Proposed mitigation Implement mitigation measures included in Environmental Authorisation, included latest mitigation measures recommended by Square 1.


Irreversible


None


Visual Impacts at greater distances from Mixed Use Area 3

Assessment Criteria


Without Mitigation


Medium (local surrounds)

High (long-term)

High Medium High (-)

With Mitigation

Negative Medium (local surrounds)

High (long-term)

High Low Medium (-) to Low (-) Reducing to Low over time.

Assessment Report

Page 52



Proposed mitigation Implement mitigation measures included in Environmental Authorisation, included latest mitigation measures recommended by Square 1.


Irreversible


None


The VIA conducted as part of the S&EIA stated that (for the approved alternative) “The visual impacts are not

sufficient to disqualify the site for the proposed development. Nevertheless, these impacts are tangible and

material”. It is important to note that the visual impact anticipated in the initial S&EIA was low (-) to Medium (-) with

mitigation and Medium (-) without mitigation. Therefore, the anticipated impacts of the proposed amendments would

not be higher than those currently approved, particularly given that the proposed maximum building height for the

mixed use area would remain the same as the current approved residential area along the R310.

Recommendations with regard to the berms and mixed use areas along the R310 include the following (note that

there may be some duplications in terms of recommendations, however these have been addressed in the additional

conditions of authorisation proposed in the amendment application):

• Appoint a professional Landscape Architect to oversee the landscape design of the screening elements and

planting in the green belt and the perimeter fencing to ensure that the design is contextually appropriate,

not visually intrusive and sensitive to the rural context. This is included in section 5.1 d of the EMPr.

• Appoint a professional Landscape Architect registered with SACLAP, to design the landscaped buffer strip

which would replace the berm areas approved as part of the existing DF, ensuring that:

o Appropriate indigenous vegetation is utilised in the design.

o Sufficient visual screening is provided to the proposed development from the scenic R310 route and

the relevant portions of the N2.

o Low level vegetated berm areas with appropriate planting are used in strategic places to provide

visual screening.

o The landscaped buffer area is designed so that the height of the vegetation grades gradually

towards the height of the buildings (i.e. shrubs or groundcovers in the foreground with larger trees

in the background).

o Sufficient tree planting is provided in appropriate places to provide visual screening. Note that

these recommendations have been executed (by a professional Landscape Architect)

incorporated into the landscape plan included in Appendix O. This is included in section 5.1 d

of the EMPr.

• Limit the height of Mixed Use 2 north of the service station, as well as all Mixed Use areas along the R310,

to 8m to ensure that it does not cause visual intrusion and creates a balanced composition, also ensure that

roof structures do not intrude above the allowed height restrictions. Note that this recommendation has

been included in the town planning application and is implicit in the proposed amended DF. This is also

an amalgamation of the height recommendation indicated in the two VIA reports to avoid unnecessary

duplication. This is included in section 5.1 d of the EMPr.

• Ensure that the buildings within the mixed use areas along the R310 are cohesively designed to create a

uniform architectural character with positive visual impacts on the surrounding area. The buildings in the area

should be designed cohesively, within set parameters determined for the development area, by a qualified

professional architect registered with SACAP. This is included in section 5.1 d of the EMPr.

Assessment Report

Page | 53

• All buildings within the development area should be screened sufficiently from the R310 by the

implementation of appropriate landscape strategies. Landscape strategies can include possible low berming

and must include planting in the green belt/ buffer strip. It should be noted that berming is not considered

essential to reduce visual impacts. However, appropriate screening measures using planting and potential

strategic berming must be identified during the design phase to ensure that visual impacts are reduced. This

is included in section 5.1 d of the EMPr.

• Design the screening vegetation in the green belt/ buffer zone along the entire interface of the CTFS and

the R310 cohesively in response to the natural environment and the individual development proposals at the

CTFS. The design of the screening planting and landscape strategy in the entire green belt/ buffer zone

should be overseen by a professional Landscape Architect and should ensure that sufficient screening is

provided such that the proposed development does not detract from the scenic quality of the route. The

design should be contextually appropriate, not visually intrusive and sensitive to the rural context. Note that

these recommendations have been executed (by a professional Landscape Architect) incorporated into

the landscape plan included in Appendix O. This is included in section 5.1 d of the EMPr. Also, it is a

duplication of recommendations at the bottom of pg. 56 of the visual assessment dated 22 October

2018.

• Ensure that sufficient visual screening is allowed to reduce the potential visual exposure of the development

DF (through the use of appropriately designed screening vegetation, including indigenous trees and

groundcovers). Note that these recommendations have been executed (by a professional Landscape

Architect) incorporated into the landscape plan included in Appendix O. This is included in section 5.1

d of the EMPr.

• Ensure that ecological factors (such as the upgrade and maintenance of the Kleinvlei Canal and the use of

indigenous vegetation) are incorporated into the landscape design. Note that this aspect comes from pg.

27 of the visual assessment dated 22 October 2018.Ecological factors should also be taken into

consideration in the screening planting design, including planting with indigenous shrubs and trees to create

a visual buffer, while blending into the natural surroundings. Low berms (where necessary) should be

designed sensitively to appear natural rather than man-made, with minimal slopes. Note that these

recommendations have been executed (by a professional Landscape Architect) incorporated into the

landscape plan included in Appendix O. Note also that the upgrade of the Kleinvlei Canal has not been

included as a condition of authorisation in the amended EA or in the EMPr given that it is City of Cape

Town property and not managed by the Applicant. This is included in section 5.1 d of the EMPr.

• Retain existing (non-invasive) screening vegetation (including wetland vegetation that provides important

ecological functions and provides low level screening) as far as possible. This is included in sections 5.1

d , 5.7 and 6 of the EMPr and stems from pg. 27 of the visual assessment dated 10 October 2018.

• Ensure that fencing is visually permeable, contextually appropriate and softened with planting to provide

visual screening. Use appropriate colours such as dark grey, charcoal and black that are visually recessive.

The design thereof should be overseen by a professional Landscape Architect. This is included in section

5.1 d of the EMPr and stems from pg. 27 of the visual assessment dated 10 October 2018.

• Appoint a professional Landscape Architect to oversee the preparation of a landscape master plan and

guideline document for the relevant sub-divisional areas to ensure that the design of buildings and

surrounding landscapes includes sufficient vegetation to provide visual screening over time. This is included

in section 5.1 d of the EMPr and stems from pg. 27 of the visual assessment dated 10 October 2018.

• Ensure that the architectural articulation of buildings and the landscape design of the sub-divisional areas

take the following factors into consideration (this is included in section 5.1 d of the EMPr):

o Ensure that buildings are well-integrated into the landscape and do not appear as monolithic

elements.

o Ensure that the visual impacts of the architecture when viewed from the R310 are carefully

considered and taken into account in the design articulation of the building elements.

Assessment Report

Page 54

o Ensure that sufficient vegetation is provided to allow the development to become visually integrated

within the surrounding environment over time.

o Ensure that building facades are appropriately articulated and that buildings are integrated into

their context within the landscape as far as possible.

o Configure buildings and articulate walls and other structures so as to maintain the flow of vegetation

around buildings and neighbouring developments to reduce their visibility.

o Use exterior colours that have low reflectivity value and blend with the surroundings.

o Design streetscape elements (e.g. paving, street furniture, lighting etc.) in a manner that responds to

the local context.

o Make use of natural, contextually appropriate materials that do not detract from the surrounding

environment.

• Keep reflective surfaces to a minimum (note that this stems from pg. 22 of the visual assessment dated

22 October 2018 and the remained stems from pg. 27 of the visual assessment dated 10 October 2018)

or ensure that these areas are shaded by roof overhangs, where possible.

• Design lighting appropriately along the following guidelines (this is included in section 5.1 d of the EMPr):

o Use low level lighting.

o Limit neon, spot or up-lighting.

o Screen and filter lights sources as far as possible.

o Shield external lights on buildings to cast light only upon the area required to be illuminated.

o Ensure that naked light sources are not visible from beyond the site.

o Ensure that no light is emitted into the sky.

• Beyond the above-listed lighting requirements stemming from the visual assessment for both Mixed Use

Area 3 and the remaining mixed use areas and planned berm removal, the following additional

measures on lighting design were recommended in the visual assessment which just considered Mixed

Use Area 3 (this is included in section 5.1 d of the EMPr):

o Implement the minimum lighting required to allow operation after sunset

o Prohibit the use of large-scale security lighting/ flood lighting

• Make allowance for on-going landscape maintenance to allow site vegetation to mature sufficiently to allow

the environment to achieve maximum VAC. This is included in section 6 of the EMPr and stems from pg.

27 of the visual assessment dated 10 October 2018,

• Ensure that the SDP that is prepared takes the visibility of various elements within the development footprint

into consideration. Ensure that the architectural design is sensitive to the surrounding context and is of an

appropriate height and scale to reduce visual intrusion as far as possible. This is included in section 6 of

the EMPr and stems from the visual assessment dated 22 October 2018.

Recommendations with regard to the Mixed Use Area 3 specifically (they refer specifically to this area because they

come from the Visual Impact Assessment Report which assessed only Mixed Use Area 3 (dated 22 October 2018),

and therefore, mitigation measures recommended for that particular assessment, are presumably related to the area

assessed unless otherwise stated) include the following:

• Ensure that fencing is unobtrusive and screened effectively and that large-scale infrastructure, parking areas

and security fencing are not visible from the R310. This is included in section 5.1 d of the EMPr

• Ensure that no signage or billboards are visible from the R310. No free-standing signage should be

permitted. This is included in section 5.1 d of the EMPr

Assessment Report

Page | 55

• It is recommended that the re-alignment of the access road linking the proposed mixed use development to

Film City Boulevard closer to the R310 is investigated to avoid dissecting the Renosterveld conservation area.

If this is a feasible option, sufficient space should be allowed between the Kleinvlei Canal and the re-aligned

access road to facilitate the implementation of appropriate screening vegetation to screen moving vehicles

from view from the R310. A suggested alignment for consideration is indicated in Figure 8 below. Note that

this recommendation has been considered by the project team but is not considered appropriate from a

traffic/ road design perspective and has, therefore, not been included in this amendment application as

a condition of authorisation. It has also, therefore, not been included in the EMPr.

FIGURE 8 VISUAL SPECIALIST RECOMMENDATION FOR THE LOCATION OF PROPOSED MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT

WITHIN THE REVISED DF (NOTE THAT THE “MIXED USE AREA 4” LABEL IN THIS IMAGE REFERS TO A PREVIOUS

ITERATION AND IS CURRENTLY LABELED MIXED USE AREA 3 IN THE PROPOSED AMENDED DF. THIS DETAIL IS

INSIGNFICANT AS THAT THE EXTENT AND USE REMAIN THE SAME.

Although not included in the VIA as a specific recommendation, it has been suggested that the degraded Kleinvlei

Canal be integrated as part of the design and degraded vegetation at the site can be restored to improve the

natural condition of the area. The VIA adds that appropriate indigenous planting could serve the dual purpose of

screening the development and improving its condition. However, the VIA concludes that the land on which the

Kleinvlei Canal falls belongs to the City of Cape Town which renders the suggestion as a non-essential requirement

which would depend on the City of Cape Town’s involvement and requirements. It is therefore not included as a

condition of authorisation as part of this amendment application, but merely highlighted in this report as something

for the applicant to consider in future.

The abovementioned recommendations have been incorporated into the amendment application and the amended

EMPr, unless otherwise indicated.

Refer to Appendix G (iii)(a) of the Amendment Application for the assessment report regarding the removal of the

berms and change of and use from residential to mixed use and to Appendix G(iii)(b) of the Amendment Application

for the assessment report regarding the change of land use for Mixed Use Area 3.

5.2 FRESHWATER

A freshwater ecologist assessed the following aspects of the proposed amended DF in a freshwater impact

assessment included in Appendix G(ii) of the Amendment Application:

• The reconfiguration of the Renosterveld Area to accommodate the secondary access road (referred to as

the Dune Access Road in their report in Appendix G (ii)) and circles;

Assessment Report

Page 56

• The conversion of land use for the portion of land to the west, south and east of the Renosterveld Area from

residential to Mixed Use 2;

• Realignment of the secondary access road (referred to as the “Dune Road” in the freshwater report);

• Change in land use rights of the Outdoor Studio Zone to include rights in two portions for temporary structures

without foundations and/or which do not require building plan approval, such as those in the current Backlots,

access routes to the proposed backlots, as well as an area for conservation (which has been included as a

result of a recommendation emanating from the freshwater assessment); and

• Removal of berms in the DF (note that no berms have been constructed on the ground within the buffer zones

between the development zones and conservation zones to-date) and replacement of the plan annotation

with “buffer zone”. The exception is the berm to the west of what is currently referred to as “Residential

Area 2” where the intention is to alter the land use to “mixed use” which would not require any buffer and,

therefore, the buffer and berm would be removed (from the plan only, as nothing is yet on the ground).

The abovementioned aspects of the proposed amended DF were assessed by a freshwater ecologist as they would

encroach into areas which have been identified as freshwater resources (i.e. wetlands and a river) on site.

The freshwater assessment found that the proposed amendments to the approved development framework either

occur outside of the wetland areas or occur largely within the less sensitive and dominant Typha reed beds and are

thus likely not result in any significant loss of wetland habitat. It was noted that most of the berms proposed in the

current approved DF would be located nearby wetlands associated with the old braid of the Kuils River and the

removal thereof from the plan is supported by the freshwater ecologist.

The freshwater assessment confirmed that the change in land use of the outdoor studio zone to backlots would be

appropriate within certain areas of the Outdoor Studio Zone, if the remainder is converted to conservation as

mitigation. With the mitigation, the impacts would be considered Low negative. The applicant has taken the

recommendation into account in the proposed amended DF where the Outdoor Studio Zone is clearly shown to have

two backlot areas and a large conservation area.

With respect to works related to the Renosterveld wetlands as well as the activities within or adjacent to the old Kuils

River Braid (i.e. all freshwater impacts), the impacts are anticipated to be medium (-) to low (-) without mitigation

and Low (-) with mitigation. It was found that potential impacts could easily be mitigated, and cumulative impacts

compared to those of the current approved DF are anticipated to be low.

Loss of wetland habitat and associated biota related to the seasonally inundated Renosterveld wetland

Assessment Criteria

Nature Extent Duration Probability Intensity Significance

Without Mitigation

Negative Local High (long-term)

Possible Medium to Low Medium (-) to Low (-)

With Mitigation


Possible Medium to Low Low (-) to Very Low (-)


High

Proposed mitigation Implement mitigation measures included in Environmental Authorisation, included latest mitigation measures recommended by BlueScience.


Irreversible


Medium

Assessment Report

Page | 57

Flow modification related to the seasonally inundated Renosterveld wetland

Assessment Criteria


Without Mitigation


Probable Medium to Low Medium (-) to Low (-)

With Mitigation


Probable Medium to Low Very Low (-)


High



Reversible


Medium

Impairment of Water Quality related to the seasonally inundated Renosterveld wetland

Assessment Criteria


Without Mitigation


Possible Medium to Low Low (-)

With Mitigation


Possible Medium to Low Very Low (-)


High



Reversible


Medium

Loss of wetland habitat and associated biota adjacent to or within the old Kuils River Braid (i.e. near the Outdoor Studio Zone)

Assessment Criteria


Without Mitigation

Negative Local Permanent Improbable to Probable

High Medium (-) to Low (-)

With Mitigation

Negative Local Permanent Improbable to Probable

High Low (-)


Medium



Partially Reversible


Medium

Note This applies to the construction phase of the access road to the Outdoor Studio Zone and Testing facility only

Modification of flow adjacent to or within the old Kuils River Braid (i.e. near the Outdoor Studio Zone)

Assessment Criteria


Assessment Report

Page 58

Without Mitigation

Negative Local Long-term Probable High Medium (-) to Low (-)

With Mitigation

Negative Local Long-term Probable High Low (-)


Medium



Reversible


Medium

Note This applies to the operational phase

Impairment of Surface water quality of wetlands associated with the old Kuils River Braid (i.e. near the Outdoor Studio Zone)

Assessment Criteria


Without Mitigation

Negative Local Short to Long-term

Probable Medium to Low Medium (-)

With Mitigation

Negative Local Short to Long-term

Probable Medium to Low Low (-)


High



Irreversible


Medium

Note This impact applies to run-off from construction areas

With respect to the freshwater impacts originally anticipated in the initial S&EIA, they were very high (-) without

mitigation and high (-) with mitigation. Note that this was obviously for the entire development and not a small

component thereof such as that which is currently proposed for amendment. The impacts anticipated as a result of

the proposed amendment are on a smaller scale and are less than the impacts approved in the RoD of 2006 and

are consistent with the fact than no wetlands of high conservation value (which was part of the reasons for the

decision) are to be developed on. The proposed backlot areas in the Outdoor Studio Zone would be developed in

wetland areas which are least sensitive and most of the area would be designated as conservation. The primary

impacts in this area would be related to the road/ access required, which can be effectively mitigated.

