traffic impact assessment for the - knysna

TRAFFIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT

FOR A PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON PTN 95 OF FARM RUYGTE VALLEY

NO 205, SEDGEFIELD

May 2019

Prepared for: Voigro Inv 24 cc

Prepared by: Engineering Advice and Services (Pty) Ltd (041) 5812421

i Traffic Impact Assessment

REP001 – Proposed Residential Development on Ptn 95 of Farm Ruygte Valley No 205, Sedgefield May 2019

DOCUMENT CONTROL SHEET

CLIENT REF: VOIGRO INVESTMENT 24 CC

PROJECT NAME: PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON PTN 95 OF FARM

RUYGTE VALLEY NO 205, SEDGEFIELD

DOCUMENT TITLE: TRAFFIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT DOCUMENT FILE REF: F:\1600-1699\1666\Reports\REP001 - Green Lake Development, Sedgefield -

TIA.docx

Version 1

Compiled by JK Charlton Candidate Eng Technologist (201580304)

May 2019

Reviewed by CGA Hastie Pr Tech. Eng (200070122) May 2019

Amendments made by

Version

Compiled by

Reviewed by (Director)

Amendments made by

Version

Compiled by

Reviewed by (Director)

Amendments made by

DISTRIBUTION: 1) Original : Client – Voigro Investments 24 cc – Mr Clive Bouwer

2) Copy : Knysna Municipality - 3 copies

3) Copy :

4) Copy :

5) Copy : EAS File 1666

ii Traffic Impact Assessment


CONTENTS Page

Document Control Sheet i Contents ii List of Tables ii List of Figures iii List of Annexures iii

1 Introduction 1

1.1 Background 1 1.2 Objectives of the Study 1 1.3 Methodology 1 1.4 Study Area 3

2 Land Use Rights, Development and Environs 3

2.1 Current and Proposed Land –Use Rights 3 2.2 Overview of Development and Environs 3

3 Data Collection 3

3.1 Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 3 3.2 Daily Traffic Volumes 5 3.3 Road Network 7 3.4 Public Transport 7 3.5 Non-Motorised Transport 7 3.6 Spatial Development Framework 9

4 Capacity Analysis – Existing Situation 10

5 Access Proposals 11

6 Trip Generation and Distribution 11

6.1 Proposed Development Trips 11 6.2 Trip Distribution 11

7 Capacity Analysis – After Development 13

7.1 2020 After Development 13 7.2 2025 After Development 14

8 Public Transport Operations and Pedestrian Arrangements 16

9 Parking Requirements 16

10 Conclusions 16

11 Recommendations 16

12 References 17

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Level of Service definitions for Vehicles (Highway Capacity Manual (4) method) 10 Table 2: Results of Intersection Capacity Analysis – 2020 Before Development 10 Table 3: Summary of Development Generated Trips 11 Table 4: Results of Intersection Capacity Analysis – 2020 After Development 13 Table 5: Results of Intersection Capacity Analysis – 2025 After Development 14

iii Traffic Impact Assessment


LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Locality Plan 2 Figure 2: Existing Peak Hour Traffic Volumes - 2019 4 Figure 3: Historical Daily Traffic Volumes – Stn 1203 5 Figure 4: Historical Daily Truck Traffic Volumes – Stn 1203 5 Figure 5: Escalated Background Peak Hour Traffic Volumes - 2020 6 Figure 6: Escalated Background Peak Hour Traffic Volumes - 2025 6 Figure 7: Existing Road Network 8 Figure 7: Extract of Knysna Spatial Development Framework - Sedgefield 9 Figure 9: Generated Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 12 Figure 10: Peak Hour Traffic Volumes After Development - 2020 12 Figure 11: Peak Hour Traffic Volumes After Development - 2025 13 Figure 12: Proposed Site Layout and Access Configuration 15

LIST OF ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A Planning Report ANNEXURE B Peak Hour Traffic Counts

ANNEXURE C Daily Traffic Volumes

ANNEXURE D SIDRA OUTPUT SHEETS 2020 Before Development ANNEXURE E SIDRA OUTPUT SHEETS 2020 After Development ANNEXURE F SIDRA OUTPUT SHEETS 2025 After Development

1 Traffic Impact Assessment


1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND

Engineering Advice & Services (Pty) Ltd was appointed by Voigro Investment 24 cc during April 2019 to prepare a Traffic Impact Assessment for a proposed residential development on Ptn 95 of Farm Ruygte Valley No 205, Sedgefield located in the Knysna Municipality.

1.2 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

In broad terms, the purpose of the traffic assessment is to determine the extent and nature of the traffic generated by the proposed development, assess the impact of this traffic on the operation of the associated road network, and devise solutions for any problems identified. The following key elements, inter alia, are addressed in this traffic impact assessment:

▪ The suitability and safety of proposals for access to and egress from the site; ▪ The capacity of the existing and future road network within the influence radius; ▪ Accommodation of non-motorised transport users; and ▪ The road upgrading measures required to accommodate traffic generated by the proposed development. In general, this report serves to satisfy the Knysna Municipality and any other authorities that the traffic impact of the envisaged development is within acceptable limits and that the suggested improvements conform to the standards and parameters set by the relevant authorities.

1.3 METHODOLOGY

The approach followed in conducting the traffic impact statement was in accordance with the guidelines set stipulated in TMH 16 Volume 1- South African Traffic Impact and Site Assessment Manual (1). Given the extent of the proposed development and in terms of the aforementioned guidelines, the development is considered to be a small-sized development. Notwithstanding, this assessment considered impact for both the development (assumed to be 2020) and development plus five-year (2025) horizons. The methodology used was as follows:

▪ Present traffic flow patterns were obtained and the affected access points and intersections analysed, where after recommendations were made on the present need for road upgrading, without taking the proposed development into account.

▪ Given the extent of the development, the expected trips that will be generated by the various elements of the development were determined by using applicable trip generation rates specified in TMH 17

Volume 1 - South African Trip Data Manual (2).

▪ The distribution of the generated trips was estimated where after the generated traffic was assigned to the surrounding road network.

▪ The operation of the affected intersections and proposed access point was analysed to ensure that they operate at acceptable levels of service and recommendations made on the need for road upgrading taking cognisance of the proposed development for the 2020 and 2025 planning horizons.

▪ By taking into account the major findings of the study, conclusions were made regarding the financial responsibilities of the affected parties for required road upgrading measures.

LEGEND

Site Boundary1 : 15 000Scale

Prepared by : JC

Checked by : CH

Engineering Advice

and Services

Tel: (041) 581 2421 ±Traffic Impact Assessment - Proposed Residential Development

on Portion 95 of Farm Ruygte Valley No 205, Sedgefield

Project Title:

Figure 1: Locality Plan

Drawing Title:

May 2019

Drawing No:

Drawing Date:

1666-P-001

0 75 150 225 30037,5

Meters

Pelican Lane

National Route (N2)

Fraser Street

Makou Stre

et

Eg

ret

Str

ee

t



1.4 STUDY AREA

Based on the type and extent of the development and as requested by the Knysna Municipality the study area extended to the intersections of the N2 with Egret Road and Egret Road with Fraser Street and Pelican / Makou Streets as it is considered that trips generated by the proposed development will approach along these roads and through these intersections.

2 LAND USE RIGHTS, DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONS

2.1 CURRENT AND PROPOSED LAND –USE RIGHTS

The site, measuring approximately 7.8ha ha in extent, is currently in the process of being rezoned from Undetermined to Sub-divisional Area allowing further subdivision into ±102 “Residential II” erven, 1 communal “Open Space II” erf, 1 “Public road” (20m road reserve DR 1459) and an “Open Space III erf. A copy of the Executive Summary of the Planning Report prepared and submitted as part of the Environmental Scoping Report is attached as Annexure A.

2.2 OVERVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONS

The site is situated on the eastern edge of Sedgefield bordering Groenvlei as indicated on Figure 1. The erf is bordered by the Meedingsride residential suburb to the west and Lake Pleasant Holiday Resort and Groenvlei to the south and east respectively. The land across the N2 to the north is vacant. The proposed development will comprise of a maximum of 102 medium-income residential units (group housing).

3 DATA COLLECTION

3.1 PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES

Peak hour traffic turning movement counts were conducted during AM and PM peak periods on 30 April 2019 at the following intersections:

▪ National Route 2 / Egret Road ▪ Egret Road / Pelican Street / Makou Street ▪ Egret Road / Fraser Street; The detailed survey data is attached as Annexure B and summarised on Figure 2 overleaf.



Figure 2: Existing Peak Hour Traffic Volumes - 2019



3.2 DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES

As this study will also analyse the impact of the development in 2020 and 2025, daily traffic volumes at count stations in the vicinity of the development were sourced from the SANRAL database. Historical count data was sourced from Station 1203, just west of Knysna. This is a permanent station and as such provides traffic growth per annum. From 2008 to 2018, traffic volumes (ADT) increased at 1.12% per annum as indicated on Figure 3 below. Truck volumes increased by 0.34% per annum and are indicated on Figure 4 below. The detailed data sheets and the growth calculations are attached as Annexure C. Daily counts were also conducted at a number of stations along the N2 in Sedgefield during 2017, including stations 18094 and 18095 west and east of Egret Road respectively. ADT volumes at Station 18095, the station closest to station 1203, were recorded at 11054, approximately 400 vehicles less than at Station 1203, during 2017. During 2018 however volumes at Station 18095 were higher than volumes at Station 1203 (250 vehicles)

Figure 3: Historical Daily Traffic Volumes – Stn 1203

Figure 4: Historical Daily Truck Traffic Volumes – Stn 1203

Based on the historical growth recorded on the N2, the peak hour volumes were escalated at 2% in order to be conservative. The escalated volumes for 2020 and 2025 are indicated on Figures 5 and 6 overleaf.