An independent freshwater ecologist also conducted a review of the proposed Stormwater Management Plan (refer

to Appendix J) and Belcher (2019) confirms that the SWMP for the site does appear to ensure that the seasonal

inundation characteristic of the wetland areas remaining on site is protected and is thus supported from a freshwater

perspective, subject to implementation of recommendations. Recommendations are made to manage the stormwater

planning at a more detailed/site-specific level, and these have been included as newly proposed conditions of

authorisation in the amendment application.

Regarding recommendations, the following apply:

• The Renosterveld Conservation Area and its associated wetlands should be demarcated as a no-go zone

and no construction activities should be allowed take place within this area. This is included in section 5.12

of the EMPr.

Assessment Report

Page | 59

• Over the longer term, the conservation area should be properly fenced off to ensure that access and

trampling of the wetland area is limited. This is included in sections 5.1a and 6 of the EMPr.

• The area between the developed area and the wetlands should be buffered as far as possible by providing

for some buffer area that consists of largely local indigenous plants. This is included in sections 5.1a and

6 of the EMPr.

• The introduction of exotic and alien invasive plants for landscaped areas should be avoided. This would

ensure that the seasonal wetland areas are adequately buffered from poor quality stormwater runoff from

the developed site and the opportunity for alien invasive plant growth in the conserved areas is minimised.

This is included in sections 5.1a and 6 of the EMPr.

• The stormwater management plan for the construction around the Renosterveld area in particular should

ensure that post-development runoff is directed away from the wetland area so as to minimise the risk of

changes in the seasonality of this habitat. The stormwater management plan for the area should form an

integral part of the stormwater management plan for the entire site (note that this has been implemented

in the Stormwater Management Plan and has been included in section 5.1a and 5.1b of the EMPr);

• Contaminated runoff from the construction site(s) should be prevented from directly entering the wetland

areas. This is included in section 5.12 of the EMPr.

• Where construction sites are located near the wetlands, all materials on the construction sites should be

properly stored and contained. This is included in section 5.12 of the EMPr.

• Disposal of waste from the sites should also be properly managed. This is included in section 5.12 of the

EMPr.

• Construction workers should be given ablution facilities at the construction sites that are located away from

the streams (at least 50m) and regularly serviced. The construction phase measures should be addressed,

implemented and monitored in terms of the Environmental Management Programme (EMPr) for the

construction phase. This is included in sections 5.15 and 5.21 of the EMPr.

• The stormwater management plan should ensure that the surface and subsurface flow from the developed

area is directed away from the wetland area (this is a repeat of a mitigation measure already listed by

the freshwater report for flows from both construction and development areas and is, therefore, not

duplicated in the conditions of authorisation). This is included in section 5.21 of the EMPr.

The following proposed mitigation relates to the proposed access road to the outdoor studio and testing site due to

the fact that the other proposed activities will result in little to no potential loss of wetland habitat:

• The route of the proposed access road should be located immediately next to (south) of the Eskom servitude

where the wetland has already been significantly disturbed. The crossing of the old braid, onto the dune

area should be orientated perpendicular to the old stream channel (note that this has been indicated in

the DF) and should be placed on culverts interspersed with permeable material to ensure that the section of

road through the permanently inundated areas does not impede flow in the channel. This is included in

sections 5.1a and 5.21 of the EMPr.

• The culvert structures should not be placed higher or lower than the natural base level of the base level in

the braid to ensure that flow in the channel is not impeded. The culvert structures should also be placed within

the natural drainage channels in the braid. The culverts under the road will need to be inspected at least on

an annual basis, at the end of the dry period, to ensure that the culverts are not blocked with sediment and

debris that would further impede flow in the old braid. This is included in sections 5.1a and 5.21 of the

EMPr.

• Construction work associated with the access road that is within the wetland areas should be undertaken

during the drier summer months. The spatial (i.e. minimising the extent of the road within permanently

inundated areas and align it outside of the green corridor as far as possible) and temporal extent of the

works should be limited as far as possible and the disturbed areas rehabilitated afterwards (reshaping of

the banks of the road to at least a 1 in 3 gradient and revegetating if necessary). All waste material

Assessment Report

Page 60

associated with the construction activities should be removed from the wetland areas after construction is

complete. This is included in section 5.21 of the EMPr.

• A portion (pink polygons in Figure 22 of the freshwater impact assessment) of the approved Outdoor Studio

Zone could be developed as per the existing backlots. This would involve the flattening of some dunes

(+2.64ha) in extent to construct temporary sets in sections of the zone where the general topography that

supports the dune-slack wetlands would not be influenced. The remainder of this zone (+4.34ha) should then

be zoned for conservation and form part of the Main Green Corridor to ensure the protection of the

duneslack wetland areas adjacent to the Kuils River. The route and design of the access road to these backlot

areas will need to be such that there are no flow or habitat impacts on the wetland areas (note that this

recommendation has been incorporated into the layout of the DF and is, therefore, not listed as a

condition of authorisation). It is, however, included as a planning consideration in the EMPr (refer to

section 5.1a of the EMPr).

• A freshwater ecologist should have input to the landscaping of these areas (i.e. the outdoor studio zone and

access road) to ensure that they effectively function as ecological corridors. Note that the EAP has included

clarity regarding the zones in this condition, given that it was included under the reference to the green

corridor and remnant wetlands areas associated with the road passage to the outdoor studio zone in

the specialist report. This is included in section 5.1a of the EMPr.

Other key mitigation measures relate to:

• Ensuring that a detailed stormwater management plan is compiled for the site that is aimed at minimising

changes in the quantity and quality of runoff entering the seasonal wetlands (note that this is already a

condition of authorisation and has, therefore, not been included as an additional condition as part of

this amendment application so as to avoid unnecessary duplication) This is included in section 5.1b of

the EMPr.;

• Monitoring and management of alien vegetation growth in the wetland areas that forms part of the alien

vegetation clearing programme for the site This is included in section 6 of the EMPr.;

• Limiting access and disturbance to the delineated conservation areas This is included in sections 6 and

5.21 of the EMPr.;

• Should the establishment of a berm be required in future, this should be dealt with on a case by case basis where individual method statements can be compiled in the Environmental Management Programme for the project or in a Maintenance and Management Plan for the wetland areas within the site for the specific aspect of each berm once the detail becomes available and a wetland specialist can provide very specific recommendations for the proposed berms. This is included in sections 5.1a and 6 of the EMPr.

• All roads within the site should be constructed on a rock blanket or other permeable material to offset impacts

associated with changes in the direction of surface and subsurface flow. This is included in section 5.1c of

the EMPr.

• Where crossing of remnant wetlands is required, to allow access to infilled areas, wide-span bridges/culverts rather than roads should be used, and a freshwater ecologist should provide specialist input to bridge design, to minimise obstruction of flow through these areas. Note that this is already a condition of authorisation and has, therefore, not been included as an additional condition as part of this amendment application to avoid unnecessary duplication. This is included in section 5.1c of the EMPr.

• An effective and practical management plan for the treatment and disposal of litter and other waste generated

on the site, during both the construction and operational phases of the project, such that threatened wetlands do

not become extended refuse sites. Note that this recommendation is already addressed through the waste

management aspects of the EMPr and is, therefore, not listed as a condition of authorisation. This is

addressed in sections 5.2, 5.12, 5.22, 5.34, and 6 of the EMPr.

Assessment Report

Page | 61

The construction and operational phases of the project should be guided by a detailed Environmental Management Plan and executed under the command of an Environmental Control Officer with special sanctions for non-compliance. Note that this recommendation is already addressed through the EMPr itself and is, therefore, not listed as a condition of authorisation per se, but rather there is a condition of authorisation already in existence which requires adherence to the EMPr.

In terms of detailed stormwater management, the following recommendation has been made:

• A programme must be carried out at the Precinct Plan level for each of the Mixed Use / Residential Area, whereby comments from the freshwater ecologist on the associated stormwater management plan could be incorporated into the Precinct Plan submission. The comment from the freshwater ecologist should note and include the following considerations (this is included in section 5.1b of the EMPr):

o Potential changes in stormwater run-off resulting from previous development; o Note on whether adjustments to overall stormwater management plan is required, as well as the

site-level stormwater management plan; o Note whether any changes in flow patterns and inundation patterns within wetland systems on site

have occurred following the approval of the amendment application and/or previous site development plan submission (whichever the case may be) and make recommendations to mitigate this, if needed; and

o Note whether any changes in water quality within wetland systems on site have occurred following the approval of the amendment application and/or previous site development plan submission (whichever the case may be); and make recommendations to mitigate this, if needed.

• With respect to Pond 1 in the Stormwater Management Plan, once the finer detail of the development of the area is known, one may need to consider the use of swales along the edge of this developed area, especially where seasonal wetland areas occur adjacent to the Kuils River within the river corridor. The swales would then assist with mitigating the flow and quality impacts of the stormwater runoff as well as provide a buffer between the developed area and the river and wetlands. This is included in section 5.1b of the EMPr but is not included as a condition of authorisation given that the implementation of the abovementioned programme, which would be a condition of authorisation, would address this requirement. This requirement is something which would have to be considered at a detail design level.

• With respect to Pond 2 in the Stormwater Management Plan, stormwater management measures should be strongly focused on mitigating stormwater runoff towards the renosterveld wetland area. Stormwater runoff along the roads constructed in this area will also need to be given consideration in terms of not draining runoff towards or away from the wetland through use of kerbs along the road. The objective for the stormwater management associated with the renosterveld wetland area should be to not increase or decrease the natural runoff to this wetland and in so doing to not alter the period of inundation of the wetland. This is included in section 5.1b of the EMPr but is not included as a condition of authorisation given that the implementation of the abovementioned programme, which would be a condition of authorisation, would address this requirement. This requirement is something which would have to be considered at a detail design level.

• The impact of stormwater runoff within the road network as part of the stormwater network onsite should also be considered. This is included in section 5.1b of the EMPr but is not included as a condition of authorisation given that the implementation of the abovementioned programme, which would be a condition of authorisation, would address this requirement. This requirement is something which would have to be considered at a detail design level.

The abovementioned recommendations have been incorporated into the amendment application and the EMPr, unless

otherwise indicated.

Assessment Report

Page 62

5.3 BOTANICAL

A botanist considered the following aspects of the proposed amended DF in the botanical statement included in

Appendix G(i)(a) and Appendix G(i)(b) of the Amendment Application:

• The reconfiguration of the Renosterveld Area to accommodate the secondary access road and circles;

• The access road across the Renosterveld area (and the canal) to the eastern-most triangular portion of the

site (proposed as Mixed Use Area 3);

• Reconfiguration of the Renosterveld Area to accommodate an amended development footprint2 (labeled as

Mixed Use 2 in the proposed DF), noting that loss in some places would be compensating for with the addition

of conservation area along the canal, adjacent to the Renosterveld Area. The overall extent of the

Renosterveld Area would remain at 15.11ha (excluding the road reserve). Furthermore, if one were to

consider the road reserve as part of this Renosterveld Area (because it would be undeveloped on the

ground), there would be an additional green area connected to the Renosterveld area of 0.35ha;

• The requirement for flattening some of the dunes in the Outdoor Studio Zone in order to accommodate the

proposed change in land use (to backlots) as well as the reconfiguration of the boundaries of the outdoor

studio zone. The botanist also assessed the baseline conditions of the outdoor studio zone and commented

on the need for search and rescue of bulbs (as suggested by the freshwater ecologist).

Although the botanist echoed the boundaries of the sensitive Renosterveld area identified in the S&EIA and stated

that it would be preferable to keep the entire area intact, it was conceded that a certain portion of the sensitive

renosterveld is approved for development. Regarding the above-mentioned amendments, it has been confirmed

that the access road to the Mixed Use 3 Area as well as the proposed realigned secondary access road and traffic

circles would fall within a low sensitivity area and would be acceptable from a botanical perspective. It was also

noted that the possible access road to Mixed Use Area 3 would not compromise the already notional corridor to the

Vergenoegd farm. With respect to the expansion of developable land for the Mixed Use 2 Area, the botanist found

that the impact would be slightly higher with the amended DF (i.e. Medium negative, while currently it is Low

negative), but it was confirmed by the botanist that, overall, there is no particular preference for the current preferred

or proposed amended DF. It should also be noted that the botanical impact of the Mixed Use Area 2 (without

mitigation) is lower than the overall botanical impact (with mitigation) identified in the initial S&EIA.

The botanist found that the current condition of the outdoor studio zone is in a poor state, particularly as a result of

a combination of livestock grazing and trampling from the adjacent iThemba informal agricultural area as well as

long-term proliferation of dense alien invasive vegetation. There are three habitats in the area, namely seasonal

wetlands comprising a number of macro-habitats on sandy clay soils, permanent wetlands characterised by bulrush,

and well drained sands (i.e. dunes). The plant communities appear to have suffered from the recent drought and

many perennials seem to be dead. The dune areas have been alien invasive plants, which have apparently been

harvested for fire wood over the years, thus reducing the alien density. Notwithstanding, the grazing and trampling

by livestock has restricted indigenous plant growth providing indigenous shrubby plant coverage of only about 5%.

A large number of two bulb species have, however, been identified. There are approximately 2000 plants of

Haemanthus coccineus (refer to Figure 9) and 1000 of Zantedeschia aethiopica (arum lily). A search and rescue

exercise for these bulbs has been recommend and included as a condition of authorisation for development in the

outdoor studio zone.

2 Note that the botanical assessment in Appendix G(i)a and Appendix G(i)(b) refer to Light Industrial development. To clarify, this was a previous iteration of the proposed

amended DF which has been subsequently changed again. However, the change was only in regard to land use and not development footprint, therefore the findings of the botanist would not be affected by the minor change in land use from the iteration considered in the botanical assessment.

Assessment Report

Page | 63

FIGURE 9 THE LARGE STRAP SHAPED LEAVES OF THE BULB HAEMANTHUS COCCINEUS (PAINTBRUSH) ON THE DUNES IN THE OUTDOOR

STUDIO AREA (SOURCE: HELME, 2018)

The botanical assessment confirmed that the proposed amendments would not result in a preference for either the

current approved DF or the proposed amended DF.

Additional mitigation measures to those included in the Environmental Authorisation are proposed. If they are not

already contained in the EA, these measures have been included in the amendment application and EMPr, unless

otherwise stated and include the following:

• It is strongly recommended that the Renosterveld conservation area should include all of the mapped High

sensitivity area and the bulk (at last 80%) of the seasonal wetland areas (Medium - High botanical

sensitivity), but it is evident that the latter is not feasible from a planning perspective. Note that this has not

been added as a condition of authorisation, given that a specific area is currently approved for

development (refer to page 374 and 7.2 for more information in this regard). There are also two

additional points in the botanical report which provides more detail on the ideal configuration of

developable land which have not been listed in this report as they pertain to this point and the reason

for not including them in the amended EA remains the same. This condition has also, therefore, not

been included in the EMPr.