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

2008 2009 2010 2011 2016 2017 2018

Vehicles

AADT Total

AADT to Sedgefield

AADT To Knysna

30th Highest hourlyvolume

1.12% p.a.

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

2008 2009 2010 2011 2016 2017 2018

Vehicles AADTT Total

AADTT to Sedgefield

AADTT to Knysna



Figure 5: Escalated Background Peak Hour Traffic Volumes - 2020

Figure 6: Escalated Background Peak Hour Traffic Volumes - 2025



3.3 ROAD NETWORK

3.3.1 Existing Road Network

National Route 2 is a national route that passes through the Sedgefield area comprising of a two 3,7m wide traffic lanes per direction separated by a median island. At the intersection with Egret Road / Makou Street, 3.4m wide exclusive right turn lanes are provided in the median. The posted speed limit along this section of the N2 is 60km/h. The road, roadmarkings and signage are all in a good condition.

Egret Road is a 6m wide surfaced class 5 residential collector road which serves the Sedgefield residential area. There are no sidewalks and the road is in a poor condition. Fraser Street is a 6m wide class 5 residential collector road serving residential properties in Sedgefield. There are no sidewalks. The posted speed limit is 60 km/h and the road is in a poor condition. The existing road network configuration is indicated on Figure 7 overleaf.

3.3.2 Long Term Road Network

In the long term the South African National Roads Agency may realign the N2 in this area in order to improve safety along the N2 and minimize the potential for conflict with slow moving traffic in Sedgefield. This proposed corridor alignment has been gazetted and much of the required land acquired. The new route will pass to the north of Sedgefield before crossing over to the south of the existing N2 almost directly at the existing access road to Sedgefield Island.

3.4 PUBLIC TRANSPORT

Public transport services (unscheduled minibus–taxi) operate along Egret Road / Makou Street between the N2 and Smutsville.

3.5 NON-MOTORISED TRANSPORT

No pedestrian facilities are in place along the residential streets.

View of N2 to the east

View of Egret Road to the south

View of Fraser Street to the east



3.6 SPATIAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK

Figure 7 below is an extract of the Sedgefield portion of the Knysna Spatial Development Framework (3) prepared by Mac Planners on behalf of the KM. The LSDF provides for residential use in the area where the proposed development is located and has always been earmarked for this purpose.

Figure 8: Extract of Knysna Spatial Development Framework - Sedgefield

Site location



4 CAPACITY ANALYSIS – EXISTING SITUATION

Level of Service (LOS) is defined as the operating condition that may occur at an intersection when it accommodates various traffic volumes. LOS is a qualitative measure of the effect of speed, travel time, traffic interruptions, freedom to manoeuvre, safety, driving comfort and convenience, and operating costs. LOS D is considered an acceptable design standard (LOS C for SANRAL). The LOS applicable to intersections under various control conditions, as defined in the Highway Capacity Manual (4) are indicated in Table 1 below:

Table 1: Level of Service definitions for Vehicles (Highway Capacity Manual (4) method)

Level of

Service

Control delay per vehicle in seconds (d)

(including geometric delay) Signals and Roundabouts Stop Signs and Yield Signs

A d ≤ 10 d ≤ 10 B 10 < d ≤ 20 10 < d ≤ 15 C 20 < d ≤ 35 15 < d ≤ 25 D 35 < d ≤ 55 25 < d ≤ 35 E 55 < d ≤ 80 35 < d ≤ 50 F 80 < d 50 < d

The traffic situation was analysed in order to determine the Level of Service at which the affected intersections would operate before development occurs for the 2020 development horizon. The capacity analysis was undertaken using the SIDRA Intersection 8 Network (5) capacity analysis method but applying the Highway Capacity Manual (4) gap acceptance criteria for unsignalised intersections where applicable. The results are shown in Table 2 below and the detailed SIDRA output sheets attached as Annexure D.

Table 2: Results of Intersection Capacity Analysis – 2020 Before Development

Configuration Delay V/C LOS*

AM PM AM PM AM PM

N2 / Egret Street 4.6 4.8 0.523 0.449 A A

Egret / Pelican / Makou 5.5 4.7 0.114 0.098 A* A*

Egret / Fraser 6.0 5.6 0.102 0.070 A* A* * - SIDRA Intersection Network (5) does not calculate intersection LOS for stop-controlled intersections. The LOS indicated is sourced from the Highway Capacity Manual (4) (Table 1 above). As can be seen from the results contained in Table 2, no capacity problems are experienced at the affected intersections under current conditions.



5 ACCESS PROPOSALS

Access to the proposed development will be provided directly from Fraser Street with Fraser Street extending into and looping through the development back to a point that will create an intersection approximately 60m east of the Fraser Street / Galjoen Crescent intersection as indicated on Figure 12. Given the projected trip generation of 87 peak hour trips, the access is classified as a high-volume driveway in terms of the Access Management

Guidelines (6) which recommends a spacing of 60m for unsignalized access intersections on Class 5 roads. Provision is also made for an emergency access to Groenvlei Road.

6 TRIP GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION

It is noted that the developers of the proposed Greenmere residential development located immediately south of this development and accommodating 93 residential units is currently was approved approximately 5 years. Approvals have however lapsed and requests for extension of the approval validity were rejected. The developer is appealing this decision and as such, provision has not been made for trips generated by this development.

6.1 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TRIPS

TMH 17 Volume 1 - South African Trip Data Manual (2) recommends peak hour trip generation rates of 0.85 trips per residential unit for townhouse type developments for the weekday AM and PM peak hours. For a development size of 102 residential units this relates to the following peak hour trip generation: TGR (Weekday AM & PM) = 0.85 / unit * No of units

= 0.85 * 102 = 87 trips (in and out)

AM Split (in / out) = 25 : 75 PM Split (in / out) = 70 : 30

Table 3: Summary of Development Generated Trips

COMPONENT IN OUT

AM PM AM PM

Residential Units (Townhouses) 22 61 65 26

6.2 TRIP DISTRIBUTION

The following distribution has been assumed for trips generated for the proposed development. ▪ 35 to and from the west via Fraser Street, Egret Street and the N2; ▪ 25% to and from the east via Fraser Street, Egret Road and the N2; ▪ 25% to and from the east via Fraser Street, Egret Road and Pelican Lane; ▪ 10% to and from the north via Fraser Street and Egret Street; and ▪ 5% to and from the south via Fraser Street and Egret Road; The generated peak hour trips are indicated on Figure 9 overleaf. The generated trips added to the weekday AM and PM peak hour volumes for the 2020 and 2025 development horizons are indicated on Figures 10 and 11 overleaf.

View of the proposed access from Fraser Street



Figure 9: Generated Peak Hour Traffic Volumes

Figure 10: Peak Hour Traffic Volumes After Development - 2020



Figure 11: Peak Hour Traffic Volumes After Development - 2025

7 CAPACITY ANALYSIS – AFTER DEVELOPMENT

7.1 2020 AFTER DEVELOPMENT

After adding generated peak hour traffic volumes to the escalated background peak hour volumes, the traffic situation was analysed in order to determine the LOS at which the affected intersections and access points would operate after development occurs. The results are shown in Table 4 below and the detailed SIDRA output sheets attached as Annexure E.

Table 4: Results of Intersection Capacity Analysis – 2020 After Development


AM PM AM PM AM PM

N2 / Egret Street 7.4 6.3 0.710 0.576 A A


Egret / Fraser 6.5 5.9 0.175 0.103 A* A* * - SIDRA Intersection Network (5) does not calculate intersection LOS for stop-controlled intersections. The LOS indicated is sourced from the Highway Capacity Manual (4) (Table 1 above). As can be seen from the results contained in Table 4, the additional traffic generated by the development has little or no impact on the operation of the affected intersections in terms of capacity. Given the nature of the properties in the vicinity of the proposed development as holiday / retirement environment, traffic demand along the local streets is low and as indicated above operations are acceptable.



7.2 2025 AFTER DEVELOPMENT

After adding generated peak hour traffic volumes to the escalated background peak hour volumes, the traffic situation was analysed in order to determine the LOS at which the affected intersections and access points would operate after development occurs. The results are shown in Table 5 below and the detailed SIDRA output sheets attached as Annexure F.

Table 5: Results of Intersection Capacity Analysis – 2025 After Development


AM PM AM PM AM PM

N2 / Egret Street 28.4 14.9 >1.000 0.922 D B


Egret / Fraser 6.5 5.9 0.192 0.117 A* A* * - SIDRA Intersection Network (5) does not calculate intersection LOS for stop-controlled intersections. The LOS indicated is sourced from the Highway Capacity Manual (4) (Table 1 above). As can be seen from the results contained in Table 5, the additional traffic generated by the development has little or no impact on the operation of the affected intersections in terms of capacity.



8 PUBLIC TRANSPORT OPERATIONS AND PEDESTRIAN ARRANGEMENTS

Observations during traffic surveys indicated minibus-taxi activity on Egret Road just south of the N2 intersection. Minibus -taxi services currently operate along Makou Street between Smutsville and the N2. Provision will be made for pedestrian walkways along all internal roads in the proposed development.

9 PARKING REQUIREMENTS

The parking demand (based on the DoT Standards (7)) for residential units ranges from 1 bay per dwelling unit of 1 habitable room to 1.5 bays per dwelling unit of 4 or more habitable rooms plus an additional 0.5 bays per unit for visitors. The required parking can be accommodated on the site. The required parking bays will be indicated on the site development plan.