• Neither the approved nor the proposed development framework is ideal from a botanical perspective, and

neither is strongly preferred from a botanical perspective (this is acknowledged, but has not been added

as a condition of authorisation as it is not strictly a condition, but more of a summary statement and,

therefore, has also not been included in the EMPr).

• Assuming that either one of the development frameworks is adopted it is essential that appropriate

mitigation be undertaken to rehabilitate the remaining conservation areas. This is included in section 5.1a

of the EMPr. The mitigation should include the rehabilitation outlined in the following bullets, as well as a

carefully prepared drainage and stormwater plan to ensure that the Renosterveld conservation areas are

not flooded by stormwater and runoff backing up on the upslope sides of the new developments. The

Assessment Report

Page 64

stormwater and drainage plan must ensure that the existing soil moisture regime in the conservation area is

not be altered by the development. This is included in section 5.1b of the EMPr.

• Ongoing rehabilitation of the Renosterveld conservation area will be required in order to keep it ecologically

valuable and viable. An invasive alien vegetation management plan has been prepared by Grobler &

Boucher (2014), which should be referred to. Reintroduction of suitable, locally indigenous plant species is

not extensively discussed in the management plan, but reference is made to this idea, which is here supported

(see below), provided it is supervised and planned in consultation with an experienced botanist familiar with

the study area and relevant vegetation type. This is included in section 6 of the EMPr.

• Within one year of project approval the botanist should be contracted to supervise and undertake the

reintroduction of selected, locally indigenous plant Species of Conservation Concern, including but not limited

to Lachenalia corymbosa, Lachenalia arbuthnotiae, Arctotheca forbesiana, Pauridia alba, Leucadendron

lanigerum var lanigerum, Ruchia geminiflora, Cliffortia hirta, Leucadendron levisanus, Leucadendron linifolium,

Echiostachys incanus, Elegia verreauxii, marasmodes polycephala, Isoetes capensis and Diosma dichotoma. The

reintroduction of the selected specimens should be completed within two years of any project approval. Note

that a minor revision has been included by the EAP in the condition of authorisation in the proposed

amended EA, at the suggestion of CapeNature, to ensure that the condition can be implemented. The

EAP has replaced “including but not limited to” with “such as”, which would still provide a list of

appropriate species and still require the input of a botanist, but would avoid a non-compliance on

account of a certain single specimen not being available at the time. This is included in section 6 of the

EMPr.

• All costs of the required site rehabilitation must be borne by the applicant (note that this is already a

condition of authorisation and has, therefore, not been included as an additional condition as part of

this amendment application. Also, the Applicant has already taken on this cost as is evidences in

Appendix N of the Amendment Application. This statement is, however, included in the EMPr, section

5.21).

• With regard to development in the Outdoor Studio Zone, when the dunes are (fully or partly) flattened it is

strongly recommended that all bulbs on site (notably approximately 2000 plants of Haemanthus coccineus

(paintbrush) and approximately 1000 plants of Zantedeschia aethiopica (arum lily)) should be rescued and

translocated prior to earthmoving. They should be translocated to Driftsands Nature Reserve (managed by

CapeNature), which supports similar habitat (Cape Flats Dune Strandveld) that is in need of rehabilitation.

This translocation should be undertaken just after the leaves start to shrivel in early summer (probably

October), as the plants are going dormant for the dry season, but when they are still visible above ground.

Translocation should happen immediately, avoiding the need for lengthy storage in a nursery. Note that

CapeNature does not consider the search and rescue of the Zantedeschia aethiopica (arum lilies) and

Haemanthus coccineus (paintbrush lilies) from the outdoor studios to Driftsands Nature Reserve as

essential mitigation, as these are common species which are no of conservation concern, and there are

likely to be existing populations of these species in Driftsands (pers comms, CapeNature, 10/10/2019-

refer to Appendix I (iii)(a) for their original comment on the Draft Amendment Application). These

species could be used in the indigenous landscaping on the property due to their horticultural potential

(pers comms, CapeNature, 10/10/2019). Therefore, an alternative to the translocation to Driftsands is

also offered in the EMPr and as a condition of environmental authorisation. This is included in sections

5.7 and 5.21 of the EMPr.

Assessment Report

Page | 65

• Removal of all woody alien vegetation in the wetlands in the conservation area of the outdoor studio zone

should be carried out. This is included in section 6 of the EMPr.

• Efforts should be made to limit access to livestock in the Outdoor Studio zone. The botanist has not strictly

included this item as a condition of authorisation, however the report has noted the negative impact of

grazing in the area and presumed that access to livestock would eventually be restricted, hence the

inclusion as a condition of authorisation. Note that there is a condition of authorisation for the iThemba

development to the north which requires that their site be fenced off (pers comms, CapeNature,

10/10/2019). This is included in section 6 of the EMPr.

A botanist was also appointed to assess an alternative alignment for the secondary access road, as depicted in

Figure 10. The full report can be found in Appendix G(i)(c).

FIGURE 10 PORTION OF THE PROPOSE AMENDED DF ILLUSTRATING THE SECOND ALTERNATIVE FOR THE SECONDARY ACCESS ROAD,NOTE THAT

THIS IS FROM A PREVIOUS ITERATION OF THE PROPOSED AMENDED DF

The impact assessment showed a high (-) impact with mitigation for the loss of Swartland Shale Renosterveld,

hence this alternative was discarded and not assessed or considered further.

Loss of Swartland Shale Renosterveld (Critically Endangered) through the construction of the road through this area

Assessment Criteria


Without Mitigation

Negative Medium Long-term Definite (high) High High (-)

With Mitigation

Negative Medium Long-term Definite (high) High High (-)


Low (unless an alternative is selected)

Assessment Report

Page 66

Proposed mitigation • Reduce Mixed use 3 area to allow for larger area for conservation;

• Pre-construction search and rescue;

• Alien clearing;

• Re-introduction of endemic species; and

• Careful control of hydrology to avoid the Renosterveld area.


Irreversible


High

5.4 NOISE

A Noise Impact Assessment (NIA) was carried out (refer to Appendix G (v) for the full report), following a request

from the City of Cape Town. The NIA was conducted in accordance with applicable legislation (e.g. SANS

10328:2008) and assessed the noise implications of the entire DF against the limits for relevant land uses (i.e. “type

of district”) prescribed by the World Health Organisation (WHO) and, more importantly, SANS 10103:3008. This

is “the measurement and rating of environmental noise with respect to annoyance and to speech communication by

determining whether the rating level (LReq,T) of the noise will exceed the measured residual (background) noise level

at recipients or, in the absence of measured residual level, exceed the typical rating level of noise pertaining to the

particular district”. If the rating level, LReq,T, of the ambient noise under investigation exceeds the measured and/or

the typical rating level, it is probable that the noise would be annoying or otherwise intrusive to a community (such

as residents) exposed to the noise.

Furthermore, the Western Cape Noise Control Regulations, 2013 (NCR) provide a noise level criterion which may not

be exceeded. Therefore, compliance is a matter of “yes” or “no” rather than on a continuum. If there is no

compliance, then noise mitigation measures must be implemented in order to achieve compliance.

Following a review of the entire DF, the NIA found the following areas to be considered as potentially noise sensitive:

1 The residential components of Mixed Use area 1 located close to the Cape Town Film Studios (CTFS), with the

residential components thereof which could be affected by the operational noise emanating from the CTFS.

2 Residential Area 1 that would be exposed to noise from road traffic on the N2.

3 The residential components of Mixed Use areas 1, 2 and 3 along the R310 Baden Powell Drive that would be

exposed to noise from road traffic.

Impacts on Mixed Use Area 1 (from on-site factors)

The activities at the CTFS are near Mixed Use Area 1, but the NIA confirms that the only high noise levels would be

associated with special effects or pyro blasts producing impulsive noise with estimated peak levels of 130 dB at

source. The NIA further explains that these impulsive noise events last for a few seconds and on average occur five

to six times a year. The events occur on the remote Backlot area approximately 300 m from the nearest proposed

residential areas. The NIA also explains that at 300 m the peak sound pressure level would be approximately 68

dB depending on the frequency content of the noise source and concludes that, due to the brief duration, the event

would barely be noticeable by most residents and that the of noise emanating from CTFS on future residences would

be Negligible, as assessed with High confidence.

Impact summary of CTFS operational noise on Mixed Use area 1

Assessment Criteria


Assessment Report

Page | 67

Without Mitigation

Neutral Medium (limited to site and surrounds)

Long-term Low Negligible Very Low

With Mitigation

Not Applicable- mitigation not necessary


None Required

Proposed mitigation None


Not Applicable


Low – Natural, cultural and social functions and processes are essentially unaffected or insignificantly affected

Impacts on Residential Area 1

The distance between the boundary of the proposed Residential Area 1 and the nearest edge of the N2 is

approximately 95 m. A distance of 100 m to the nearest residence was assumed in the calculations according to

SANS 10210:2004 and traffic flow data from the N2 was also used therein. The NIA found that the results exceeded

the typical daytime and night-time values of 55 dBA and 45 dBA for urban districts by 13 dB and 15 dB,

respectively. Therefore, the NIA concludes that the associated intensity of noise impact would be high without

mitigation, but that implementation of mitigation measures would render the noise levels compliant with NCR and thus

of very low (-) impact.

Summary of N2 road traffic noise impacts on double storey residences & outdoors in Residential Area 1

Assessment Criteria


Without Mitigation

Negative Medium (limited to site and surrounds)

Long-term Definite High High (-)

With Mitigation


Long-term Low Low to Negligible

Very Low


High

Proposed mitigation 1. Erect 8 m high noise barrier close to the N2 road reserve, or 2. Erect 8.5 m high noise barrier at boundary of Residential Area 1


Partially


High without mitigation and Low with mitigation (i.e. natural, cultural and social functions and processes would essentially be unaffected or insignificantly affected)

With respect to the mitigation measures/noise barriers required, the NIA concludes that, for receptors at ground

floor level, the results would be very similar whether the noise barrier was at 20 m or 90 m from the road edge and

that, for receptors at 1st floor level, a barrier at 20 m would need to be at least 8 m high and a barrier at 90 m at

least 8.5 m high. The NIA further elaborates that the noise barrier along the N2 would need to extend from the off

ramp in the east to beyond the river in the west, noting that restricting the extent of the barrier at the river would

expose a large portion of Area 1 to road traffic noise further westward (refer to Figure 10). The alternative noise

barrier at the boundary of Area 1 would need to “wrap” around and extend north-eastward to remove line-of-sight

with the N2 (refer to Figure 11). This is included in section 5.1g of the EMPr.

Assessment Report

Page 68

FIGURE 11 LOCATION AND EXTENT OF NOISE BARRIER OPTIONS FOR RESIDENTIAL AREA 1 (SOURCE: KEET, 2019)

Impacts on Mixed Use Areas 1 and 2

The NIA explains that the eastern boundaries of Mixed Use Areas 1 and 2 would be approximately 115 m from the

median centreline of the upgraded two carriageways R310 and that the results of the noise impact calculations

exceeded the typical daytime and night-time values of 55 dBA and 45 dBA for urban districts by 5 dB and 6 dB,

respectively, which would have an associated intensity of noise impact of Low to Medium without mitigation. The

NIA adds that the implementation of mitigation measures (noting that there are options which the applicant may

choose from and not all the measures must be implemented) would render noise impacts as negligible.

Summary of R310 road traffic noise impacts on double storey residences & outdoors in Mixed Use Areas 1 and 2

Assessment Criteria


Without Mitigation


Long-term Definite Medium High (-)

With Mitigation


Long-term Low Negligible Very Low (-)


High

Proposed mitigation 1. Erect 5.5 m high noise barrier at mixed use boundary, or 2. Erect 4.5 m high noise barrier along canal, or 3. Locate continuous row of commercial/retail buildings along mixed use boundary.


Partially



Assessment Report

Page | 69

With respect to the mitigation alternatives available to the applicant, the NIA elaborates that these could either be

in the form of deliberate noise barriers or a continuous row of buildings along the boundary could form the necessary

noise barrier. This is included in section 5.1g of the EMPr.

Two alternative locations for a noise barrier were considered. These were:

1. Just outside the mixed use boundary closest to the R310;

2. On the western side of the canal facing the mixed use area.

Refer to Table 6 for the required height of barrier at each location.

TABLE 6BARRIER HEIGHTS FOR MIXED USE AREAS 1 AND 2 FOR COMPLIANCE WITH TYPICAL NIGHT-TIME RATING LEVEL (SOURCE: KEETS, 2019)

The NIA further elaborates that, for single storey residences, a 2.5 m high barrier at both locations would be required,

noting that the height would not be adequate for compliance at first floor windows of double storey residences.

A barrier located next to the canal would need to be 4.5 m high and for a barrier located next to the mixed use

boundary the height would need to be increased to 5.5 m.

Alternatively, a continuous row of commercial or retail buildings, of equal height and without gaps, located along

the mixed use boundary would provide an effective noise barrier. The placement and extent of the commercial

buildings must be such that no noise sensitive receptor is in line-of-sight of the road.

Note, however, that mitigation is only needed to protect “residences” from adverse impacts. Mitigation would,

therefore, not be necessary if there are no noise sensitive receptors as listed by the NIA within that particular

mixed use area.

Impacts on Mixed Use Area 3

The NIA explains that the boundary of Mixed Use Area 3 would be approximately 60 m from the median centreline

of the upgraded two carriageways R310 and that the results of the noise impact calculations exceeded the typical

daytime and night-time values of 55 dBA and 45 dBA for urban districts by 8 dB and 9 dB, respectively, which

would be associated a noise impact of Medium significance without mitigation. Mitigation would be required in

order to render the noise levels compliant with the NCR and to have a negligible impact.

Summary of R310 road traffic noise impacts on double storey residences & outdoors in Mixed Use Area 3

Assessment Criteria


Without Mitigation


Long-term Definite Medium High (-)

With Mitigation


Long-term Low Low to Negligible Very Low (-)

Assessment Report

Page 70


High

Proposed mitigation 1. Erect 4.5 m high noise barrier at road reserve boundary, or 2. Locate continuous row of commercial/retail buildings along mixed use boundary.


Partially



With respect to the mitigation alternatives available to the applicant, the NIA elaborates that these could either be

in the form of a deliberate noise barrier just outside the road reserve boundary approximately 30 m from the

median centreline of the upgraded two carriageways R310 or a continuous row of buildings along the mixed use

boundary. This is included in section 5.1g of the EMPr.

Refer to Table 7 for the marrier requirements pertaning to the number of floors developed.

TABLE 7 BARRIER HEIGHTS FOR MIXED USE AREA 3 TO PROVIDE FOR COMPLIANCE WITH TYPICAL NIGHT-TIME RATING LEVEL FOR RESIDENCES

(SOURCE: KEETS, 2019)

The NIA explains that for single storey residences, the height of the barrier would need to be 2.5m and this would

need to be 4.5 m for double storey residences.

Alternatively, a continuous row of commercial buildings, of equal height and without gaps, located along the mixed-

use boundary would provide an effective noise barrier. The placement and extent of the commercial buildings must

be such that no noise sensitive receptor is in line-of-sight of the road.

Note, however, that mitigation is only needed to protect “residences” from adverse impacts. Mitigation would,

therefore, not be necessary if there are no noise sensitive receptors as listed by the NIA within that particular

mixed use area.

General Notes on Noise Barriers as they pertain to Implementation as a Mitigation Measure

A noise barrier may comprise any vertical structure extending parallel to a road that is continuous and without

apertures and with a minimum surface mass of 24 kg/m2. This includes walls made of brick or concrete, metal, safety

glass, Perspex, wood and earth berms or any combination of these. Trees & shrubs provide negligible sound

reduction. However, they play an important role in reducing or eliminating the visual distraction of passing vehicles.

They enhance the landscape by hiding potentially unsightly noise walls.

Two physical phenomena, namely sound diffraction and sound refraction limit the effectiveness of an outdoor noise

barrier.

An alternative to a purpose-built noise barrier is a continuous line of commercial or retail buildings located parallel

to and near to a road provided that associated activities such as delivery vehicles are not additional sources of

Assessment Report

Page | 71

noise. With the height of the top of the roofs typically being 5 m or more they would provide an effective noise

barrier for double storey residential dwellings. The buildings are to be of equal height with no gaps between

adjacent buildings. Were multi-storey residential apartment buildings to be envisaged, a more detailed noise impact

assessment would be required.

Depending on the acceptable indoor noise levels associated with activities within commercial buildings facing the

road, sealed windows and mechanical air ventilation might need to be considered.

This explanation has also been included in the EMPr in order to guide the more detailed planning phases of

development on the site.

The City of Cape Town also offered suggestions for amendments to the EMPr. These have been included in section

5.1g of the EMPr.

5.5 FAUNAL

A faunal assessment has been conducted in order to review the current conditions of authorisation as well as the site

conditions in terms of best practice and relevance, and also to comment on the efficacy of the connectivity to the

natural areas on Vergenoegd on the eastern side of the R310. Refer to Appendix G(vi) for the full report.

Burger (2020) provided updated information on the faunal species of conservation concern (SCC). Regarding

mammals, almost all the CTFS mammal species are listed as being of Least Concern (LC), with the only exception

being the African Striped Weasel (Poecilogale albinucha) which is Near Threatened (NT). This species has become

rare in developed areas, but it is presumed that individuals may potentially still inhabit some of the natural or

partially transformed habitats at the CTFS site and general surroundings (Burger, 2020). In terms of birds, Burger

(2020) explains that the most relevant species in the context of the CTFS site are African Marsh-harrier (Circus

ranivorus) which is Endangered (EN) at a national level and Blue Crane (Anthropoides paradiseus) which is NT at a

national level. The CTFS site contains wetland habitat with dense stands of reeds that are currently being utilised by

African Marsh-harriers, and these areas are well outside of the CTFS developed precincts (Burger, 2020).

Observations of a pair of Blue Cranes with chick(s) have been recorded at the north-eastern renosterveld patch

(Burger, 2020). Almost all of the CTFS reptile species are listed as being of LC, with the only exception being the

Cape Dwarf Chameleon (Bradypodion pumilum) which was up until recently listed as being Vulnerable (VU; Bates et

al. 2014), but it was down-listed to NT in the most recent IUCN (2018) re-assessment of southern African reptile

endemics (Burger, 2020). Likewise, the Cape Whip Snake (Psammophis leightoni) that used to be listed as VU (Bates

et al. 2014) was also radically downlisted and now regarded as being of LC (IUCN 2018) (Burger, 2020). In terms

of amphibians, the only SCC in this area is the Cape Caco (Cacosternum capense), the presence of which is currently

unconfirmed on site (even in the north-eastern Renosterveld conservation area) (Burger, 2020). Burger (2020) asserts

that when the Renosterveld conservation area was visited during the original faunal survey (Burger 2005; late

summer) and during the most recent faunal survey (November 2019), the terrain seemed rather unsuitable as

breeding habitat for Cape Caco. Much of the so-called renosterveld was completely obscured by alien Acasia saligna

infestations, with no clear evidence of wetland conditions (Burger, 2020). Based on the current observations, Burger

(2020) states that it seems rather unlikely that this species does in fact occur there, however he recommends that a

survey be conducted during middle to late winter to confirm this.

Regarding the extent of functional ecological connectivity between the CTFS patch of renosterveld and adjacent

nodes of renosterveld, Burger (2020) has found that it is seemingly rather limited and not of significant conservation

value, which is largely due to the position of the R310 (Baden Powell Drive) which represents a belt of wide hazardous

terrain that forms a significant hindrance to frog dispersal/migration movements. If the CTFS patch of renosterveld

does turn out to contain a population of Cape Caco (although this is more likely not to be the case), it will be isolated

from other populations in the general region (Burger, 2020).

Assessment Report

Page 72

Burger (2020) has confirmed that the impacts of the proposed amendments to the DF are the same as those of the

original DF, with the extent of the proposed reconfiguration of developable land around the Renosterveld

Conservation area not being considered to be major.

Burger (2020) has also noted improvements in the habitat at certain nodes following previous site visits, with the most

significant being the salt-marsh wetland habitat. The renosterveld conservation area was found to fluctuate between

stages of partial rehabilitation and renewed infestation by Acacia saligna. Burger (2020) asserts that this section

needs continued vegetation management in order to improve the habitat quality of the renosterveld but

acknowledges that it is a difficult objective to achieve, because foliar spraying is not desirable in the renosterveld.

The current strategy is to allow the alien vegetation to grow to a height which makes it easier to cut and treat with

herbicide

The faunal assessment yielded recommendations in two categories, namely those which should be conditions of

authorisation and those which are recommended non-essential items to support the general conservation management

efforts at the site. These measures have been included in the EMPr as well as the amended EA. The proposed

conditions of authorisation include the following:

• Improve the control of Acacia saligna on the renosterveld patch so that the site can be adequately rehabilitated

and managed as renosterveld habitat. This is included in section 6 of the EMPr.

• Conduct a targeted survey during the middle to late winter to determine the presence/absence of Cape Caco

within the CTFS site. This is achievable in a single season if it is not a below-average rainfall year. Such a survey

would require about five night-time visits during the peak of the annual rainfall season. Conclusive results (i.e.

presence or absence of Cape Caco) should be achievable within three surveying stints, i.e. within three years.

This is included in section 6 of the EMPr.

The recommended non-essential items are the following:

• Conduct a survey within developed and conservation nodes to determine the extent of invasion by Cape Dwarf

Gecko. A single specimen was observed during the November 2019 site visit. The ideal timing for such a survey

is during the spring and summer seasons, and is achievable with a one-day surveying effort. The results will most

likely be academic of nature, with no specific management actions needed. This is included in section 6 of the

EMPr.

• Conduct a survey of the artificial wetlands to determine which species of fish are present. Such a survey can be

conducted during any season, with winter or spring being more suitable. Such a survey is achievable with a one

or two-day surveying effort. This is included in section 6 of the EMPr.

• Conduct annual baseline surveys of mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibian communities within the CTFS site.

These should initially be done by a faunal expert that would then also provide training to CTFS environmental

staff to conduct these in future. The ideal timing for such surveys is during the spring and summer seasons, and is

achievable with a week-long surveying effort. The results should be recorded in a CTFS biodiversity database

(see below). This is included in section 6 of the EMPr.

• Establish an electronic database to log faunal observations within the CTFS site. This is included in section 6 of

the EMPr.

5.6 SERVICES

The service requirements for the changes in land use have been recalculated and confirmation of available capacity

has been provided by the City of Cape Town for water and sewer requirements (refer to Appendix F(ii)(a) of the

Assessment Report

Page | 73

Amendment Application), subject to conditions imposed by the City of Cape Town, as well as for refuse (refer to

Appendix F(iii) of the Amendment Application as well as Appendix I (iii)(c) for the City of Cape Town’s comment

on the Draft Amendment Application which confirms there would be no impact on waste management services).

An important aspect of service provision to note is with respect to the capacity of the Zandvliet Waste Water

Treatment Works (ZWWTW). Upgrades to the ZWWTW are confirmed and currently estimated for completion by

December 2024 (pers comms, City of Cape Town: Water and Sanitation, 22/08/2019- refer to Appendix I (iii)(c)

for the City of Cape Town’s comment on the Draft Amendment Application), however, given that the ZWWTW

currently does not have additional capacity for the treatment of sewage, any development which occurs prior to the

completion of the upgrade works is required to treat sewage on site, or in another legally compliance manner (i.e.

collection and treatment by a private service provider who has the relevant credentials and appropriate registration

as a service provider with the municipality). The long-term phased nature of the proposed development would likely

result in the development being realised once the ZWWTW upgrades are complete, however, interim in situ sewage

treatment would be required for any development constructed prior to the completion of the ZWWTW upgrades.

The details of the in-situ treatment are currently unavailable as they would be selected and implemented by

developers, however it has been added as a condition of authorisation that developers would have to ensure

compliance with applicable legislation. Notwithstanding the above, the City has provided permission for the Phase

1 flows to be absorbed at the WWTW as the flows are so low (refer to Appendix F(ii)(b)). There are also aspects

of the City of Cape Town’s comment which have been included in the EMPr in section 5.1f. Overall, only Phase 1

may commence within the limits of current capacity, while the remaining phases would require additional capacity

either through municipal services, or an appropriate, legally established alternative.

Note that, while a temporary treatment facility may be required, this is not a given and may only be considered by

the applicant if no capacity is available at the time, or a private contractor cannot be used. If such a facility is going

to be required and it exceeds any thresholds indicated in the relevant legislation (e.g. NEM:WA), then approval

would be required, and the necessary process would have to be undertaken. Therefore, this is not included in the

current amendment application as there is insufficient detail/information at present to confirm whether it would be

needed, what specifications would be, and whether any triggers under NEMA and associated legislation would

apply.

Eskom has provided confirmation of capacity for electrical supply (refer to Appendix F(i) of the Amendment

Application), noting that the capacity for the full development would be available from around 2021 when the

construction of the Magnetic substation is complete. Given that the anticipated timing and roll-out of each phase of

development occurs over the next ten year, it is anticipated that enough power will be available as and when each

phase is required to come online. Note that, in order to manage this, a condition of authorisation has been included

which states that operation of each phase may only commence upon availability of electrical services and the

notification of commencement as well as written confirmation of capacity from Eskom is to be provided to the DEA&DP

prior to the initiation of operational for each phase.

A Stormwater Management Plan has been compiled which meets the requirements of the Environmental Authorisation

and additional recommendations by specialists as part of this amendment application (refer to Appendix J). The

Stormwater Management Plan has also been reviewed and approved by an independent freshwater ecologist,

provide the recommended measures for Precinct Plans are adhered to (refer to Appendix G (ii)).

A detailed services report has been drafted and included in Appendix Q.

5.7 TRAFFIC

Traffic engineers were appointed in order to assess the local road network and its capacity to accommodate the

proposed amendments to the DF. The latest traffic report can be found in Appendix G(iv) of the Amendment

Application.

Assessment Report

Page 74

Note that the following road construction requirements in accordance with phased development will be implemented:

• Secondary access road onto Old Faure Road with turning lanes (and roundabouts) (only required for Phase

3).

• Realignment of Quarterlink to intersect with realigned Old Faure Road/R310 intersection and intersect with

R102 at Faure Station access road with turning lanes at both intersections with R310 and R102 (to be

constructed under current external contract with the estimated completion date presently being June 2020).

• Signalise all intersections on R310 between N2 and R102 (to be constructed under current external contract

with the estimated completion date presently being June 2020).

The cross section of this secondary access road would comprise an 18m road reserve which will include a two-lane

undivided road with 3.7m wide lanes in each direction. Typical cross sections for a class 4 local distributor have been

agreed with Bill Jones, CCT: TDA Eastern through the traffic engineers.

The abovementioned road upgrades along with the internal access roads) would be required in order to realize

Phase 1 of the proposed development, with the exception of the secondary access road which would be constructed

up to the bellmouth at the Data Centre for Phase 1 (note that construction of this segment was completed in June

2019) and the remainder would be completed before Phase 3 starts.

The additional road to Mixed Use Area 3, as well as the realigned secondary access road and associated traffic

circles are considered appropriate by the traffic engineers.

No additional requirements to local road network infrastructure as a result of the proposed amendments to the DF

have been identified, however the following specific recommendations have been made, which have been included

as conditions of authorisation in this amendment application, unless otherwise stated:

• A public transport interchange in the vicinity of the proposed mixed use and film studio security control point

i.e. at the intersection of Film City Boulevard and the Secondary Access Road (Dune Road) and should be

integrated with the proposed mixed-use activity centre to facilitate efficient transfer of passengers and

minimise walking distances. This is included in section 5.1c of the EMPr.

• Roadside bus/taxi embayments complete with shelters along Old Faure Road in the vicinity of the Secondary Access Road (Dune Road) intersection. This is included in section 5.1c of the EMPr.

• Bus and taxi stops with shelters along Film City Boulevard and Secondary Access Road (Dune Road) for the accommodation of picking-up and dropping-off passengers at strategic locations. Each of these locations will be identified as part of each precinct plan. This is included in section 5.1c of the EMPr.

• A feeder service should be provided between the Faure Station and the proposed public transport interchange. This is included in section 5.1c of the EMPr.

• The existing bus and taxi services along the R310 and Old Faure Road, or those within close proximity to these routes should be reviewed to determine whether they could be adjusted to serve this development, or whether new services (MyCiti feeder) would have to be instituted to service the development. At such time there are no scheduled feeder or trunk routes proposed along Old Faure Road or the R310 as part of the Integrated Public Transport Network (IPTN) for 2032. Feeder routes through the development will require stops at strategic points which should allow for the public transport interchange to become redundant once scheduled services would become operational. This is included in section 5.1c of the EMPr.

• The unconventional film studios land use component is likely to have a maximum parking demand of approximately 2 066 vehicles, based on the assumptions made in the HHO Africa TIA (May 2005). Parking for each of the conventional land uses based on the recommended parking ratios should be provided. The parking layout should be addressed at the detailed precinct development planning and detailed design stage. It may also be possible to motivate for lower parking ratios under the shared parking premise and once a proper public transport network is operated through the development giving it PT1 or PT2 zone status. Note that this item has been included in full in the EMPr, while the last two sentences are the only

Assessment Report

Page | 75

aspects included as recommended condition of authorisation as the first two sentences merely provide background and no action. Ultimately the findings of the transport assessment would feed into detail design, including the parking recommendations and associated ratios.

• A perimeter fence should be installed in strategic locations to ensure that people only access the site via the

two access intersections. This is included in section 5.1c of the EMPr.

• Sidewalk on the northern side of Film City Boulevard and sidewalks on both sides of the Secondary Access

Road (Dune Road) and the realigned Quarterlink to Faure station. This is included in section 5.1c of the

EMPr.

• Safe pedestrian facilities including dropped kerbs at all future signalised intersections. This is included in

section 5.1c of the EMPr.

• Safe pedestrian crossing facilities at roundabouts and unsignalised intersections. This is included in section

5.1c of the EMPr.

• An internal non-motorised transport network plan to facilitate NMT movement. This is included in section

5.1c of the EMPr.

• Bicycle facilities such as adequate lock up and end user facilities at the film studio, retail, industrial and

office developments. This is included in section 5.1c of the EMPr.

• Street lighting will need to be introduced at all signalised intersections (150m on all approaches) as well as

along all of the pedestrian routes. This is included in section 5.1c of the EMPr.

• In future, the R310 will need to operate as a high speed arterial with regular signalised intersections. The

speed limit of this route will need to be reduced to 80km/h over the section between Govan Mbeki Road

and the R102 Quarterlink, due to the future implementation of traffic signals. This has not been included

as a condition of authorisation as it is merely s statement of findings in the traffic assessment, and also,

the control of the speed limit along Baden Powell Drive is not within the ambit of what the Applicant

can control. This is a matter which falls within the mandate of the Provincial road authority.

With regard to the level of responsibility to be dedicated to each road upgrade, infrastructure payment is

determined through negotiations with the City of Cape Town, which will be undertaken as part of their Services

Agreement with CTFS. Therefore, the responsibility of construction of roads is not placed upon the application in the

amended environmental authorisation, but rather it would be their responsibility to engage the City of Cape Town

on the matter. The amended EA would provide for the approval of the overall road, while the details around the

phasing and financing thereof would be concluded at a later stage. This is included in sections 2.5 and 6 of the

EMPr.

The City of Cape Town Transport Directorate also delivered the following amendments to the DF, which have been

included in the detail design component of the EMPr (section 2.5 and 5.1c) and also updated access and movement

plan (refer to Appendix E (iii)):

• The second proposed roundabout on the Cape Film Studio Boulevard needs to be increased in diameter to

the same size as the existing roundabout. This will require an adjustment to the road reserve to Cape Film

Studio Boulevard i.e. the introduction of splays at all four corners of the proposed intersection;

• The proposed vehicle access on the Cape Film Studio Boulevard between the two roundabouts are to be

Left-in/out only (LILO) and not a full access as indicated on the CTFS Development Framework Plan.