10 CONCLUSIONS

The following conclusions can be drawn from the study:

▪ Under current traffic conditions no problems are experienced at the affected intersections in terms of capacity;

▪ The proposed development generates a total of 87 peak hour trips;

▪ Access to the development can safely be accommodated at the end of Fraser Street as indicated on Figure 12;

▪ The results of the intersection capacity analysis indicate that no capacity problems are experienced at the affected intersections after development for the 2020 and the 2025 development horizons.

11 RECOMMENDATIONS

In view of the findings of this study, it is recommended that:

▪ This TIA be approved by the Knysna Municipality;

▪ Access to the development be accommodated at the end of Fraser Street as indicated on Figure 12 with the cost of all roadworks to be met by the developer;

▪ Pedestrian walkways be provided along Fraser Street Extension and the internal roads in the development with the cost being met by the developer.



12 REFERENCES

1. Joubert, Sampson, et al, TMH 16 Volume 1- South African Traffic Impact and Site Assessment

Manual, COTO, September 2013. 2. Joubert, Sampson, et al, TMH 17 Volume 1- South African Trip Data Manual, COTO, September

2013. 3. MCA Planners, Knysna Municipality SDF, November 2008. 4. Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, 2000. 5. Akcelik & Associates (Pty) Ltd, SIDRA Intersection Network 8 User Guide, SIDRA Solutions, April

2018.

6. Western Cape Government, Access Management Guidelines, Department of Transport and Public Works, 2016

7. Bruinette Kruger Stoffberg Inc, Parking Standards (Second Edition), Department of Transport,

November 1985.

ANNEXURE A Planning Report

1

GREEN LAKE VILLAGE

SITUATED ON

Remainder of Portion 95 of the Farm

Ruygte Valley 205

Sedgefield

VPM PLANNING

www.vpmsa.co.za

3/19/2019

PRELIMINARY TOWN PLANNING REPORT

(Prepared as part of the Environmental Scoping Report)

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction ............................................................................................ 6

2. Background ............................................................................................ 6

3. Property Information ............................................................................... 7

3.1 LOCALITY ............................................................................................................... 7

3.2 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION .......................................................................................... 7

3.3 SITE CHARACTERISTICS ............................................................................................ 8

3.3.1 TOPOGRAPHY .................................................................................................................................... 8

3.3.2 GEO HYDROLOGY ............................................................................................................................... 9

3.3.3 VEGETATION ...................................................................................................................................... 9

3.3.4 SOIL ................................................................................................................................................. 10

3.4 SURROUNDING AREA............................................................................................ 10

4. Proposal ............................................................................................... 11

4.1 DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT .......................................................................................... 11

4.2 PROPOSED ZONING .................................................................................................. 12

4.2.1 RESIDENTIAL II ERVEN ...................................................................................................................... 12

4.2.2 OPEN SPACE II ERF ........................................................................................................................... 13

4.2.3 OPEN SPACE III ERF .......................................................................................................................... 14

4.2.4 TRANSPORT ZONE II ........................................................................................................................... 14

4.2 LAYOUT DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS............................................................................ 14

4.2.1 FINANCIALLY VIABLE DENSITY ......................................................................................................... 14

4.2.2 ENERGY EFFICIENT ORIENTATION AND DESIGN ................................................................................ 14

4.2.3 SAFE STREETS .................................................................................................................................. 15

4.2.4 A CONNECTED AND FUNCTIONAL OPEN SPACE SYSTEM ................................................................... 15

4.2.5 SECURITY ......................................................................................................................................... 16

4.2.6 CLIMATE CHANGE .............................................................................................................................. 16

4.2.7 VISUAL SENSITIVITY ......................................................................................................................... 16

4.3 PLANNING PERMISSIONS REQUIRED .......................................................................... 17

4.3.1 APPLICATIONS TO THE KNYSNA MUNICIPALITY IN TERMS OF THE KNYSNA MUNICIPALITY: STANDARD

MUNICIPAL LAND USE PLANNING BY-LAW (2016) ....................................................................................... 17

3

4.3.2 APPLICATION TO SANRAL IN TERMS OF THE SOUTH AFRICAN NATIONAL ROADS AGENCY LIMITED AND

NATIONAL ROADS ACT, ACT 7 OF 1998 ....................................................................................................... 17

4.3.3 ADVERTISING ON ROADS AND RIBBON DEVELOPMENT ACT 21 OF 1940 ........................................... 18

4.3.4 NATIONAL HERITAGE RECOURSES ACT 25 OF 1999 ............................................................................. 18

5. Need & Desirability ................................................................................ 18

5.1 THE NEED FOR THE PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT....................................... 18

5.1.1 THE NEED FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING ............................................................................................ 18

5.1.2 SOCIO –ECONOMIC NEED OF THE SEDGEFIELD COMMUNITY ........................................................... 19

5.2 DESIRABILITY OF THE SITE TO ACCOMMODATE THIS DEVELOPMENT ........................... 20

5.2.1 PHYSICAL SITE CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES ......................................................................... 20

5.2.2 COMPATIBILITY WITH APPLICABLE FORWARD PLANNING DOCUMENTS ........................................... 22

5.2.3 CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVE LAND USES ................................................................................... 27

6. Conclusion ............................................................................................ 28

LIST OF PLANS

Diagram 1: Locality Plan

Diagram 2: Aerial Photo

Diagram 3 Contour plan and Slope Analysis

Diagram 4: WCBSP 2017 – CBA MAP

Diagram 5: Site Development Plan Rev 1

LIST OF ANNEXURES:

Annexure A: Power of Attorney and Company Resolution from Owner

Annexure B: Title deed

Annexure C: SG Diagrams

Annexure D: Rezoning and Guide Plan amendment approval 2000

Annexure E: Previous Record of Decision 2000

4

Executive summary

Portion 95 of the farm Ruygte Valley measures ±7.8ha in size and is the only remaining vacant

land between the urban area of Sedgefield and the Groenvlei, which forms a natural barrier to

further urban development to the east. The property provides the last opportunity for eastward

extension of the northern residential area of Sedgefield.

The property has been earmarked for urban development for the past 20 years in various

Structure Plans, Guide plans and Spatial Development frameworks of the past. Presently, the

Spatial Development Framework for Knysna 2017, like all the preceding spatial plans, also

earmarks the site as urban land within the urban edge.

In 2000, the then Department of Planning and Local Government and Housing approved a

residential development on the site consisting of 125 group housing units and facilities

associated with a retirement estate. At the time the Department of Environment and Cultural

Affairs also issued a positive Environmental Authorisation for the development. Unfortunately,

the rights were not implemented and have subsequently lapsed. The land has been dormant

ever since.

The Landowner believes that the time is right to develop the site. His vision is to create a

pleasant and safe, yet affordable residential neighbourhood that will appeal to a large variety of

new residents. The proposal includes ±102 group housing stands that vary between ±380m²

and ±700m² in size. There will be a mixture of housing options with average floor areas of

±120m², that will be built by the developer. There will be a pleasing degree of consistency of

architectural character that will create a harmonious development , without being monotonous.

The present zoning of the property is zoned “Undetermined” and the intention is to make an

application for the rezoning of the land to “Sub-divisional Area” which would allow for the

further subdivision of the land into ±102 “Residential II” erven, 1 communal “Open Space II” erf,

1 “Public road” (20m road reserve DR 1459) and an “Open Space III erf as indicated on the

proposed subdivision plan.

5

The property is ideal for residential development. It is easy to access and can conveniently

connect to the existing municipal services networks because it is surrounded by existing and

planned residential areas. The Department of Technical Services also confirmed that bulk water

and sewer services will be available.

The bio-physical site characteristics of the property are conducive to a cost-effective

development. The topography is even which will result in minimum cut and fill. Although the

site is situated in a low-lying valley, it is not subject to flooding. The sandy soils are stable and

pose no concerns for construction. Although the Western Cape Biodiversity Spatial Plan 2017

identifies the site as a CBA area, the Fauna, Vegetation and Landscape Connectivity Evaluation

Report (2018), confirms that most of the vegetation on the site has been transformed and is no

longer sensitive. The remaining undisturbed pockets of coastal forest have been mapped and

will be maintained within the communal open space.

The proposal responds to the need for affordable middle-income housing in Sedgefield and will

contribute to job creation and economic growth in the town. The development of vacant land

within the urban edge resonates with spatial planning policies at every level of government. The

proposal does not impact negatively on the scarce natural and agricultural resources or the

surrounding built environment. Further potential impacts will be reported on during the EIA

process and mitigation measures will be proposed.

6

1. Introduction

VPM Planning has been appointed by Andrew West Environmental Consultants to prepare a Town

Planning Report to inform the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Report to be submitted for

Environmental Authorisation in terms of the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (NEMA) in

respect of listed activities that have been triggered by the planned development on the Remainder of

Portion 95 of the Farm Ruygte Valley 205.

The purpose of this document is to report on the existing land use rights, opportunities and and

constraints on the property, and to assess the need and desirability of the project in terms of the planning

policies and principles contained in National, Provincial and Municipal Spatial Development Frameworks

applicable to the area.

2. Background

The early loan farm Ruygte Valley 205 was first surveyed in 1818. The original SG Diagram 4336/57 for

Portion 95 of the farm originated in 1957.

The farm portion was further subdivided in 1991 to create Erf 2843 that was developed into a residential

area known as Meedingsride. In 1993 the Reminder of the farm was further subdivided to create Erf

2959 that was also developed as an extension of the Meedingsride residential area. The Remainder of

Portion 95 (which forms the focus of this study) was the 3rd phase of the above-mentioned planned

developed plan and was at the time earmarked for a holiday resort along the Groenvlei.

In January 2000 the then Department of Planning Local Government and Housing approved an

application for Guide Plan Amendment , Rezoning and Subdivision on the property. The new rights

included 125 group housing units, 2 single residential erven and communal facilities. The intention was

to develop a retirement village (See letter of approval attached as Annexure D).