5.8 HERITAGE

Heritage Western Cape (HWC) has confirmed that there is no reason to believe that the proposed development

would impact on heritage resources (pers comms, HWC, 10/09/2019- refer to Appendix I (iii)(c) for their original

comment on the Draft Amendment Application).

Assessment Report

Page 76

HWC did, however, indicate that, should any heritage resources, including evidence of graves and human burials,

archaeological material and paleontological material be discovered during the execution of the activities above, all

works must be stopped immediately and HWC must be notified without delay. This requirement has been included

in the construction component of the EMPr. This is included in section 5.29 of the EMPr.

5.9 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS

The anticipated impacts of the proposed amendments to the DF have been found to be similar to or lower than those

of the current DF and are all, therefore, considered acceptable. It must be noted that, form a visual perspective, the

maximum permissible building height along the R310 for Mixed Use Area 3 should be two storeys and not the three

storeys initially proposed as part of this amendment application. There are no heritage impacts anticipated and the

noise impacts of the proposed development are also anticipated to be negligible provided that the necessary noise

barriers/buildings be implemented as recommended in the NIA. The faunal impacts anticipated as a result of the

amended DF is the same as the current DF, however certain mitigation measures have been incorporated into the

amended EA to provide clarity on, and habitat for, the cape caco population (if any) on site.

Additional mitigation measures have been proposed by the specialists and these have been added as conditions of

authorisation in this amendment application. A few measures have not been added, but a motivation has been

provided where this is the case.

Assessment Report

Page | 77

6 PROS AND CONS OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS The pros and cons associated with the proposed amendments to the conditions of authorisation are tabled in Table 8.

TABLE 8 PROS AND CONS OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE CONDITIONS OF AUTHORISATION (AMENDMENTS HIGHLIGHTED IN GREY)

Proposed Amended Condition of Authorisation Pros Cons

Dreamworld Management Company (Pty) Ltd and Cape Town Film Studios (Pty) Ltd propose to develop a film “city” that would provide a service to the local and international filming industry. The proposed activity will comprise the following:

• Film studios and open film lots (i.e. “Testing Facility”, “Cape Town Film Studios” and “OSZ Backlot”) of up to approximately 44.96 hectares;

• Within the up to approximately 44.96 hectares mentioned above, a particular Outdoor Studio Zone comprising two backlots (“OSZ Backlot”) totalling up to 2.33 hectares in extent would be allocated for use which allows the establishment of temporary structures and / or sets which do not have foundations and do not require a building plan.

• Additional access routes to the Outdoor Studio Zone Backlots;

• A residential component (“Residential Area 1”) which will be located on the south-western portion of the site comprising of up to approximately 11.25 hectares;

• Mixed Use Areas (“Mixed Use 1”, “Mixed Use 2”, “Mixed Use 3”, and “Mixed Use 4”) in the western half of the site totalling up to approximately 34.04 hectares;

• A service station/ diner at the entrance to the site, along the R310, of up to approximately 0.96 hectares;

• Conservation and associated buffer areas of up to approximately 76.46 hectares;

• Landscaped areas of up to approximately 18.51 hectares; and

• Associated access roads and servitudes. The Dune Slack and Environmental Connection as indicated in the Site Plan is not

be used as “Backlots” and shall be retained for conservation purposes.

Changes to the project description

would reflect the nature of the DF.

The amendments to the DF would

result in a more marketable and

economically viable development

and would also include and

increased extent in terms of

conservation area.

None

The drafting of this component of the amended and consolidated Environmental

Authorisation (EA) would be at the discretion of the DEA&DP, however it is recommended

that the similarly listed activities in terms of the NEMA be included.

The latest legislation would be

reflected.

None

The listed activities will take place on the Remainder of Erf 41969-RE, Erf 41968, Blue Downs and Farm 653-14, Stellenbosch. The SG 21-digit codes are: C06700240004196900000, C06700240004196800000,and C0670000 00000653 00014 Co-ordinates: Erf 41969-RE: 34o02‘04.61“S, 18o43‘15.98“ Erf 41968: 34o01‘54.42“S, 18o43‘08.42“ E Farm 653-14: 34o01‘38.80“ S, 18o43‘55.44“ E Hereinafter referred to as “the property/site”.

The latest property information

would be reflected for a more

accurate and specific EA.

None

The Board of Directors Dreamworld Management Company (Pty) Ltd and Cape Town Film Studios (Pty) Ltd c/o Mr. N. Dekker P.O Box 682 Somerset Mall 7173 Tel: (021) 843 2400 Fax: (021) 843 2410

The latest applicant information

would be clearly and accurately

reflected.

None

Assessment Report

Page 78

Chand Environmental Consultants c/o Sadia Chand P.O Box 238 Plumstead 7800 Tel: (021) 762 3050 Fax: 086 665 7430

The latest EAP information would be

clearly and accurately reflected.

None

The mitigation/rehabilitation measures and recommendations detailed by Nick Helme of Nick Helme Botanical Surveys (refer to Appendix 2), as amended in 2020, must be adopted and implemented.

There have been additional

mitigation measures added and the

inclusion of “as amended” would

clarify this.

None

No development or infrastructure of any sort (e.g. pipelines) should impact on the high conservation value areas identified, namely the Renosterveld Area and Area 2 within the Main Green Corridor (refer to Figure 5 for the extent of Area 2).

Area 2 should have an ecological buffer of at least 10m around all edges.

The condition is more accurate and

specific regarding the particular

area referred to on the amended

DF.

None

All conservation areas on site should be demarcated for conservation or open space use. With reference to the amended DF Site Plan, these areas specifically include those labelled as:

• OSZ Conservation;

• Main Green Corridor;

• Dune Slack and Environmental Connection; and

• Renosterveld.

The condition is more specific,

therefore cannot be ignored or

misinterpreted.

All areas of conservation are

clearly listed.

None




• Where species characterised as water intensive have been identified for use, investigate whether a less water-thirsty alternative with the same visual


reflected to provide a more

accurate and current EA.

None

Assessment Report

Page | 79

character (that would meet the requirements of the particular film shoot), exists. If appropriate, utilise the alternative species. The success of this monitoring and management must be verified by an independent botanist every 3 years.

Residents should be encouraged to plant local indigenous species.

The Deeds of Sale for all properties bordering on Area 1 (i.e. the Renosterveld

Area) should include clauses which acknowledge that they are aware of the

management requirements in this area which mandates the controlled burning of

the vegetation at least once every 10 – 15 years, and will not lodge any objections

at the time of such management decisions or actions by the property managers.

The condition is more accurate and

specific regarding the particular

area referred to on the amended

DF.

None

Another key element of the EMP should be a management plan for alien invasive

plant control. Important invasive aliens in the area are currently Acacia saligna

(Port Jackson), Acacia cyclops (rooikrans), Pinus radiate Monterey pine), and

Eucalyptus sp. bluegum. No invasive alien vegetation should be allowed on the

conservation areas (see NEM:BA legislation for listings), and there should be

ongoing annual alien invasive plant removal.




None

1.2.2.1 The rehabilitation of all the underdeveloped natural areas is highly recommended and will add value to what is currently mostly a highly degraded area. The public spaces may however be landscaped with non-invasive exotic species subject to 5.8 above. The same inclusions in the Deed of Sale as noted should be continued when the properties change hands, including when speculators or investors buy a property but sell it on before building”. 1.2.2.2 Any non-locally indigenous and exotic species used must be monitored on an annual basis, and any plants that have spread from their original points of introduction must be removed during this monitoring programme. The success of this monitoring and management must be verified by an independent botanist every three years. The annual monitoring results and proof of verification by an independent botanist must be submitted to the Environmental Monitoring Committee every 3 years.

An accurate cross-reference would

be provided.

None

A carefully prepared drainage and stormwater plan is required to ensure that the

Renosterveld conservation areas are not flooded by stormwater and runoff

backing up on the upslope sides of the new developments. The stormwater and

drainage plan must ensure that the existing soil moisture regime in the

conservation area is not be altered by the development.

Anticipated botanical impacts

would be better mitigated.

None

Ongoing rehabilitation of the Renosterveld conservation area will be required in

order to keep it ecologically valuable and viable. An invasive alien vegetation

management plan has been prepared by Grobler & Boucher (2014), which should

be referred to. Reintroduction of suitable, locally indigenous plant species is not

extensively discussed in the management plan, but reference is made to this idea,

which is here supported (see below), provided it is supervised and planned in

consultation with an experienced botanist familiar with the study area and

relevant vegetation type.



None

Within one year of project approval the botanist should be contracted to supervise

and undertake the reintroduction of selected, locally indigenous plant Species of

Conservation Concern, such as Lachenalia corymbosa, Lachenalia arbuthnotiae,

Arctotheca forbesiana, Pauridia alba, Leucadendron lanigerum var lanigerum, Ruchia

geminiflora, Cliffortia hirta, Leucadendron levisanus, Leucadendron linifolium, Echiostachys

incanus, Elegia verreauxii, marasmodes polycephala, Isoetes capensis and Diosma

dichotoma. The reintroduction of the selected specimens should be completed within

two years of any project approval.



A more rigid timing requirement for

rehabilitation would be instituted.

Specific appropriate plants would

have to be used and these would

have to be approved by a botanist,

however there is flexibility in terms

of obtaining the rights plants as this

relates to the availability of such

plants.

The Applicant would be

under time pressure to re-

introduce specific species.

With regard to development in the Outdoor Studio Zone (i.e. “OSZ Backlot 1” and

“OSZ Backlot 2”), when the dunes are (fully or partly) flattened it is strongly

recommended that all bulbs on site (notably approximately 2000 plants of

Haemanthus coccineus (paintbrush) and approximately 1000 plants of Zantedeschia

aethiopica (arum lily)) should be rescued and translocated prior to earthmoving.

They should be translocated to Driftsands Nature Reserve (managed by

CapeNature), which supports similar habitat (Cape Flats Dune Strandveld) that is



The search and rescue

recommended would serve to save

Additional costs and

planning consideration

upon the Applicant.

Assessment Report

Page 80

in need of rehabilitation. This translocation should be undertaken just after the

leaves start to shrivel in early summer (probably October), as the plants are going

dormant for the dry season, but when they are still visible above ground.

Translocation should happen immediately, avoiding the need for lengthy storage

in a nursery. As an alternative to translocation, these species could be used in the

indigenous landscaping on the property due to their horticultural potential.

the plants which would be

developed on.

The search and rescue would serve

to rehabilitate another similar

habitat or contain the plants within

their own habitat if used in

landscaping.

Removal of all woody alien vegetation in the wetlands in the conservation area

of the outdoor studio zone (i.e. OSZ Conservation”) should be carried out.



None

Efforts should be made to limit access to livestock in the Outdoor Studio zone. Anticipated botanical impacts


Management of biodiversity would

be better achieved.

Possible additional

resource required from

Applicant.

The mitigation/rehabilitation measures and recommendations detailed by Marius

Burger of Sungazer (refer to Appendix 3), as amended, must be adopted and

implemented.




clarify this.

None

Improve the control of Acacia saligna on the renosterveld patch so that the site can

be adequately rehabilitated and managed as renosterveld habitat.

The rehabilitation efforts on the

Renosterveld conservation area

would be increased.

None

Conduct a targeted survey during the middle to late winter to determine the

presence/absence of Cape Caco within the CTFS site. This is achievable in a single

season if it is not a below-average rainfall year. Such a survey would require

about five night-time visits during the peak of the annual rainfall season.

Conclusive results (i.e. presence or absence of Cape Caco) should be achievable

within three surveying stints, i.e. within three years.

A better understanding of the

existence of the Cape Caco on site

would be gained.

This information could be used to

provide data for the surrounding

area and contribute to the

conservation effort of the Cape

Caco.

This may need to be

repeated for a second

season if the rainfall is not

adequate.

The developer should further undertake to improve the quality of wetland habitat

surrounding Residential Area 1. This would include preventing against further

pollution, and actively combating the alien vegetation infestations.

There would be no scope for

confusion when considering the

area of the DF referred to.

None

The mitigation/rehabilitation measures and recommendations as detailed by

Justine Ewart-Smith of the Freshwater Consulting Group (refer to Appendix 4), as

amended, must be adopted and implemented.




clarify this.

None

A detailed stormwater management plan should be compiled for the site, aimed at

minimising changes in the quantity and quality of runoff entering remnant

seasonal wetlands.

The condition would be more

accurate and clearer, given that

Alternative 5 has been approved.

None

To reduce the vulnerability of the remaining wetland habitats to the potential

impacts associated with anthropogenic disturbances created by filming activities

and the construction of sets, all remnant sensitive wetland areas (indicated as Main

Green Corridor and OSZ Conservation) and their associated dunes should be

managed as conservation areas.




None

Considering the overall extent and importance of wetlands on the Dreamworld

Film City Site as a whole, any filming or construction activities on this portion of

the site (particularly in the outdoor film sets in OSZ Backlot 1 and OSZ Backlot 2

and in close proximity to wetland area 2- Cape Town Film Studios western edge),

throughout the construction and operational phases on the project, should be

guided by a detailed Environmental Management Plan and executed under the




None

Assessment Report

Page | 81

command of an Environmental Control Officer with special sanctions for non-

compliance.

The route of the proposed northern access road should be located immediately next

to (south) of the Eskom servitude where the wetland has already been significantly

disturbed. The crossing of the old Kuils River braid, onto the Outdoor Studio Zone

should be orientated perpendicular to the old stream channel and should be placed

on culverts interspersed with permeable material to ensure that the section of road

through the permanently inundated areas does not impede flow in the channel.

Anticipated freshwater impacts

associated with the amendments to

the access roads would be better

mitigated.

This measure may require

additional costs to

implement.

The culvert structures mentioned above should not be placed higher or lower than

the natural base level of the base level in the braid to ensure that flow in the

channel is not impeded. The culvert structures should also be placed within the

natural drainage channels in the Kuils River braid.




mitigated.


additional costs to

implement.

The culverts under the road will need to be inspected at least on an annual basis,

at the end of the dry period, to ensure that the culverts are not blocked with

sediment and debris that would further impede flow in the old braid.




mitigated.

Continuous flow through the

freshwater system would be

facilitated.

Additional resources may

be required by the

Applicant to carry out this

task. Additional

operational requirements

would be placed on the

Applicant.

Construction work associated with the northern access road that is within the

wetland areas should be undertaken during the drier summer months. The spatial

(i.e. minimising the extent of the road within permanently inundated areas and

align it outside of the green corridor as far as possible) and temporal extent of the

works should be limited as far as possible and the disturbed areas rehabilitated

afterwards (reshaping of the banks of the road to at least a 1 in 3 gradient and

revegetating if necessary). All waste material associated with the construction

activities should be removed from the wetland areas after construction is complete.




mitigated.

None

Should the establishment of a berm be required in future, this should be dealt with

on a case by case basis where individual method statements can be compiled in

the Environmental Management Programme for the project or in a Maintenance

and Management Plan for the wetland areas within the site for the specific aspect

of each berm once the detail becomes available and a wetland specialist can

provide very specific recommendations for the proposed berms.

The status quo of no berms in the

buffer zones between the

development zones and

conservation zones is accurately

represented.

Additional specialist input

would need to be sourced

by the Applicant, should

berms be required in

future.

Monitoring and management of alien vegetation growth in the wetland areas must

be undertaken and this activity must form part of the alien vegetation clearing

programme for the site.


would be better mitigated and

conservation of the wetland areas

would be reinforced.

None

Limit access and disturbance to the delineated conservation areas. Anticipated freshwater impacts




None

The Renosterveld Conservation Area and its associated wetlands should be

demarcated as a no-go zone and no construction activities should be allowed take

place within this area. Over the longer term, the conservation area should be

properly fenced off to ensure that access and trampling of the wetland area is

limited. The area between the developed area and the wetlands should be buffered

as far as possible by providing for some buffer area that consists of largely local

indigenous plants. The introduction of exotic and alien invasive plants for

landscaped areas should be avoided. This would ensure that the seasonal wetland

areas are adequately buffered from poor quality stormwater runoff from the

developed site and the opportunity for alien invasive plant growth in the

conserved areas is minimised.





None

The stormwater management plan for the Renosterveld Area in particular should

ensure that post-development runoff is directed away from the wetland area so as

to minimise the risk of changes in the seasonality of this habitat. The stormwater



None

Assessment Report

Page 82

management plan for the area should form an integral part of the stormwater

management plan for the entire site.

Contaminated runoff from the construction site(s) should be prevented from

directly entering the wetland areas. Where construction sites are located near the

wetlands, all materials on the construction sites should be properly stored and

contained. Disposal of waste from the sites should also be properly managed.

Construction workers should be given ablution facilities at the construction sites

that are located away from the streams (at least 50m) and regularly serviced. These

measures should be addressed, implemented and monitored in terms of the

Environmental Management Programme (EMP) for the construction phase.



methods to protect the sensitive

wetland areas during construction


None

The stormwater management plan should ensure that the surface and subsurface

flow from the developed area is directed away from the wetland area.



methods to protect the sensitive

wetland areas during construction


None

As mentioned in the previous mitigation measures, the access road to the outdoor

studio and testing site should be located and constructed in such a manner to

minimise its impact on the local surface and sub-surface flow and in particular

prevent flow from being impeded at the road. This can be achieved by minimising

the extent of the road within permanently inundated areas and by making use of

sufficient culverts and permeable material under the road within the areas that are

inundated. The culverts under the road will need to be inspected at least on an

annual basis, at the end of the dry period, to ensure that the culverts are not

blocked with sediment and debris that would further impede flow in the old braid.




mitigated.


additional costs to

implement.

A programme must be carried out at the Precinct Plan level for each of the Mixed

Use / Residential Area, whereby comments from the freshwater ecologist on the

associated stormwater management plan could be incorporated into the Precinct

Plan submission. The comment from the freshwater ecologist should note and

include the following considerations:

• Potential changes in stormwater run-off resulting from previous

development;

• Note on whether adjustments to overall stormwater management plan

is required, as well as the site-level stormwater management plan;

• Note whether any changes in flow patterns and inundation patterns

within wetland systems on site have occurred following the approval

of the amendment application and/or previous site development plan

submission (whichever the case may be) and make recommendations

to mitigate this, if needed; and

• Note whether any changes in water quality within wetland systems on

site have occurred following the approval of the amendment

application and/or previous site development plan submission

(whichever the case may be); and make recommendations to mitigate

this, if needed.

Protection of the freshwater system

on site is ensured at more detailed

stages of development.

Potential changes in hydrology

could be accommodated through

the various phases of development,

which would also provide for the

continued integrity of the

freshwater system.

Given the limited frequency

with which such precinct

plans are devised, this

condition may be missed.

A freshwater ecologist should have input to the landscaping of these areas (i.e.

the outdoor studio zone and access road) to ensure that they effectively function

as ecological corridors.

Protection of the freshwater system

on site is ensured at more detailed

stages of development and

appropriate creation of habitat

would be further ensured.

The approval of the

landscape plan may take

longer, given the need for

an additional layer of

input.

All roads within the site should be constructed on a rock blanket or other permeable

material to offset impacts associated with changes in the direction of surface and

subsurface flow.

Potential changes in hydrology

would be better managed to

safeguard the wetlands on site.

There is the potential that

the road costs may be

greater with the inclusion of

Assessment Report

Page | 83

additional special design

measures.

The mitigation/rehabilitation measures and recommendations detailed by Piet

Louw Architects, Urban Designer, City Planner and Dave Dewar City and Regional

Planner (refer to Appendix 5), as amended, must be adopted and implemented.


mitigation measures added and

the inclusion of “as amended”

would clarify this.

None

• An independent visual specialist must be consulted for input during the

design and implementation phase for individual outdoor sets, such that

specific visual impacts can be identified and suitably addressed on a

case by case basis. Special focus must be placed on high impact areas

such as those visible from the N2 and the R310, to ensure that views

are not dominated by scaffolding and support structures.

An independent visual specialist must also be consulted for input during the design

phase of the proposed mixed use (i.e. labelled as Mixed-Use Area 3) development

along the northern boundary.




None

A 100m building line should establish the eastern edge of the mixed-use zones

(i.e. Mixed-Use Areas 1 and 2) facing the R310, noting that the maximum height

for development along the R310 is two storeys/ 8m. A transparent perimeter fence

on the western edge of the canal could provide the security line, while the space

between the eastern edge of the canal and the R310 should be landscaped for

public amenity.




The height limit would specifically

be restricted for buildings along the

R310, thereby mitigating potential

visual impacts.

There is an opportunity cost

to the Applicant of the lost

GLA that a reduction in a

single storey presents.

Access to Residential Area 1 and Mixed Use Area 1 along the eastern edge of the

site should be via a perimeter route lined with development on the one side of the

route only, i.e. the access road should be on the edge of the development area,

between the development area and the green buffer abutting the canal.




None

As part of the proposed DF, it is suggested that the berms approved as part of the

existing DF (see Figure 2.3) are replaced by landscaped buffer strips.

Flexibility in terms of development

on site would be provided.

There would be potential cost

savings for the Applicant, should

berms not be constructed.

None

For Mixed Use Area 3, appoint a professional Landscape Architect to oversee the landscape design of the screening elements and planting in the green belt and the perimeter fencing to ensure that the design is contextually appropriate, not visually intrusive and sensitive to the rural context.

Anticipated visual impacts would be

better mitigated using the expertise

of an experienced individual.


additional costs to

implement.

Appoint a professional Landscape Architect to design the landscaped buffer strips to ensure that:

• Appropriate indigenous vegetation is utilised in the design.

• Sufficient visual screening is provided to the proposed development from the scenic R310 route and the relevant portions of the N2.

• Low level vegetated berm areas with appropriate planting are used in strategic places to provide visual screening.

• The landscaped buffer area is designed so that the height of the vegetation grades gradually towards the height of the buildings (i.e. shrubs or groundcovers in the foreground with larger trees in the background).

• Sufficient tree planting is provided in appropriate places to provide visual screening.


better mitigated.

Regular “supervision” from an

independent party would further

enhance compliance with the EA.


additional costs to

implement.



better mitigated.

The scenic nature of the area would

be enhanced.

There is an opportunity cost

to the Applicant of the lost

GLA that a reduction in a

single storey presents.

Assessment Report

Page 84



better mitigated.


be enhanced.

None

All buildings within the development area should be screened sufficiently from the

R310 by the implementation of appropriate landscape strategies. Landscape

strategies can include possible low berming and must include planting in the green

belt/ buffer strip. It should be noted that berming is not considered essential to

reduce visual impacts. However, appropriate screening measures using planting

and potential strategic berming must be identified during the design phase to

ensure that visual impacts are reduced.


better mitigated.


be enhanced.

None

Design the screening vegetation in the green belt/ buffer zone along the entire

interface of the CTFS and the R310 cohesively in response to the natural

environment and the individual development proposals at the CTFS. The design of

the screening planting and landscape strategy in the entire green belt/ buffer zone

should be overseen by a professional Landscape Architect and should ensure that

sufficient screening is provided such that the proposed development does not

detract from the scenic quality of the route. The design should be contextually

appropriate, not visually intrusive and sensitive to the rural context.


better mitigated.


be enhanced.

Conservation is emphasised.

Input from a professional would

ensure the best implementation of

the requirement.

Additional costs may be

incurred by the Applicant.

Ensure that sufficient visual screening is allowed to reduce the potential visual

exposure of the development DF (through the use of appropriately designed

screening vegetation, including indigenous trees and groundcovers).


better mitigated.

The scenic and indigenous nature of

the area would be respected.

None

Ensure that ecological factors are incorporated into the landscape design.

Ecological factors should also be taken into consideration in the screening planting

design, including planting with indigenous shrubs and trees to create a visual

buffer, while blending into the natural surroundings. Low berms (where necessary)

should be designed sensitively to appear natural rather than man-made, with

minimal slopes.


better mitigated.


be enhanced.

None

Retain existing (non-invasive) screening vegetation (including wetland vegetation

that provides important ecological functions and provides low level screening) as

far as possible.


better mitigated.


be enhanced.

Conservation is emphasised.

None

Ensure that fencing is visually permeable, contextually appropriate and softened

with planting to provide visual screening. Use appropriate colours such as dark

grey, charcoal and black that are visually recessive. The design thereof should be

overseen by a professional Landscape Architect.


better mitigated.


be enhanced.

Input from a professional would

ensure the best implementation of

the requirement.



Appoint a professional Landscape Architect to oversee the preparation of a

landscape master plan and guideline document for the relevant sub-divisional

areas to ensure that the design of buildings and surrounding landscapes includes

sufficient vegetation to provide visual screening over time.


better mitigated.

Regular “supervision” from an

independent party would further

enhance compliance with the EA.


additional costs to

implement.

Assessment Report

Page | 85

Ensure that the architectural articulation of buildings and the landscape design of the sub-divisional areas take the following factors into consideration:

• Ensure that the visual impacts of the architecture when viewed from the R310 are carefully considered and taken into account in the design articulation of the building elements.

• Ensure that buildings are well-integrated into the landscape and do not appear as monolithic elements.

• Ensure that sufficient vegetation is provided to allow the development to become visually integrated within the surrounding environment over time.

• Ensure that building facades are appropriately articulated and that buildings are integrated into their context within the landscape as far as possible.

• Configure buildings and articulate walls and other structures so as to maintain the flow of vegetation around buildings and neighbouring developments to reduce their visibility.

• Use exterior colours that have low reflectivity value and blend with the surroundings.

• Design streetscape elements (e.g. paving, street furniture, lighting etc.) in a manner that responds to the local context.

• Make use of natural, contextually appropriate materials that do not detract from the surrounding environment.

• Keep reflective surfaces to a minimum or ensure that these areas are shaded by roof overhangs, where possible.


better mitigated.


be enhanced.



Design lighting appropriately along the following guidelines:

• Use low level lighting.

• Limit neon, spot or up-lighting.

• Screen and filter lights sources as far as possible.

• Shield external lights on buildings to cast light only upon the area required to be illuminated.

• Ensure that naked light sources are not visible from beyond the site.

• Ensure that no light is emitted into the sky.


better mitigated.

An opportunity cost for the

Applicant may occur for the

loss of potential large-

scale advertising that could

have been implemented.

Make allowance for on-going landscape maintenance to allow site vegetation to

mature sufficiently to allow the environment to achieve maximum visual

absorption capacity.


better mitigated.


be enhanced.

Applicant would have to

consider the resources

required for this task and

make provision for them.

Ensure that the SDP that is prepared takes the visibility of various elements within

the development footprint into consideration. Ensure that the architectural design

is sensitive to the surrounding context and is of an appropriate height and scale to

reduce visual intrusion as far as possible.


better mitigated.


be respected.

None

For Mixed Use Area 3, ensure that fencing is unobtrusive and screened effectively

and that large-scale infrastructure, parking areas and security fencing are not

visible from the R310.


better mitigated.

Careful and considered design

would be carried out.

None

Beyond the lighting requirements listed in condition 8.21 stemming from the visual assessment for both Mixed Use Area 3 and the remaining mixed use areas and planned berm removal, the following additional measures on lighting design were recommended in the visual assessment which just considered Mixed Use Area 3:

• Implement the minimum lighting required to allow operation after sunset

• Prohibit the use of large-scale security lighting/ flood lighting


better mitigated.

An opportunity cost for the

Applicant may occur for the

loss of potential large-

scale advertising that could

have been implemented.

The recommendation contained in the “Environmental Impact Assessment

Addendum: Dreamworld Film City and Residential Development, Faure

Oostenberg’ (The Environmental Partnership, June 2005) (pages 41-45), as

amended, shall be complied with and implemented.




clarify this.

None

The mixed-use area adjacent to the Renosterveld (i.e. Mixed-Use Area 2) to be conserved must have a solid barrier, such as a low wall, between the gardens of the dwellings and the Renosterveld to ensure that the Renosterveld is not compromised in any way.




None

Assessment Report

Page 86

All conservation areas on site should be earmarked for use as conservation and an Environmental Management Plan for the construction phase and an Environmental Management System (EMS) for the operational phase must have strict measures in place to ensure the conservation of these areas.




The intention for protection of the

conservation areas would remain.

None

Within the Outdoor Studio Zone of up to approximately 7.91ha located approximately in the centre of the Kuils River Wetlands on site, the zones indicated OSZ Backlot 1 and OSZ backlot 2 may be used as backlots, which allows for the construction of temporary structures without foundations which do not require a building plan. The OSZ conservation area should be treated as a conservation area.

A large area of the outdoor Studio

Zone would be conceded to

conservation in compensation.

The least sensitive areas within the

Outdoor Studio Zone would be

utilised as backlots.

There would be more

intense development in

certain areas of the

Outdoor Studio Zone.

The land use rights in

certain areas of the

Outdoor Studio Zone would

be more invasive that at

present

Due to the prevalence of wetlands in this area, the construction of under-road culverts would be deemed necessary.

The removal of a duplication would

provide for a more succinct EA.

None

The dune proposed along the southern boundary should appear as natural as possible and therefore should not have an engineered, man-made appearance. This dune will block a view of the development from the N2 Freeway.



None

The pockets of development on the western portion of the site should be ‘screened out’ by green ‘walls’ or appropriate landscaping guided by the inputs of a professional landscape architect. These serve to deflect views upwards towards the mountains and to frame views over the wetlands. They also create place defining-elements in the flat landscape.

This would clarify that berms are

not essential.

None

On the eastern edge, with the exception of the edge treatment for the service station and diner adjacent to Mixed Use Area 2, large trees can be introduced through which the R310 runs. This recreates a spatial language which is common in the Western Cape and will enhance the quality of the scenic experience along the R310.

The EA would be more accurate and

aligned with precedent already set

by the Department as there is an

edge treatment approved in

another EA.

None

A transparent perimeter fence on the western edge of the canal could provide a security line, while the space between the eastern edge of the canal and the R310 (note only the edges which fall on the Applicant’s property) should be landscaped for public amenity.

The EA would be clear on the fact

that the Applicant cannot landscape

City of Cape Town- owned land.

None

Access to housing along the eastern edge of the site should be via a perimeter route lined with housing on one side of the route only, ensuring that backs of houses do not face onto the R310. Along the northern boundary of the site adjacent to the overhead power lines a swathe of trees and planting should create a visual barrier and screen.



None

The Deeds of Sale for all properties bordering on Area 1 (i.e. the Renosterveld Area) should include clauses which acknowledge that they are aware of the management requirements in this area which mandates the controlled burning of the vegetation at least once every 10 - 15 years, and will not lodge any objections at the time of such management decisions or actions by the property managers.



None

Where the development footprint does extend into wetland habitats, it is recommended that all rare / endangered plant species are identified and removed, together with other appropriate vegetation that can be used for replanting of disturbed areas and those earmarked for rehabilitation – a botanist with sound knowledge of wetland vegetation should visit the site in late winter / spring to identify sites and plants. This is particularly true for the Renosterveld Area, OSZ Backlot 1, OSZ Backlot 2 and the Dune Slack and Environmental Connection Area.




None






None

Assessment Report

Page | 87



Residents should be encouraged to plant local indigenous species.

a. The Deeds of Sale for all properties bordering on Area 1 (i.e. the Renosterveld Area) should include clauses which acknowledge that they are aware of the management requirements in this area which mandates the controlled burning of the vegetation at least once every 10 - 15 years, and will not lodge any objections at the time of such management decisions or actions by the property managers.




None

b. A key element that needs to be included in the Environmental Management System is a fire management plan that allows for the Renosterveld Area to be burnt once every 10 –15 yrs. This should preferably be a controlled fire, conducted in April, to yield optimum regeneration. A maximum of 60% of the site should be burned in the designated year, followed by the remainder the following year. Without fire for periods longer than 15 years the vegetation is likely to become woody and moribund, and the shorter-lived species may disappear due to predation of their seed bank, etc. Fire more often than this will lead to local extinction of slower growing reseeding species, which is not desirable. Due to the increase in fuel load the risk of a runaway wildfire will also increase dramatically.