At the same time an application for Environmental approval in terms of the then ECA (Act 73 of 1989)

was submitted to the Department of Environmental Affairs. A positive ROD was issued in February 2000

( See letter attached as Annexure E).

7

In 2003 an extension of the validity of the approval was granted, but the approval was never

implemented and has subsequently lapsed.

In 2009 the development company was liquidated, and the property was sold on a public auction.

Voigrow 24 CC bought the property in 2009 and in 2011 commenced with a new application for

environmental authorisation for a retirement village. This application was never concluded due to the

poor performance of the property market at the time. The property is still un-developed.

3. Property Information

3.1 LOCALITY

The property is situated in the Knysna Municipality area, directly east of Sedgefield. (See Diagram 1:

Locality Plan). The property can be accessed from the west through the existing road network of the

adjacent Meedingsride residential area, via Fraser street, or from the east via the Groenvlei Road (DR

(1549) which intersects with the N2.

The property borders the N2 to the north and a district road DR 1549 to the east. Meedingsride

Residential suburb is directly to the west and an approved but undeveloped residential area borders the

property to the south. This property is currently used as a holiday resort and caravan park.

3.2 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION

Title Deed Description: Remainder of Portion 95 of the Farm No. 205, in the

Municipality and Administrative District of Knysna, Western

Cape Province

21 Digit code C03900000000020500095

Title Deed Number: T21874/2009 get registered copy

S.G. Diagram Nr: S.G.4336/57

Title Deed Restrictions: None relevant to this application

Servitudes: None relevant to this application

Property Size: 7.8223ha

Property Owner: Voigro Investment 24 CC

8

Bonds: None

Zoning: Undetermined in terms of Section 8 Zoning Scheme

Land Use Vacant

3.3 SITE CHARACTERISTICS

3.3.1 TOPOGRAPHY

The site is situated in a valley between two stabilised dunes. The site has a very even topography and is

situated between 3m and 11m above mean sea level.

During the previous planning process potential flooding of the site was raised. In 1998 Entech was

appointed to investigate the potential of flooding on the site. At the time it was recommended that a

conservative development height for floor levels of 4.5m above msl be made conditional to the approval.

Although this is considered much higher than other development along the water edge, it is proposed

that the residential development should avoid areas lower than 4.5m above msl. As can be seen on the

attached contour plan, only a small section of the south eastern corner will be affected.

The entire site is developable in terms of slope and height.

Figure 1 : Even topography of the site

9

3.3.2 GEO HYDROLOGY

The Green Lake is not fed by surface runoff and is not subject to dramatic flood events. Its level does rise

in response to ground water movement - ground water contamination is therefor of importance on this

site. In this regard the planned sewer and stormwater systems are significant and will be addressed in

more detail in the Services Report.

3.3.3 VEGETATION

Vegetation on the site consists, of a mix of invasive alien plants and remnants of Coastal Forest. The

property has been extensively disturbed through agricultural practices in the past which has made it

vulnerable to alien invasion (See Diagram 2: Aerial Picture) . The proximity of pine plantations to the

north is a constant source of windblown seed contamination. Most of the alien plants were recently

cleared as part of the landowner’s continued responsibility to maintain the site in an acceptable

condition, free of invasive alien plants.

There remains some relatively intact indigenous forest along the northern and eastern boundaries of the

site and these should be preserved and maintained in a near natural state.

The Critical Biodiversity Area (CBA) mapping shows that the study site falls completely within a terrestrial

CBA (See Diagram 4:CBA map) with a small part in the south eastern corner falling within an aquatic CBA.

According to the Fauna, Vegetation and Landscape Connectivity Evaluation Report (2018), the CBA

classification is due to the presence of Coastal Forest on the study site. The study also confirms that the

aquatic CBA classification for the southeast corners of the property is not justified. There is no sign of

any aquatic habitat in the marked area. The Western Cape Biodiversity Spatial Plan Handbook states on

numerous occasions that it is essential to ground-truth the BSP Map and conduct additional biodiversity

assessments to determine the biodiversity importance of the site.

There are a few indigenous trees and clumps scattered through the property and although they no longer

present a major eco system, they still present an attractive asset to the site that should be incorporated

into the layout.

The remaining undisturbed Coastal Forest will be retained with suitable buffers around the larger forest

patches thus providing an opportunity for local animal movement through the property.

10

The study confirms that the transformed areas are no longer sensitive and, after development, can in

fact be restored to a certain extent. The result will certainly be more acceptable than the former dense

alien plant infestations.

Figure 2: Pocket of indigenous forest vegetation in the south eastern corner of the site

3.3.4 SOIL

Most of the study area consists of well-drained sands, which do not easily permit the storage of surface

water and is normally not a concern for storm water. Soils are reported to be stable and not a concern

for construction.

3.4 SURROUNDING AREA

This study area is the last remaining vacant land between the urban area of Sedgefield and the Groenvlei,

which forms a natural barrier to further urban development to the east. The property presents a natural

extension of the northern residential area of Sedgefield. For this reason, the site has been earmarked for

urban development for the last 20 years and is presently included in the Urban Edge for Sedgefield.

The planned residential development will be similar to existing and planned residential developments to

the south and west of the property. The road network of the adjacent Meedingsride development makes

11

provision for future extension. Fraser Street is the feeder road through Meedingsride and is 20m wide

and is designed to continue through to this future development.

Groenvlei Road (DR (1549) road along the eastern boundary creates an effective barrier between the

development and the Groenvlei. As can be seen on the aerial photo, there is in fact a sliver of land to the

east of this road that forms part of the property. This portion of the land, being isolated from the rest of

the property, is of little functional value to the land owner and the possibility exists to consolidate it with

the adjoining remainder of Portion 114/205 that belongs to the Provincial Government-Western Cape .

This can then function to strengthen the buffer area around the lake.

From perusing the environment studies done in the past, it seems that the environmental sensitivity of

the site does not relate to the site itself, but rather to its proximity to Groenvlei. The prevention of

ground and surface water pollution that may reach the lake will be of utmost importance. A detailed

Stormwater Management Plan, as well as an Environmental Management Plan for both the construction

and operational phase will be vital. A waterborne sewer system that connects to the formal sewer

network will be essential to protect the lake. The municipality confirmed that the upgraded Sedgefield

Sewer Works has enough capacity to accommodate this development. There will thus be no need to

contain or treat sewerage on site.

The N2 Road Reserve forms the northern boundary of the property and to the north of the N2 is farm

land and plantations. The N2 is identified as a scenic route and visibility from the N2 is a consideration.

Presently the site is hidden from view by dense vegetation along the boundary with the N2. It is the

intention to keep theses natural vegetation barriers intact, not just for visual purposes, but also to reduce

noise levels from the N2.

4. Proposal

4.1 DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT

The vision is to create a pleasant yet affordable residential neighbourhood that will appeal to a large

variety of new residents. The proposal includes ±102 group housing stands that vary between ±380m²

and ±700m² in size. There will be a variety of housing units with average floor areas of ±120m² that will

be built by the developer, with a pleasing degree of consistency of architectural character that will create

a harmonious development , without being monotonous.

12

4.2 PROPOSED ZONING

The subdivision plan indicates the zoning of the new subdivisions as follow:

4.2.1 RESIDENTIAL II ERVEN

The residential stands will be zoned Residential II with a primary use for a ”Group housing”.

“Group housing” means a group of separate and/or linked dwelling units planned, designed and built as

a harmonious architectural entity and arranged around or inside a communal open space in a varied and

ordered way, of which every dwelling unit has a ground floor; such dwelling units may be cadastrally

subdivided.

In terms of the Section 8 Zoning Scheme Regulations, development restrictions pertaining to the

Residential II Zone include:

Property size: No group housing site may have an

area greater than 2 ha, and no group

housing site shall abut on another

group housing site:

The development stand measures 7.8ha

and does not comply with this restriction.

Application will have to be made for a

departure from this provision to allow a

group housing site of more than 2ha. In

the recently Council approved “Draft

Integrated Zoning Scheme”, this condition

has been omitted.

Density: Up to a maximum of twenty units per

gross hectare or a 3:1 ratio with

regard to the gross density of

surrounding dwelling units,

whichever permits the smaller

number of units.

The development density calculates to 13

units per ha which is lower than prescribed

the density for the zone.

Communal

open space:

At least 80 m² per dwelling unit is

prescribed which calculates to

8160m² for 102 dwellings

The layout indicates communal open

space of 2.3ha which is almost 3 times

more than what is required.

13

Private

outdoor space

At least 40% of the gross floor space

of the unit concerned, in a form

which shall not exceed a ratio of 2:1

(length to width)

The planned houses will differ in size, but

will average about 120m² floor space,

which will require only 48m² private open

space. Properties will be average 400m²

which will allow for more than what is

required.

Height At most two storeys The proposal is for single storey homes

only.

Street

Building line

Zero, subject to regulation 3.4.4 (b). 10m building lines will apply along the N2

and the Divisional Road.

Side building

line

Zero, or 3m where the zone abuts

onto another zone

Building lines of 3m along the southern

and western boundary where the

development borders on to other

residential properties will be

accommodated.

Parking At least two parking bays per group

house, both may be provided at such

group house, or part of the required

number of parking bays at some of

the group houses and the remainder

in the form of communal parking for

the group housing scheme

concerned, or the entire requirement

in the form of communal parking.

The architectural proposals will include

double garages for each property.

Street width Normally at least 10 m, or 8 m in a cul-

de-sac or loop road of limited length

which serves only a few group

houses.

The internal loop road measures 12m in

width and the smaller cul-de sacs measure

8m and 10m as prescribed.