None

c. Another key element of the Environmental Management System should be a management plan for alien invasive plant control. Important invasive aliens in the area are currently Acacia saligna (Port Jackson), Acacia cyclops (rooikrans), Pinus radiata (Monterey pine), and Eucalyptus sp. (bluegum). No invasive alien vegetation should be allowed on the conservation areas (see NEM:BA legislation for listings), and there should be ongoing annual alien invasive plant removal.




None

d. The rehabilitation of all the undeveloped natural areas is highly recommended and will add value to what is currently mostly a highly degraded area. The landscaped and conservation spaces should be landscaped with suitable locally indigenous plant species, many of which were listed in the relevant section of the Scoping Report (Helme 2004). The same inclusions in the Deeds of Sale as noted should be continued when properties change hands, including when speculators or investors by a property but sell it on before building.

Conservation of important

ecological areas would be

enhanced through the clear

labelling of where the intention for

such requirements must be

implemented.

None

The proponent must ensure that adequate funding is made available for the long-term ecological management of the site. (remainder of clause deleted)

The core intention of this condition,

i.e. conservation, is retained.

There is no impetus to prove

this, other than through the

audits.

A perimeter fence should be installed in strategic locations to ensure that people only access the site via the two access intersections.

Traffic to and from the site would

be better controlled.

None

A sidewalk on the northern side of Film City Boulevard, as well as on both sides of the Secondary Access Road (Dune Road) and the realigned Quarterlink to Faure station are required.

Non-motorised transport facilities

would improve safety for persons

not traveling in a vehicle.

Additional costs would be


Safe pedestrian facilities including dropped kerbs at all future signalised intersections should be constructed.

Safety of pedestrians would be

enhanced.



Safe pedestrian crossing facilities at roundabouts and unsignalised intersections should be established.

Safety of pedestrians would be

enhanced.



An internal non-motorised transport network plan to facilitate NMT movement should be established.

Non-motorised transport facilities

would improve safety for persons

not traveling in a vehicle.



Bicycle facilities such as adequate lock up and end user facilities at the film studio, retail, industrial and office developments should be put in place.

Non-motorised transport would be

encouraged.



Assessment Report

Page 88

Street lighting will need to be introduced at all signalised intersections (150m on all approaches) as well as along all of the pedestrian routes.

Safety for all users of the road

would be enhanced.



With regard to the level of responsibility to be dedicated to each road upgrade, infrastructure payment is determined through negotiations with the City of Cape Town, which will be undertaken as part of their Services Agreement with CTFS. Therefore, the responsibility of construction of roads is not placed upon the applicant in the amended environmental authorisation, but rather it would be their responsibility to engage the City of Cape Town on the matter. The amended EA would provide for the approval of the overall road, while the details around the phasing and financing thereof would be concluded at a later stage.

Clarity is added in terms of where

responsibility lies for the

construction of various roads and

upgrades to intersections. This is

particularly important as the roads

would be public.

Although additional

resources would be

required from the

Applicant in order to

engage the City of Cape

Town, this action is typical

of the procedural

requirements so would

have been carried out

anyway.

A public transport interchange in the vicinity of the proposed mixed use and film studio security control point, i.e. at the intersection of Film City Boulevard and the Secondary Access Road (Dune Road), should be integrated with the proposed mixed-use activity centre to facilitate efficient transfer of passengers and minimise walking distances.

Public transport facilities would be

available, thus improving access to

the site.

Increased public access to

the site may pose

additional security risks.

Roadside bus/taxi embayments complete with shelters along Old Faure Road in the vicinity of the Secondary Access Road (Dune Road) intersection would be required.



the site.


the site may pose


Bus and taxi stops with shelters along Film City Boulevard and Secondary Access Road (Dune Road) for the accommodation of picking-up and dropping-off passengers at strategic locations are recommended. Each of these locations would need to be identified as part of each precinct plan.



the site.


the site may pose


A feeder service should be provided between the Faure Station and the proposed public transport interchange.



the site.


the site may pose


The existing bus and taxi services along the R310 and Old Faure Road, or those within close proximity to these routes should be reviewed to determine whether they could be adjusted to serve this development, or whether new services (MyCiti feeder) would have to be instituted to service the development. At such time there are no scheduled feeder or trunk routes proposed along Old Faure Road or the R310 as part of the Integrated Public Transport Network (IPTN) for 2032. Feeder routes through the development will require stops at strategic points which should allow for the public transport interchange to become redundant once scheduled services would become operational.



the site.


the site may pose


The parking layout should be addressed at the detailed precinct development planning and detailed design stage. It may also be possible to motivate for lower parking ratios under the shared parking premise and once a proper public transport network is operated through the development giving it PT1 or PT2 zone status.

Parking facilities would be

available and aligned with council

and market requirements, thus

improving access to the site.

There may exist an

opportunity cost for the

applicant where

developable land would

be used for parking rather

than buildings.

The Detention Area should be designed to attract certain bird species (e.g. by establishing heronries).




None

The EMS must incorporate the conditions of authorisation given in this Environmental Authorisation as appropriate to the operational phase of the project.

The correct terminology would be

used, and the EA would, therefore,

be aligned with current practice.

None

An amount of R1, 840,000.00 should be deposited into a ring-fenced account whereby the interest generated could be used to implement additional conservation management on site (or for other sensitive renosterveld areas beyond the site boundaries should funds be left over and no further on-site conservation is required for a particular year) beyond that which is carried out in terms of the annual environmental budget. Items that would be addressed as part of the annual budget include the following:

• Regular alien clearing activities; and

• Implementation of a burning programme.

The original intention of the

condition is maintained.

CapeNature would not

support a situation wherein

Stewardship is not

achieved.

Assessment Report

Page | 89

The R1, 840,000.00 shall be deposited into the above-mentioned account within 30 months of date of issue of this EA. Bi-annual (twice a year) statements of this account must be provided to the DEA&DP and CapeNature as evidence that it remains in existence and that no spending unrelated to conservation is taking place.

A Management Plan (which also includes requirements for annual audits) for all conservation areas on site must be compiled within the first two years of the approval of the amendment application and the expenditure of funds described in 16.1, as well as general environmental budget over and above those funds, should be in accordance with the management plan. This plan and the audits should be made available to state departments/ authorities upon request and progress should be reported on at the regular EMC meetings.

Further assurance would be

provided that the conservation

areas would be appropriately

managed and audited.

Independent third-party specialists

would provide input into the plan

providing for a robust and well-

though out approach to

management.

The auditing component would

provide for transparency in the

ongoing management of

conservation areas.

The need to audit and report back,

as well as to provide information to

state departments upon requests,

increases accountability for

management of conservation areas.

CapeNature requires a

stewardship agreement

and would prefer to see the

conservation areas

managed under such an

agreement.

The compilation of such a

plan would cost the

Applicant more.

This would increase the

administrative load borne

by the Applicant.

The applicant shall be responsible for ensuring compliance with the conditions contained in the Environmental Authorisation by any person acting on his behalf, including but not limited to, an agent, servant, employee or any person rendering a service to the applicant in respect of the activity, including but not limited to contractors and consultants.




None

Departmental officials shall be given access to the property referred to in B above for the purpose of assessing and/or monitoring compliance with the conditions contained in this Environmental Authorisation, at all reasonable times.




None

With respect to temporary in situ sewage treatment facilities (which could be decommissioned once the capacity is available at the Zandvliet Waste Water Treatment Works as a result of the imminent upgrades), the developer is to ensure that the facilities installed are compliant with applicable legislation, including, but not limited to, the National Environmental Management Act (No. 107 of 1998), as amended, the National Water Act (No. 36 of 1998), and the National Environmental Management: Waste Act (No. 59 of 2008), as amended. Should the facility trigger the requirements of the applicable legislation, the necessary permit/ authorisation must be obtained. In other words, only Phase 1 may commence with development until such time as the upgrades to the WWTW have been completed and availability of capacity if provided by the municipality, or, alternatively, if another manner of treatment is sourced/utilised and appropriate under any relevant legislation.

Given that the capacity constraints

at the ZWWTW is not permanent,

this condition considers a time when

capacity is both available and

unavailable without hindering

development and still ensuring that

the appropriate processes are

followed.

Authorities will be aware of any

additional in situ sewage facilities,

if they are developed and the

applicant is aware that additional

authorisation under other law may

be required.

Developers may not be

made aware of this

requirement.

Operation of each phase of development may only commence upon availability of electrical services and the notification of commencement as well as written confirmation of capacity from Eskom is to be provided to the DEA&DP prior to the initiation of operational for each phase.

The service capacity would not be

uncertain at any point in the

development.

Applicant would have to

carry out additional

administrative tasks.

For Residential Area 1, erect an 8m high noise barrier close to the NR road reserve, or an alternative barrier would be to erect an 8m high noise barrier at the boundary of Residential Area 1 (between the area and the N2). The noise barrier along the N2 would need to extend from the off ramp in the east to beyond the river in the west, noting that restricting the extent of the barrier at the river would expose a large portion of Area 1 to road traffic noise further westward. The alternative noise barrier at the boundary of Area 1 would need to “wrap” around and extend north-eastward to remove line-of-sight with the N2.

The sensitive noise receptors within

the proposed development would

be shielded from any traffic noise.

Property values of those residential

units would likely maintain integrity,

at least regarding noise impacts.

The sensitive receptors would

experience a more peaceful

existence.

The inclusion of noise

barriers requires careful

consideration and planning

on the part of the

Applicant.

Assessment Report

Page 90

For Mixed Use Areas 1 and 2, one of three possible noise barriers may be elected. The first option would be to erect a noise barrier (either 2.5m high for a single-storey residence or 5.5m high for a double-storey residence) at mixed use boundary (just outside the boundary closest to the R310), or erect a noise barrier (either 2.5m high for a single-storey residence or 4.5m high for a double-storey residence) along the western side of the canal facing the mixed use area, or, thirdly, locate continuous row of commercial/retail buildings (of equal height and without gaps) along the mixed use area boundary. Noting that this condition only applies if mitigation for noise sensitive receptors (i.e. residential use) is included in Mixed Use Areas 1 and 2.

The sensitive noise receptors (if

developed) within the proposed

development would be shielded

from any traffic noise.




The sensitive receptors (if included

in that area) would experience a

more peaceful existence.




on the part of the

Applicant.

For Mixed Use Area 3, one of two possible barrier alternatives may be elected, namely erect a noise barrier (2.5m high if there are single storey residences and 4.5m high if there are double-storey residences) just outside the road reserve boundary approximately 30 m from the median centreline of the upgraded two carriageways R310, or locate a continuous row of commercial/retail buildings (of equal height and without gaps) along mixed use boundary. The placement and extent of the commercial buildings must be such that no noise sensitive receptor is in line-of-sight of the road. Noting that this condition only applies if mitigation for noise sensitive receptors (i.e. residential use) is included in Mixed Use Area 3.

The sensitive noise receptors (if

developed) within the proposed

development would be shielded

from any traffic noise.




The sensitive receptors (if included

in the area) would experience a

more peaceful existence.




on the part of the

Applicant.

RECOMMENDATION: That CapeNature be engaged in to consider the conservation areas in terms of its Stewardship Programme.

This remains a recommendation,

and NOT a condition of

authorisation, as effective

conservation and protection of the

Renosterveld and wetlands areas,

which is the ultimate aim of the

condition, would be retained

through the implementation of the

conditions of authorisation.

If the Applicant is not

forced into a stewardship

agreement, CapeNature

would not be able to report

on the land as part of their

targets and may not

support such an

arrangement.

RECOMMENDATION: There should be an ecological corridor 100m wide between the Renosterveld Area and the Vergenoegd Renosterveld area. This corridor area will require extensive rehabilitation. Negotiations with the responsible roads authority should also be initiated, with the aim of securing permission to rehabilitate that portion of the Stellenbosch road reserve crossed by the corridor strip.




None

RECOMMENDATION: A limited network of footpaths should be encouraged in the Renosterveld Area, with the aim being to allow people to enjoy and appreciate the open space, but to limit impact by channelling movement. Footpaths should not be wider than 2m. No footpaths should be allowed in Area 2 (within the Main Green Corridor, refer to Error! Reference source not found.) due to high sensitivity vegetation and wetland soils.




None

RECOMMENDATION: Conduct a survey within developed and conservation nodes to determine the extent of invasion by Cape Dwarf Gecko. A single specimen was observed during the November 2019 site visit. The ideal timing for such a survey is during the spring and summer seasons, and is achievable with a one-day surveying effort. The results will most likely be academic of nature, with no specific management actions needed.

The risks of the invasion by the

Cape Dwarf Gecko.

None

RECOMMENDATION: Conduct a survey of the artificial wetlands to determine which species of fish are present. Such a survey can be conducted during any season, with winter or spring being more suitable. Such a survey is achievable with a one or two-day surveying effort.

The faunal contingent of the site

would be better understood.

The degree of effectiveness of the

rehabilitation efforts would be

better understood with data on the

faunal compliment on site, both in

terms of number of species and

number of specimens.

Sampling would require

people to have access to

the sensitive wetlands, but

this should be done

sensitively, and the risks are

very low.

Assessment Report

Page | 91

RECOMMENDATION: Conduct annual baseline surveys of mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibian communities within the CTFS site. These should initially be done by a faunal expert that would then also provide training to CTFS environmental staff to conduct these in future. The ideal timing for such surveys is during the spring and summer seasons, and is achievable with a week-long surveying effort. The results should be recorded in a CTFS biodiversity database (see below).









Sampling would require

people to have access to

the sensitive wetlands, but

this should be done

carefully, and the risks are

very low.

RECOMMENDATION: Establish an electronic database to log faunal observations within the CTFS site.









None

7 AMENDMENT APPLICATION PROCESS

7.1 LEGISLATIVE CONTEXT AND STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

This amendment application process is being conducted in terms of the National Environmental Management Act (No. 107 of 1998), as amended and under the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulations of 2014 (as amended in 2017). In terms of Section 28 of GN No. 326 of 7 April 2017, an amendment application may be submitted provided that the Environmental Authorisation is valid on the date which the amendment application is received by the competent authority. The current Environmental Authorisation remains valid as it largely addressed the operational phase of the development. This amendment application is being conducted as a Part 2 amendment (i.e. where a change in scope occurs) and Sections 31, 32, and 33 of GN No. 326 of 7 April 2017 would apply. In order to obtain confirmation of the DEA&DP’s requirements for the process, a pre-application meeting was held with the DEA&DP on 1 February 2016 and, during that meeting, it was requested that all previous Environmental Authorisation and amendments be amalgamated with the current Amendment Application to provide for one single Environmental Authorisation. Appropriate amendments to the EMPr were also requested in order to reflect the latest Environmental Authorisation and proposed DF. A table indicated the original RoD and the amended EA on 2014 relative to the proposed changes is included in Appendix D of the Amendment Application. The table in Appendix D in the Amendment Application also indicates the proposed phrasing and conditions of the amalgamated, single Environmental Authorisation as well as the motivation for each condition where an amendment has been proposed. The DEA&DP also provided comment and feedback on the Draft Amendment Application (refer to Appendix D (iii) for their comment). The way these comments have been addressed is summarised in Table 9. With respect to the implications of the proposed amendment to the DF in terms of the National Water Act (No. 36 of 1998), the CTFS is currently in possession of a Water Use License (WUL) and the Department of Water and Sanitation (DWS) has confirmed that the WUL will not be affected by the proposed amendments and that the conditions thereof must continue to be implemented as they are (refer to Appendix I (iii)(d) for DWS’s comment in this regard).

7.2 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

In terms of NEMA, public consultation is an important part of the process and, given that this is a Part 2 Amendment

Application, a public participation process is mandatory. However, the requirements for public participation are

dictated by the DEA&DP in response to the application.