4.2.2 OPEN SPACE II ERF

The “Open Space II” property is a communal private open space erf that will be owned and maintained

by a Home Owners Association. This erf will include all open areas, including the roads, parks , walkways,

gate houses and other communal facilities.

14

4.2.3 OPEN SPACE III ERF

It is proposed that the portion of the property to the east of the divisional road be rezoned to “Open

Space III” to strengthen the buffer zone around the lake.

4.2.4 TRANSPORT ZONE II

The Divisional Road traverses over the eastern boundary of the property. The Provincial Roads Authority

requires a 20m wide road reserve for a road of this nature. The subdivision plan proposes the subdivision

of this road and the rezoning thereof to “Transportation Zone II” (Public Road).

4.2 LAYOUT DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

The design considerations that informed the layout include:

4.2.1 FINANCIALLY VIABLE DENSITY

To make this project financially viable and responsive to the target market, the developer wants to

provide a high-quality yet affordable housing product. Cost of land, services and housing need to be

limited and in order to do so, a certain economy of scale needs to be attained. The most relevant design

aspect to achieve this is through development density. The planned nett residential density is

approximately 13 units per ha, which is still regarded as low density. Medium-density housing, defined

in terms of dwelling units per hectare (du/ha), is approximately 40–100 du/ha (gross). However, being

situated at the outer edge of town, and not in the centre, too high density will also not be appropriate

as it may impact on the character of the neighbouring residential areas.

The proposed density is high enough to be financially viable , yet low enough to fit into the surrounding

area.

4.2.2 ENERGY EFFICIENT ORIENTATION AND DESIGN

Windows allow solar energy to enter a building (see images below). This is unwanted in summer and

desirable in winter. In the Southern Hemisphere, houses should be orientated to face north. The layout

design has as far as possible orientated erven, especially the smaller ones, in such a way that houses can

be places with their longer frontages to the north.

15

House designs will be elaborated on in

the Architectural Design Guidelines.

Energy efficient guidelines will include

elements such as having appropriate

areas of glazing, correct orientation,

suitable levels of shading, insulation and

thermal mass. The use of local building

materials and renewable energy

applications such as solar water heaters,

rainwater harvesting etc. will be encouraged

Figure 3: House Orientation

4.2.3 SAFE STREETS

The road network will consist of a ring road with smaller lanes giving further access to individual homes.

A great neighbourhood has safe and friendly streets where people can walk without fear of crime or

being threatened by traffic. The streets in this neighbourhood will be private with low volume and speed

and will function more like open spaces than trafficways. The main road reserve is 12m wide which will

allow for enough space to accommodate a road surface, services, sidewalks and landscaping.

4.2.4 A CONNECTED AND FUNCTIONAL OPEN SPACE SYSTEM

An examination of aerial photographs

of the landscape surrounding the study

site reveals that the study site is not of

critical local importance in terms of

landscape connectivity. It is important,

but not critical, for the connection of

the Groenvlei Lake to the areas to the

west of it. Unfortunately, some of the

potential connectivity has already been

disrupted or lost by the development of

the areas to the south and west of the

study site. Connectivity to the north

across the N2 highway is also a practical

impossibility. There is, however, still

the potential to connect the relatively Figure 4 ; Proposed corridors as per Ken Coetzee report

16

intact indigenous forest along the northern and eastern boundary of the study site with natural habitat

to the southwest and east as roughly illustrated in Figure 4 above.

The proposed open space system corresponds to the position of indigenous vegetation and potential

connectivity corridors.

A great neighbourhood has places for people to meet, talk and be neighbourly. The Corridor function will

be part of the landscaping plan of the development and will provide opportunity for public recreational

areas such as walking trails lookout points etc. These facilities will be formally laid out to avoid

unnecessary informal path formation in the sensitive forest habitat. Although the site borders onto the

Groenvlei, it is not the intention to use it as a recreational facility that forms part of the development.

4.2.5 SECURITY

Crime is a South African reality and must be a consideration in any new development. The development

will be a gated security complex. The development will be fenced but special attention will be given to

unobtrusive fencing and animal movement. There will only be one gatehouse that will control access.

Although formal access may not be permitted from the Divisional Road, it is proposed that an alternative

emergency escape is provided. This is essential to ensure that residents are not trapped in case of a fire

or other disaster that limits access.

4.2.6 CLIMATE CHANGE

Although the site has not been subject to any past flooding, low lying areas below 4.5m have been

avoided and forms part of the open system to accommodate possible future flooding scenarios. This will

enhance resilience of the development to climate change in the future.

4.2.7 VISUAL SENSITIVITY

The N2 is a scenic route and as such the visual quality along the way is a relevant consideration. There is

an open space system proposed along the N2. Most of this strip of land is already densely vegetated but

more landscaping will occur in areas where the vegetation is not as dense. There is a minimum 10m

buffer between the development and the N2. This vegetation buffer will allow for an excellent visual

barrier between the development and the N2 , which will reduce the visual impact of the development,

and reduce noise levels emanating from the N2. A similar buffer is proposed along the Divisional Road.

17

4.3 PLANNING PERMISSIONS REQUIRED

4.3.1 APPLICATIONS TO THE KNYSNA MUNICIPALITY IN TERMS OF THE KNYSNA

MUNICIPALITY: STANDARD MUNICIPAL LAND USE PLANNING BY-LAW (2016)

Rezoning in terms of Section 15 (2)a of the said Bylaw: The property is currently zoned “Undetermined“

in terms of the Section 8 Zoning Scheme applicable to the area. In order to facilitate the development of

the land the property will have to be rezoned to “Sub divisional Area”.

Subdivision in terms of Section 15 (2)d of the said Bylaw: The current subdivision plan indicates the

subdivision of the property into 102 group housing stands with average erf sizes of ±400m² as well as

roads and private open spaces.

Departure in terms of Section 15 (2)b of the said Bylaw :to allow a Group housing site of more than 2ha.

4.3.2 APPLICATION TO SANRAL IN TERMS OF THE SOUTH AFRICAN NATIONAL

ROADS AGENCY LIMITED AND NATIONAL ROADS ACT, ACT 7 OF 1998

The property is situated within a building restriction area as defined in Act 7 of 1998. A building restriction

area means the area consisting of land (but excluding land in an urban area)situated alongside a national

road within a distance of 60 metres from the boundary of the national road; or situated within a distance

of 500 metres from any point of intersection with the road.

Section 49. (1) of the Act states that if land or any part of land is situated in a building restriction area,

the Surveyor-General may not approve the Diagram or General Plan of any division of that land or part

unless the Agency has given its approval for the division in writing.

SANRAL has previously agreed to the development of the site, subject to certain conditions which

included: - A 10m building line from the road reserve boundary

- A 2m high wall or security fence along the boundary of the N2

- All future services need to be accommodated outside the N2 Road Reserve

- No direct access from the National Road will be permitted

- No free-standing advertising signage

18

4.3.3 ADVERTISING ON ROADS AND RIBBON DEVELOPMENT ACT 21 OF 1940

A Surveyor-General may not approve a General Plan or the diagrams of erven situated wholly or partly

outside an urban area if any part of any such erf, lot or holding falls within a distance of 95m of the centre

line of a building restriction road or of a main road, or with in 500m of an intersection with a similar or

national road, without written approval from the controlling authority concerned.

The Groenvlei Divisional Road (DR 01594) is a Building Restriction road under the jurisdiction of The

Western Cape Department of Transport and Public works and approval in terms of Act 21 of 1940 will

be required.

4.3.4 NATIONAL HERITAGE RECOURSES ACT 25 OF 1999

The rezoning of more than a ha of land will require approval in terms of Section 38 of the Heritage

resources Act. A previous approval was granted in 2010 for a residential development of similar nature

and no further heritage assessment was required. The revised layout will have to be re-endorsed by

Heritage Western Cape.

5. Need & Desirability

In terms of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, 2000 (Act No. 3 of 2000) (“PAJA”) all

administrative action must be based on the “relevant considerations”. NEMA and the EIA Regulations

highlights specific considerations that must be taken into account for every application for environmental

authorisation, these include specifically having to consider “the need for and desirability of the activity”

5.1 THE NEED FOR THE PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL

DEVELOPMENT

5.1.1 THE NEED FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING

The first question that needs to be asked when any development is considered is whether there is a need

for the contemplated land use. This is normally a question that the potential investor would answer

before he embarks on a long and expensive application process. Development, like any another business

is about supply and demand.

19

The Garden Route is becoming increasingly popular among people who want to seek a quieter lifestyle

and move out of the cities. Statistics shows that Sedgefield has a growing pollution and it is predicted

that the growth rate will continue for the foreseeable future.

Although most of the population growth and subsequent housing needs are in the poorer communities,

there is also a known need for affordable middle-class homes in Sedgefield. It is the intention of the

developer to construct homes on sizable plots within the ± R2M bracket. Interviews with local estate

agents confirmed that there is very little available in the market place and that the envisaged product

will respond well to the need in the market place.

Sedgefield has very limited spatial opportunity to accommodate future residential growth. Outward

expansion of the urban edge is mostly limited by natural barriers such as the lakes, lagoon, the ocean as

well the steep dunes to the north.

Within the Urban Edge there are a number of regular residential stands that are still vacant, but there is

no other piece of land with this size and limited environmental constraints that can be used to address

the housing need.

5.1.2 SOCIO –ECONOMIC NEED OF THE SEDGEFIELD COMMUNITY

South Africa has the challenge of high unemployment and skills shortages. At the end of 2018, the

unemployment rate was reported to be 27,2%5, and one of the main goals that South Africa has set itself

in the National Development Plan, is to cut the unemployment rate to 6% by 2030.

The planned residential estate will create construction jobs to local contractors and labourers. The

employment opportunities associated with the construction phase are frequently regarded as temporary

employment. However, while these jobs may be classified as “temporary” it is worth noting that the

people employed in the construction industry by its very nature rely on “temporary” jobs for their

survival. In this regard “permanent” employment in the construction sector is linked to the ability of

construction companies to secure a series of temporary projects over a period of time. Each

development, such as the proposed development, therefore contributes to creating “permanent”

employment in the construction sector.

20

The construction industry is an important player in job creation, not only in the construction sector but

in other sectors of the economy as well. The construction industry uses a wide range of inputs such as

manufacturing of construction materials and equipment, mining of raw materials, forestry,

transportation, real estate, finance and professional services which all contribute indirectly to more jobs

that are created across several sectors.

Sedgefield has a very similar demographic profile to the rest of the country. Socio-economic studies

indicate high levels of poverty and unemployment. The social needs of the larger community form part

of the “surrounding environment” and should receive due consideration when new developments are

investigated. The “ripple effect” that a development of this scale has on the local economy and social

well-being of the community cannot be ignored.

5.2 DESIRABILITY OF THE SITE TO ACCOMMODATE THIS

DEVELOPMENT

Desirability factors relate to place. Is the land physically suitable to accommodate the proposed

development? Is the proposal compatible with credible spatial plans? Is there perhaps a better land use

alternative for the land parcel?

5.2.1 PHYSICAL SITE CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES

The table below provides a summary of the physical site constraints and opportunities identified to date:

OPPORTUNITIES CONSTRAINTS

Location: The property is adjacent to an

existing residential area with in the urban

edge of Sedgefield.

Although the property borders onto the

N2, direct access will not be possible.

The proximity to the N2 may have noise

impact on the future residents.

The N2 also have a 10m building line

restriction that impact on the available

development area.

21

The Divisional Road Reserve bisects the

property and reduce usable area. A 20m

road reserve as well as a 10m building

line is required, which further reduces

the development area.

Municipal Infrastructure: Bulk municipal

services are available, and access is available

through existing road network that has been

designed with extension in mind.

Access through existing residential road

will have to further investigated.

Agricultural Value: The property has no

agricultural value due to low soil potential,

small size and limited irrigation potential. For

this reason, the property has not been

identified for Agricultural purposes in the

SDF.

Low conservation value: Although the site

is situated in a CBA Area, a biodiversity

assessment was conducted to determine the

biodiversity importance of the site. The study

confirms that the larger portion of the site

has been transformed and that the

transformed areas are no longer sensitive or

of conservation value.

CBA Identification conflicts with the

conservation value of the property.

Protected Vegetation: Pockets of

indigenous vegetation that can be included in

an open space system that will contribute to

the aesthetic quality of the neighbourhood.

Pockets of indigenous vegetation need to be

excluded from the development footprint.

Topography: The site has even gradient

which will allow for cost effective services

and design.

Low lying portions must be avoided of future

flooding due to climate change

Low visibility: The development area is

situated in a low-lying area with limited

22

visibility from the main receptors and will not

have any significant negative visual impact.

It can be concluded that the site has limited constraints and that the unique site characteristics will be

preserved within the planned development. The site characteristic described above makes this site highly

desirable for development.

5.2.2 COMPATIBILITY WITH APPLICABLE FORWARD PLANNING DOCUMENTS

Another test of desirability of a project is by considering the broader communities’ needs and interests

as reflected in credible Spatial Development Frameworks on Local, Municipal, District, Regional,

Provincial and National level.

5.2.2.1. National Development Plan (NDP 2030)

The NDP aims to eliminate poverty and reduce inequality by 2030. According to the plan, South Africa

can realise these goals by drawing on the energies of its people, growing an inclusive economy, building

capabilities, enhancing the capacity of the state, and promoting leadership and partnerships throughout

society. Growth and jobs, education and skills, and a capable and developmental state are the main aims

of this document.

South Africa is mandated by this Act to be a developmental state. In this light, it will be difficult for any

decision-making body to deny any form of economic activity unless there are substantial negative

environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated.

The proposal is in line with the aims of the National Development Plan and the country's

mandate to be a developmental state.

5.2.2.2 Western Cape Provincial Spatial Development Framework 2014

The PSDF 2014 has been approved by the Executive Authority, Minister Anton Bredell, Minister of Local

Government, Environmental Affairs and Development Planning, and endorsed by the Provincial Cabinet.

The Western Cape PSDF sets out to put in place a coherent framework for the Province’s urban and rural

areas.

23

The sustainable use of provincial assets is one of the main aims of the policy. The protection of the non

–renewable natural and agricultural resources is achieved through clear settlement edges for towns by

defining limits to settlements and through establishing buffers/transitions between urban and rural

areas. The urban fringe must ensure that urban expansion is structured and directed away from

environmentally sensitive land and farming land; agricultural resources are reserved; environmental

resources are protected; appropriate levels of services are feasible to support urban fringe land uses;

and land use allocations within the urban fringe are compatible and sustainable.

This property has been included in the urban edge and has been earmarked for urban development

since 2000 when the Knysna Wilderness Plettenberg Bay Guide plan was amended to allow for

township establishment. The value of this property does not lie in its agricultural potential of

conservation status, but in its proximity to the town. The proposal to develop this site is not in conflict

with the aims of the PSDF.

5.2.2.3 Western Cape Biodiversity Spatial Plan 2017

The Western Cape Biodiversity Spatial Plan (WCBSP) was developed by CapeNature, in collaboration with

the Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning as a spatial tool that comprises the

Biodiversity Spatial Plan Map (BSP Map) of biodiversity priority areas, accompanied by contextual

information and land use guidelines.

In terms of these maps, most of the property is identified as CBA1 : Terrestrial, with the south eastern

corner being CBA1:Aquatic.

CBA1 : Terrestrial is described as “Any other terrestrial habitat in a largely natural and functional

condition that is required to meet biodiversity targets for species, ecosystems or ecological processes

and infrastructure”.

The recent Fauna, Vegetation and Landscape Connectivity Evaluation Report conducted by Ken

Coetzee(2018), as well as previous ecological sensitivity studies conducted by Peet Joubert in 2010 and

by Chris Gaigher in 1998, confirmed repeatedly that the site has been extensively disturbed through past

agricultural activities and alien invasion. To further labour this point, in 2000 the Department of

Environmental Affairs and Development Planning gave environmental authorisation for a residential

24

development of the site. The site does therefor not meet the criteria required (in a largely natural and

functional condition) to be classified as a CBA1 area.

The Fauna, Vegetation and Landscape Connectivity Evaluation Report study also confirms that the

aquatic CBA classification for the southeast corners of the property is not justified. There is no sign of

any aquatic habitat in the marked area.

The Western Cape Biodiversity Spatial Plan Handbook states on numerous occasions that it is essential

to ground-truth the BSP Map and conduct additional biodiversity assessments to determine the

biodiversity importance of the site and makes provision for deviations if accompanied by suitable

specialist studies.

The document further excepts the concept of control of urban expansion through the delineation of

Urban Edges. The urban edge of Sedgefield includes this property and the Spatial Development Plan

earmarks the site for Urban Development.

The BSP earmarks the area as a Core Conservation Area, but further specialist studies conducted

confirm that the site has little environmental value. The proximity to the Groenvlei is the only concern

that needs to be addressed.

5.2.2.4 Eden Spatial Development Framework 2017

The Eden SDF aims to promote balanced development that supports the integration and densification of

settlements within the District. In general, it promotes the creation of walkable, integrated and compact

urban environment. This proposal is exactly what the Eden SDF supports.

The report states that the financial and economic viability of towns in the District should be improved by

promoting the intensification of existing urban areas. This can be achieved through infill, densification

and redevelopment, which in turn makes the use of existing infrastructure capacity and services more

efficient.

Policy 3.3. Optimise existing infrastructure capacity and economic opportunity by directing mixed use,

higher density development to areas of opportunity;

25

Land should only be developed in areas that are identified and suitable for urban growth. Vacant and

underutilised land within the existing settlement footprint should be prioritised for development before

new greenfield areas are considered

for new development. This vacant

site presents an ideal opportunity for

densification.

Guideline 3.3.7.

Promote compact development:

Densification should occur within

800-1600 m or 10-20 minutes from

transport hubs and areas with mixed-

use activity. This will encourage the

use of non-motorised forms of

transport such as walking and cycling.

The site is within 1600m from the

CBD, schools and other amenities of

town.

The proposal is in line with the proposals of compaction of existing urban areas. The development of

vacant urban land within urban edges is promoted.

5.2.2.5 Knysna Spatial Development Framework 2017

In June 2017 Knysna Council adopted a new

Spatial Development Framework as part of the

2017 IDP. Both the 2017 and 2008 document

defined an urban edge for the town and is in

general encouraging higher urban densities

within the urban area as oppose to continued

urban sprawl. The SDF is not supported by a

Densification Policy and contains no specific

land use proposals for Sedgefield.

1600m

1600m

800m

26

The application area is situated within the urban edge of both the 2008 and 2017 documents and is

categorised as "Conventional Urban". From this point of view the proposal to develop the property for

residential purposes is compatible with both the Spatial Development Frameworks.

5.2.2.6 Historical Spatial Development Frameworks, Structure Plans and Guide plans

The following spatial plans are no longer valid, but from a historical perspective, it is still interesting to

note that all the plans through time have always identified this plot for future urban development.

Knysna –Wilderness- Plettenberg Bay Structure Plan (1983).

The abovementioned document was approved as

a Guide Plan in 1982 and in 1996 it was declared

as a Regional Structure Plan, until 2012 when it

was declared as inconsistent with the

constitution and invalid. The document initially

earmarked the property for recreational

purposes (resort) and in 2000 the plan was

successfully amended to an “Urban designation”.