Following engagement with the DEA&DP and receipt of confirmation of the appropriate PPP (pers comms, Mr. L. Kula, 01/08/2019, via email), the following is proposed:

• Compilation and distribution of a notification letter to potential Interested and Affected Parties (I&APs) inviting them to comment on the amendment application and associated document for a period of 30 days from 6 March 2020 to 6 April 2020;

• The notification letter would be sent via email and via regular mail to those I&APs on the database where email addresses are absent;

• Note that the notification letter has included notification of the extensions provided by the Minister;

• Hardcopies of the documentation would be left at two public libraries;

• Site notices would be placed at two points, namely at the main entrance along the R310 and at the security entrance to the Film Studios;

• An advertisement notifying the public of the 30-day comment period (from 6 March 2020 to 6 April 2020) and availability of information for review has been placed in one local newspaper (i.e. the City Vision);

• An electronic version of the documentation would be made available for download from Chand’s website;

• Hardcopies and a CD each of the documentation would be delivered to CapeNature, DWS and the City of Cape Town Environmental Management Branch; and

• I&APs would be notified of the decision and reasons for the decision through a notification letter distributed via email and regular mail (to those I&APs where no email addresses are available).

The I&AP database which was used for the Service Station will be combined with that used for the 2014 Amendment Application in order to ensure that all potential I&APs are included in an initial database. Refer to the combined I&AP Database in Appendix I (i) of the Amendment Application. Note that, to protect the private contact information of the individuals registered on the database, the full contact information has not been published for review. This information will, however, be submitted to the DEA&DP as part of the final report for decision-making. A Focus Group Meeting was held on 13 February 2018 with three representatives of CapeNature as well as two DEA&DP officials. The purpose of the meeting was to introduce the proposed amendments to CapeNature and then to specifically discuss the implications thereof on condition 16 of the 2006 RoD pertaining to the payment of a biodiversity offset (refer to Figure 12).

FIGURE 12 CONDITION 16 OF THE 2006 ROD REQUIRING THE PAYMENT OF A BIODIVERSITY OFFSET

Key issues raised at the meeting include:

• CapeNature stating that they would like the Stewardship of the conservation areas of the site to be a condition of authorisation; and

• The need for further investigation into how the monetary amount of R1,840,000.00 was calculated in order to determine whether it remain as a condition of authorisation (note that CapeNature confirmed they would be willing to waiver the payment of the R1,840,000.00 should the need for a Stewardship agreement be included as a condition of authorisation).

Refer to Appendix I (ii) of the Amendment Application for the minutes of the meeting, attendance register and a copy of the presentation. Further investigation into the quantum required for the offset payment has been undertaken by Chand and it has been found that clause 16 appears to be related to an offset for a loss of 4ha of irreplaceable Renosterveld. Interrogation into the Environmental Impact Assessment Addendum (compiled by the Environmental Partnership for the initial EIA process, dated June 2005) reveals more information regarding the particular “4ha” of land that would be lost. It states, “This means that about 4ha of Renosterveld will be lost to development (primarily along the northern edge of Area 1)”. This line infers that most of the 4ha of Renosterveld that would be lost and thus, the trigger for the need for a biodiversity, stems largely from developing along the northern edge of the Renosterveld Area

1 (refer to Figure 13).

FIGURE 13 SENSITIVE AREAS AS INITIALLY IDENITIFED BY HELME IN 2005 AS PART OF THE ORIGINAL EIA PROCESS (SOURCE: BOTANICAL IMPACT

ASSESSMENT OF PROPOSED DREAMWORLD FILM CITY SITE, FAURE, NICK HELME, MARCH 15, 2005)

The offset was originally recommended by the botanist, Mr. Nick Helme, in the original S&EIA (2005), but included a few suggestions for the exact mechanism to be employed. A strong recommendation was made by Mr. Helme that a “financial commitment” be made to a suitable conservation fund (originally the Table Mountain Fund was suggested) which would be used for management of key threatened habitat remnants in the area, he suggested at least R80,000.00 be donated for every hectare of conservation worthy vegetation lost (which totals R320,000.00). The aspect of the timing of the payment (i.e. that the full amount will be paid once 33% of the total approved residential component has been sold) seems to have been added by the Environmental Assessment Practitioner (EAP), Environmental Partnership, as per the following line contained in the Revised Alternative 5 in Environmental Impact Assessment Addendum dated June 2005 “if this cannot be paid immediately upon project approval, a contract should be drawn up between the Dreamworld project proponents and the Table Mountain Fund (or their representatives) which stipulates that the full amount will be paid once 33% of the total approved residential component has been sold”. It is assumed that these two aspects were included in the final recommendations, which were then contested during the appeal on the RoD because the final RoD from 2006 reveals that the biodiversity offset had been substantially increased through the appeal process (which received appeals from CapeNature, the then Department of Water Affairs and Forestry and the Wildlife and Environmental Society of South Africa (WESSA). The quantum of the payment was increased from R320,000.00 to R1,840,000.00 by the DEA&DP through the appeal process. This was increased as a result of the addition of 14ha of wetlands and 0.48Ha of dune sack area to the initial 4ha of Swartland shale Renosterveld area to be considered for purchase of suitable off-site offset areas/land. Furthermore, the rate per Ha was also increased to match the cost of the site land at the time, namely R100,000.00 per Ha, which then provided a quantum of R1.84 million. WESSA was included therein at this time. Refer to section 6.1.5.3 of Appendix M of the Amendment Application for a motivation from the DEA&DP and response to the appeals to the 2006 RoD for evidence. It is also worth noting that intended development for a large section of land along the northern edge of Area 1 (as depicted in Figure 13) was removed from the DF in the 2014 amendment application

in favor of development along the northern edge of Film City Boulevard (refer to Figure 7 and section 4). This area is where the bulk of the initial 4Ha of Renosterveld requiring an offset came from, and much of it is no longer being proposed for development. An alternative to the purchase of land was contemplated in the Appeal RoD and this comprises condition 16 of the RoD as depicted in Figure 12. Furthermore, some of the initial dune slack wetlands that were included in the initial calculation would also be ceded to conservation as part of the proposed amendments to the DF that are the subject of this amendment application. This would, therefore, aid conservation efforts in these areas and still hold the Applicant to the agreed quanta. The Stewardship of the conservation areas is not preferred as the same intention for the land could be achieved through the designation as a conservation area, which would be diligently managed by the Applicant in order to comply with the EA. Therefore, despite the increased conservation area, the condition of authorisation related to the offset would remain at the quantum of R1, 840,000.00. It is suggested that it be amended to remove the association with WESSA, which is based on the meeting held with CapeNature, whereby they confirmed that WESSA is no longer set up in such a way that would facilitate management of conservation areas on the site. Furthermore, the reference to payment upon construction of 250 houses has been removed and a specific timeframe has been established, as the phasing plan has changed. It has also been amended to reflect a more rigid requirement for what the budget would be spent on as well as reporting on the financial aspects thereof. This condition has been further updated, following receipt of comment from CapeNature, to include the need for a conservation management plan for the conservation areas, which also notes the need for the plan to stipulate auditing requirements and for the applicant to conduct expenditure in line with the plan. The recommendation to include an auditing component would add further accountability to the applicant. It is believed that the revised condition of authorisation as reflected in item number 16 of Appendix H of the Amendment Application would be in keeping with the original intention of the condition, which is to reserve a suitable amount of money in order to manage an important area of Renosterveld as well as wetlands and duneslack in compensation for the loss of thereof in parts of the site. Engagement with the Minister of the DEA&DP has also been carried out in order to request extensions on the submission of the final Amendment Application and associated reports. Extensions were granted, and these letters are included in this application as Appendix D(iv). Hardcopies and electronic copies of the Draft Amendment Application and associated reports were submitted to HWC, DWS, CapeNature and the City of Cape Town for comment. Comments were received from all parties (refer to Appendix I (iii) for the comments) and the main issues raised by each are summarized in Table 9. TABLE 9 SUMMARY OF COMMENTS RECEIVED TO-DATE AND MANNER IN WHICH ISSUES HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED

No. Commenting Party Summary of Issues Way addressed

1 DWS The proposed amendment does not have any effect of authorised water uses and compliance with conditions thereof must continue.

No new action is necessary; however, this point has been emphasised in the EMPr.

2 HWC No impacts on heritage resources anticipated and no further assessment in that regard is necessary. Recommendation in terms of unearthing of any heritage resources have been made.

No new action is necessary, however the recommendation to contact HWC immediately upon unearthing any potential heritage resources has been included in the EMPr.

3 CapeNature Strong recommendation that botanical sensitivity mapping be used to inform the location of the development footprint and agreement with findings stating that encroachment of proposed mixed-use area occurs in a high sensitivity area and that roads would be in low sensitivity area. If the development footprint would

The existing approved DF is used as a point of departure and the intention remains to develop within the approved footprint, albeit with the proposed amendments of the footprint to provide for the access roads and mixed use areas to make the spaces easier to navigate and develop from a logistic perspective,

not be altered to respond to this, motivation is requested. Total area of Renosterveld conservation area must not be reduced from previous iterations of the DF as a result of the two access roads. Reference should be made to the 2016 and 2018 botanical reports regarding sensitivity, rather than the 2017 report, which should have more detail on the biodiversity on site. Noting wetlands and associated recent delineation as part of the amendment application, namely in the Renosterveld conservation area and the western area of the site. It is noted that the extent of the Renosterveld wetland is less that than the City of Cape Town Biodiversity Network and that the western wetlands are greater in extent that historically evident. Freshwater recommendations to ensure road located in powerline servitude and two areas in outdoor studio zone would require flattening of dunes are noted and it is further noted that these are included in the proposed DF plan. CapeNature notes the recommendations for removal of berms and agrees. The Environmental Authorisation for the adjacent IThemba settlement includes the need for fencing, which CapeNature has included in their comment in response to issues raised by specialist reports which state that the wetland area has been affected by cattle grazing and trampling. Reminder of the operational agreement synchronizing CARA, NEMA, NWA and

while maintaining the existing extent of the Renosterveld area. Noting that the botanical impacts of the current approved DF and proposed amended DF are the same. A further motivation in this regard is included in section 4. The extent of the Renosterveld conservation area will remain as per that of the current approved DF (i.e. it would not be reduced as a result of the proposed amendments to the DF). This is confirmed in section 4. The botanical impact assessment in section 5.3 refers to all three reports, with the 2017 report merely providing information on the reason an alternative road alignment cannot be considered. New recommendations from the Helme (2016 and 2018) reports are included as conditions of authorisation and are, therefore, not ignored. This is noted and the freshwater reports are included in Appendix G (ii), with freshwater impacts being assessed in section 5.2. Agreed. This is reflected in the proposed amended DF in Appendix D(ii). This is also noted in section 4. This is noted in section 4. This is noted by the Applicant. Engagement with DWS and HWC has confirmed that no further processes under

NHRA regarding any requirements in terms of NWA, and which must be included in the NEMA application. Request for written endorsement of stormwater management plan by freshwater ecologist, given that the plan does not offer detail at a precinct level. Conditions of authorisation relating to the biodiversity offset: Amend condition 16 to include the need for a Management Plan for conservation areas and that spending should be in accordance with such a plan; and Requiring that stewardship be a condition of authorisation rather than a recommendation. Support for other amendments to conditions of authorisation and advise the some should not be too specific to make exact implementation impossible. Search and rescue of arum and paintbrush lilies from the outdoor studio and transfer to Driftsands Nature Reserve is not necessary and these species could be used in landscaping. Request for faunal specialist to review previous studies and appeal decision in current context to recommend any changes to conditions of authorisation, as well as to provide specific comment on connectivity to Vergenoegd on eastern side of R310. Note that no need and desirability is indicated. Clear distinction should be made in respect of landscaping of conservation areas vs the development as no landscaping would occur in conservation areas, but rather rehabilitation and restoration of such areas.

NWA and NHRA would be required, however their minor comments have been incorporated into the EMPr. This has been included as Appendix I (iii) and described in section 5.2 and 5.6. The need for a conservation management plan which stipules audit requirements is included in the proposed amendments to condition 16. The stance on this issue remains and the suggestion as a recommendation rather than a condition also remains. This is noted, and certain aspects (including the suggested condition 5.20) have been slightly revised where appropriate. This is noted and reflected in section 5.3, as well as in the condition of authorisation, which has been revised to include these items in the use of landscaping as an alternative. This has been carried out and described in section 5.5. This is included in section 4. The EMPr clarifies that while intentional landscaping may be done in the development areas, the conservation areas should be subject to management under a conservation management plan.

4 DEA&DP Request for description of need and desirability of proposed amendments to the DF.

This has been added to the Assessment Report- refer to section 4. The recommended mitigation measures have been cross-checked with the EMPr

Note that certain measures recommended by specialists are not included in the EMPr. Request for indication of similarly listed activities in terms of current application legislation. Request for the latest landscaping plan. Clarity in terms of the condition of authorisation pertaining to sewage treatment, available capacity and how development will be controlled in alignment with available capacity. Request for evidence of 30-day public review period. Request for comments from CapeNature, City of Cape Town, DWS and HWC. Request for comments and response report.

and all relevant measures have been included. Clarity regarding those which have not been included is provided in the Assessment Report, under the specialist recommendations for each specialist assessment. This has been added to the Assessment Report and recommendation have been made by the EAP in this regard- refer to section 2. The latest landscaping plan has been included in Appendix O, noting that this is the latest version, but that more detailed versions would have to be approved by the City of Cape Town at a precinct level. This has been clarified in section 3.1. Clarity has been provided in section and the condition of authorisation has been expanded upon to provide more clarity in this regard (refer to condition 23 of the proposed amended EA). The Draft Amendment Application and associated reports are currently available for public review and evidence will be included in the final application submitted to the DEA&DP. These comments have been appended to this report- refer to Appendix I (iii). This will be included in the final application submitted to the DEA&DP

5 City of Cape Town There would be no impact of proposed amendments to the DF on provision of waste management services. Confirmation of enough pressure within the system regarding water reticulation and existing connection but need to consult existing users for new connections. The Noise control unit offered additional recommendations to control construction noise. The Noise control unit also required that a Noise Impact Assessment be done.

This is noted and acknowledged in section 5.6. This is noted and acknowledged in section 5.6. Detailed requirements have been included in the EMPr. These suggestions have been incorporated into the EMPr. An NIA was carried out (refer to section 5.4) and mitigation measures have been included as additional conditions of

The transport branch suggested two requirements to the plan. The planning branch offered no objection and noted that a land use application process is running in parallel with the amendment application. Comment from HWC requested.

authorisation as well as specifications in the EMPr. These have been incorporated into the conditions of authorisation and the EMPr. This is noted and indicated in section 4 and has access and movement plan (refer to Appendix E(iii)). Comment from HWC has been obtained and included in Appendix I (iii), as well as described in section 5.8.

8 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS Several specialist investigations have informed the proposed changes to the DF such that they would not result in

impacts greater than those anticipated for the current approved DF. The only exception to this would be the

reconfiguration of some of the developable land contained in Mixed Use Area 2, however the botanical statement

has confirmed that no particular DF is preferred. Furthermore, the most sensitive Renosterveld area as identified in

the current approved DF would remain intact and the overall extent of the Renosterveld Area would remain at

15.11ha (excluding the road reserve). If one were to consider the road reserve as part of this Renosterveld Area

(because it would be undeveloped on the ground), there would be an additional green area connected to the

Renosterveld area of 0.35ha. Notably, the overall conservation area would be increased by 6.54 ha with the

implementation of the proposed amended DF.

Additional recommendations/mitigation measures have been provided by specialists and, where appropriate, these

have been included as additional conditions of authorisation as part of the amendment application process.

It is suggested that the amendments to the Environmental Authorisation be approved as they have addressed the

anticipated impacts and have been updated to reflect the proposed amended DF as well as consolidated to provide

a single Environmental Authorisation and EMPr, which would result in more efficient environmental monitoring and

control. Furthermore, there would be reduced ambiguity in terms of the responsibilities of the Applicant.

assessment report › wp-content › uploads › 2020 › 06 › ...assessment report 3/6/2020...

Documents