Although this document is no longer relevant, it

illustrates that historically this property has

always been regarded as urban land, rather than for agricultural or conservation purposes.

The Sedgefield Structure Plan (1999)

In 1999 a multi-disciplinary team was

commissioned to prepare a Structure Plan for

Sedgefield and surroundings that will form the

spatial component of the IDP. The purpose of the

plan was to set guidelines for controlled and

sensitive expansion of the town. At the time, this

document also earmarked the property as

residential.

27

Knysna Spatial Development Framework November 2008 (KSDF)

The Knysna Spatial Development

Framework 2008 November 2008

was adopted by council in 2009

but has since been replaced by

the 2017 version. This plan also

included the property in the

Urban Edge.

The site has been earmarked for urban extension for the last 20 years by previous future planning

documents like the amended Knysna Wilderness Plettenberg Bay Structure Plan, the Draft Sedgefield

Structure Plan 1999, and the Knysna SDF 2008.

5.2.3 CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVE LAND USES

The consideration of alternatives land use options provides a framework for sound decision-making

based on the principles of sustainable development. Key criteria for consideration when identifying

alternatives are that they should be “practicable”, “feasible”, “relevant”, “reasonable” and “viable”.

Status Quo: Undeveloped urban land

If the land remained undeveloped there will be very little benefit for the land owner, the community or

the municipality. Presently the land owner is maintaining the site by occasional alien clearing as it is his

duty as land owner, it is however not a sustainable financial situation and is therefore not a viable option.

Agriculture

The size of the land, the sandy soil conditions and the fact that the property will have to rely on municipal

water is not conducive to agriculture. Agriculture as an alternative land use will not be a practical or

feasible alternative.

Alternative Residential Densities and Layouts:

Contemplating alternative densities and layouts is the only alternatives than can be considered relevant.

Lower densities will demand higher land and service cost which will escalate the price of the end project

and may result in a project that is not accepted or needed in the market place.

28

Higher densities could be an option where land and service cost can be reduced and where a very

affordable project can be offered. However, high residential densities in this area may have an impact

on the surrounding residential areas and service provision.

6. Conclusion

ZONING: The proposal will require a rezoning of the property from “Undetermined Zone” to Sub-

divisional Area”.

LAND USE DESIGNATION IN THE KNYSNA SDF: The property is earmarked for urban purposes

and is within the urban edge for Sedgefield. The proposal is compatible with the SDF.

COMPATIBILITY WITH PROVINCIAL AND REGIONAL SPATIAL POLICIES: The Knysna

Spatial Development Framework is compatible with the Provincial and Regional Policy Documents. Being

compatible with a credible Municipal Spatial Development Framework, this development can be

regarded as compatible with the overarching policies of higher government levels

TITLE DEED RESTRICTIONS: The title deed of the property does not contain any conditions that

will restrict the use of the property as envisaged:

BONDS: There are no bonds registered against the property.

SERVITUDES: There are no servitudes registered against the property that need to be accommodated

in the design

SERVICES: Bulk services are available. More detail will be provided in the Engineering Services Reports

ACCESS: Access is available via Fraser Street, a 20m collector road. Traffic Impact will have to be further

assessed by a Specialist. Formal approval from SANRAL and the Provincial Roads Authority will have to

be obtained.

VISUAL IMPACT: The site has a low visibility due to its low-lying nature and natural dense vegetations

which screens the development from major routes. The aesthetic quality of the neighbourhood will be

elaborated on in landscape plans and architectural guidelines that will be compiled at a later stage.

ANNEXURE B Peak Hour

Traffic Counts

Project : TIA : PROPOSED GROUP HOUSING DEVELOPMENT, SEDGEFIELD Day & date :

Intersection : N2 / EGRET STREET NO. 1 Time period: 06:00 - 09:00

STARTING

TIME 2019 2020 2025

Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Total Hour

6:00 8 0 4 12 0 21 0 21 0 0 0 0 0 22 1 23 56 9 8 7 9 8 7 9 8 7

6:15 15 1 7 23 5 25 2 32 0 1 0 1 1 36 7 44 100 6 7 11 6 7 11 7 8 13

6:30 13 1 21 35 2 42 0 44 0 1 0 1 0 62 1 63 143

6:45 11 2 24 37 7 40 4 51 2 2 0 4 1 66 4 71 163 462

7:00 14 0 27 41 8 55 1 64 2 2 0 4 0 75 3 78 187 593 10 1 8 6 10 1 8 6 10 1 10 6

7:15 11 4 22 37 14 64 2 80 4 4 1 9 0 62 6 68 194 687 11 416 321 5 11 428 331 5 11 497 383 5

7:30 21 6 29 56 8 48 1 57 1 2 1 4 1 86 7 94 211 755 12 27 28 4 12 28 29 4 12 32 33 4

7:45 17 7 17 41 13 56 6 75 6 1 0 7 1 72 10 83 206 798

8:00 9 5 15 29 3 97 0 100 3 3 5 11 1 88 8 97 237 848

8:15 20 1 7 28 7 40 4 51 3 1 0 4 0 100 5 105 188 842 67 12 49 69 12 50 80 14 59

8:30 17 2 15 34 8 86 2 96 2 0 0 2 0 107 6 113 245 876 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3

8:45 21 4 12 37 10 98 2 110 3 3 1 7 0 121 8 129 283 953

Total 177 33 200 410 85 672 24 781 26 20 8 54 5 897 66 968 2213

Peak hour 67 12 49 128 28 321 8 357 11 7 6 24 1 416 27 444 953

Peak 15 min 37 110 11 129 283

PHF 0.86 0.81 0.55 0.86 0.84

37


Intersection : N2 / EGRET STREET NO. 1 Time period: 15:00 - 18:00

STARTING

TIME 2019 2020 2025


15:00 12 5 13 30 10 94 2 106 3 6 0 9 2 95 7 104 249

15:15 11 11 10 32 10 96 2 108 0 2 0 2 1 74 10 85 227 9 8 7 9 8 7 9 8 7

15:30 11 3 8 22 19 85 4 108 2 4 0 6 0 84 8 92 228 4 20 12 4 21 12 5 24 14

15:45 16 2 8 26 16 97 1 114 3 4 2 9 0 100 15 115 264 968

16:00 13 2 2 17 12 97 3 112 4 1 0 5 2 82 15 99 233 952

16:15 15 2 15 32 17 79 6 102 5 5 0 10 1 64 11 76 220 945 10 3 7 6 10 3 7 6 10 4 8 6

16:30 15 6 7 28 20 108 2 130 3 8 1 12 0 68 19 87 257 974 11 364 380 5 11 375 391 5 11 435 454 5

16:45 17 3 2 22 14 97 2 113 3 5 1 9 1 91 20 112 256 966 12 86 85 4 12 89 88 4 12 103 101 4

17:00 21 1 12 34 31 91 1 123 5 1 1 7 1 88 19 108 272 1005

17:15 13 3 6 22 20 84 2 106 1 6 1 8 1 117 28 146 282 1067

17:30 13 5 6 24 18 92 2 112 2 2 0 4 2 90 17 109 249 1059 66 13 27 68 13 28 79 16 32

17:45 11 1 2 14 16 83 0 99 1 1 0 2 1 57 15 73 188 991 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3

Total 168 44 91 303 203 1103 27 1333 32 45 6 83 12 1010 184 1206 2737

Peak hour 66 13 27 106 85 380 7 472 12 20 4 36 3 364 86 453 1067

Peak 15 min 34 130 12 146 282

PHF 0.78 0.91 0.75 0.78 0.95

30/04/2019

EGRET STREET N2 EGRET STREET N2 INTER-

SECTION

PM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR

Northbound Westbound Southbound Eastbound

EGRET STREET EGRET STREET EGRET STREET

30/04/2019

EGRET STREET N2 EGRET STREET N2 INTER-

SECTION

SAT AM PEAK HOUR SAT AM PEAK HOUR SAT AM PEAK HOUR




N N N


Intersection : EGRET STREET / PELICAN STREET / MAKOU STREET NO. 2 Time period: 06:00 - 09:00

STARTING

TIME 2019 2020 2025


6:00 0 4 0 4 0 1 6 7 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 14 9 8 7 9 8 7 9 8 7

6:15 0 12 0 12 1 0 13 14 2 6 1 9 0 1 1 2 37 10 24 21 10 25 22 12 29 25

6:30 1 17 0 18 0 0 15 15 1 6 1 8 1 1 0 2 43

6:45 0 20 0 20 0 6 15 21 1 2 3 6 3 1 0 4 51 145

7:00 1 19 0 20 1 8 12 21 3 4 8 15 4 2 2 8 64 195 10 17 55 6 10 18 57 6 10 20 66 6

7:15 1 15 0 16 0 12 15 27 2 4 13 19 13 6 0 19 81 239 11 22 43 5 11 23 44 5 11 26 51 5

7:30 2 23 0 25 0 10 29 39 8 8 5 21 9 6 1 16 101 297 12 5 4 4 12 5 4 4 12 6 5 4

7:45 2 22 0 24 0 9 13 22 7 15 1 23 3 7 0 10 79 325

8:00 2 10 3 15 2 10 14 26 3 11 1 15 4 2 3 9 65 326

8:15 0 13 2 15 1 12 14 27 4 3 4 11 3 4 1 8 61 306 5 47 5 5 48 5 6 56 6

8:30 1 8 0 9 0 10 17 27 7 2 3 12 4 5 1 10 58 263 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3

8:45 2 16 0 18 1 11 10 22 7 8 2 17 6 11 0 17 74 258

Total 12 179 5 196 6 89 173 268 48 69 42 159 50 46 9 105 728

Peak hour 5 47 5 57 4 43 55 102 21 24 10 55 17 22 5 44 258

Peak 15 min 18 27 17 19 74

PHF 0.79 0.94 0.81 0.58 0.87


Intersection : EGRET STREET / PELICAN STREET / MAKOU STREET NO. 2 Time period: 15:00 - 18:00

STARTING

TIME 2019 2020 2025


15:00 1 7 0 8 0 8 13 21 10 17 2 29 7 11 0 18 76

15:15 2 20 2 24 1 7 7 15 9 10 2 21 3 5 1 9 69 9 8 7 9 8 7 9 8 7

15:30 1 13 1 15 0 9 7 16 10 13 6 29 4 12 0 16 76 19 82 68 20 84 70 23 98 81

15:45 1 16 0 17 2 7 10 19 12 12 2 26 5 9 1 15 77 298

16:00 2 7 2 11 2 6 6 14 11 15 2 28 1 12 1 14 67 289

16:15 0 19 1 20 0 9 9 18 7 13 6 26 3 10 1 14 78 298 10 17 32 6 10 18 33 6 10 20 38 6

16:30 1 12 0 13 0 13 10 23 19 17 3 39 5 13 1 19 94 316 11 52 35 5 11 54 36 5 11 62 42 5

16:45 2 10 0 12 0 6 10 16 18 17 7 42 3 17 5 25 95 334 12 9 1 4 12 9 1 4 12 11 1 4

17:00 1 16 3 20 0 8 9 17 12 28 5 45 5 14 1 20 102 369

17:15 1 13 1 15 1 8 3 12 19 20 4 43 4 8 2 14 84 375

17:30 0 12 0 12 0 4 8 12 25 19 3 47 0 7 2 9 80 361 5 51 4 5 53 4 6 61 5

17:45 4 8 1 13 1 8 11 20 6 15 4 25 2 10 3 15 73 339 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3

Total 16 153 11 180 7 93 103 203 158 196 46 400 42 128 18 188 895

Peak hour 5 51 4 60 1 35 32 68 68 82 19 169 17 52 9 78 375

Peak 15 min 20 23 45 25 102

PHF 0.75 0.74 0.94 0.78 0.92

30/04/2019

MAKOU STREET EGRET STREET MAKOU STREET PELICAN STREET INTER-

SECTION



MAKOU STREET MAKOU STREET MAKOU STREET

30/04/2019

MAKOU STREET EGRET STREET MAKOU STREET PELICAN STREET INTER-

SECTION





N N NN N NN N NN N N


Intersection : EGRET STREET / FRASER STREET NO. 3 Time period: 06:00 - 09:00

STARTING

TIME 2019 2020 2025


6:00 0 1 0 1 0 0 8 8 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 10 9 8 7 9 8 7 9 8 7

6:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 13 6 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 19 0 9 41 0 9 42 0 11 49

6:30 0 3 0 3 0 1 11 12 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 17

6:45 0 1 0 1 0 0 25 25 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 29 75

7:00 0 8 0 8 0 0 13 13 5 1 1 7 1 0 0 1 29 94 10 1 85 6 10 1 88 6 10 1 101 6

7:15 0 3 0 3 0 0 23 23 7 0 1 8 1 0 0 1 35 110 11 1 6 5 11 1 6 5 11 1 7 5

7:30 0 4 1 5 0 1 28 29 10 4 0 14 3 0 0 3 51 144 12 0 2 4 12 0 2 4 12 0 2 4

7:45 0 4 0 4 0 0 14 14 11 2 0 13 3 0 1 4 35 150

8:00 0 2 2 4 0 1 19 20 7 2 0 9 0 0 0 0 33 154

8:15 0 5 0 5 1 1 21 23 8 1 0 9 0 1 0 1 38 157 0 16 2 0 16 2 0 19 2

8:30 0 6 0 6 0 2 23 25 12 3 0 15 0 0 0 0 46 152 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3

8:45 0 3 0 3 1 2 22 25 14 3 0 17 1 0 0 1 46 163

Total 0 40 3 43 2 8 220 230 85 16 2 103 10 1 1 12 388

Peak hour 0 16 2 18 2 6 85 93 41 9 0 50 1 1 0 2 163

Peak 15 min 6 25 17 1 46

PHF 0.75 0.93 0.74 0.50 0.89


Intersection : EGRET STREET / FRASER STREET NO. 3 Time period: 15:00 - 18:00

STARTING

TIME 2019 2020 2025


15:00 0 0 0 0 0 10 18 28 2 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 31

15:15 0 3 0 3 0 3 16 19 11 2 0 13 2 1 1 4 39 9 8 7 9 8 7 9 8 7

15:30 0 1 0 1 0 1 11 12 20 2 1 23 0 0 0 0 36 8 21 89 8 22 92 10 25 106

15:45 0 1 2 3 0 1 18 19 17 5 1 23 0 0 0 0 45 151

16:00 0 4 1 5 0 1 16 17 18 4 0 22 0 0 0 0 44 164

16:15 0 1 1 2 0 1 20 21 16 4 0 20 1 1 0 2 45 170 10 1 57 6 10 1 59 6 10 1 68 6

16:30 0 1 1 2 0 1 18 19 32 6 1 39 1 1 0 2 62 196 11 3 3 5 11 3 3 5 11 4 4 5

16:45 0 1 1 2 0 0 12 12 19 6 4 29 0 1 0 1 44 195 12 0 0 4 12 0 0 4 12 0 0 4

17:00 0 2 0 2 0 0 19 19 19 7 1 27 0 0 0 0 48 199

17:15 0 3 0 3 0 2 8 10 19 2 2 23 0 1 0 1 37 191

17:30 0 1 0 1 0 0 9 9 19 5 1 25 0 0 0 0 35 164 0 7 2 0 7 2 0 8 2

17:45 0 2 0 2 0 0 13 13 11 2 0 13 0 0 0 0 28 148 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3

Total 0 20 6 26 0 20 178 198 203 45 11 259 4 6 1 11 494

Peak hour 0 7 2 9 0 3 57 60 89 21 8 118 1 3 0 4 191

Peak 15 min 3 19 39 2 62

PHF 0.75 0.79 0.76 0.50 0.77

30/04/2019

EGRET STREET FRASER STREET EGRET STREET FRASER STREET INTER-

SECTION




30/04/2019

EGRET STREET FRASER STREET EGRET STREET FRASER STREET INTER-

SECTION





N N NN N N

ANNEXURE C Daily Traffic

Volumes

2008 10196 5067 5130 1042 517 525 1433 1883 48 15 37

2009 10061 5011 5050 943 467 476 1432 1846 46 16 38

2010 10217 5098 5119 975 481 495 1518 1857 46 16 38

2011 10610 5269 5341 952 465 487 1289 1739 47 15 38

2016 10846 5578 5269 1019 515 504 1630 2052 43 15 42

2017 11440 5780 5660 1085 536 549 1634 1945 42 15 43

2018 11396 5746 5650 1078 530 548 1559 1890 42 15 43

Total Per annum Total Per annum

AADT Growth from 2008 to 2018 11.7693213 1.118882489 AADTT Growth from 2008 to 2018 3.454894 0.340233

30th hour growth from 2007 to 2011 8.792742 0.846305

30th

Highest

Highest

volume

Truck

short

Truck

medium Truck longAADT Total

AADT to

Sedgefield AADT to Knysna AADTT Total

AADTT to

Sedgefield

AADTT to

Knysna

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

2008 2009 2010 2011 2016 2017 2018

Ve

hic

les

ADT

AADT Total

AADT to Sedgefield

AADT To Knysna

30th Highest hourlyvolume

1.12% p.a.

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

2008 2009 2010 2011 2016 2017 2018

Ve

hic

les

ADTT

AADTT Total

AADTT to Sedgefield

AADTT to Knysna

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2008 2009 2010 2011 2016 2017 2018

Truck Size

Truck long

Truck medium

Truck short

0.34% p.a.

F:\1600-1699\1666\Database\DES002 - N2 historical data.xlsx 2019/05/09

STATION INFORMATION

Lane No 1 2 3 4

Rev.Lane 0 3 2 0

Position 1 2 2 1

Straddle Set 0/2 1/3 2/4 3/0

Direction E E W W

T.Stream 1 1 2 2

Rev.TStream 0 2 1 0

Vehicle Data

Arrival Time

Speed

Length

Axle Data

Weight Data

Offscale

S/D Tyre

IN Lane

At At At At

Sp Sp Sp Sp

Ln Ln Ln Ln

Description

Slo

w to

Kn

ysna

Fast to

Kn

ysna

Fast to

Sed

gefield

Slo

w to

Sed

gefield

Site Identifier Site NumberSite NameSite DescriptionOwner Site TypePhysical Lanes Logical LanesGPS Longitude GPS LatitudeInstallation Date Termination DateSpeed Limit Companion SiteProvince MunicipalityResponsibility SANRAL RegionRoute RoadSection DistanceRoad Description

: 1203 : 1203: Brenton-on-sea New: Between Brenton-on-Sea T/O and Knysna: SANRAL : Permanent: 4 : 4: 22.983170E : -34.036282S: 2003/10/01 :: 100.0km/hr : : Western Cape : (WC) Eden: NON-TOLL : Western: N002 : N002: 08 : 21.100: N002-08 Km 21.1

No Direction Description Direction

01 To Knysna East

02 To Sedgefield West

1203 Brenton-on-sea New

Mikros Traffic Monitoring (Pty) Ltd (012) 943 3600 1203 - 1

STATION INFORMATIONSite Identifier Site NumberSite NameSite DescriptionOwner Site TypePhysical Lanes Logical LanesGPS Longitude GPS LatitudeInstallation Date Termination DateSpeed Limit Companion SiteProvince MunicipalityResponsibility SANRAL RegionRoute RoadSection DistanceRoad Description

: 1203 : 1203: Brenton-on-sea New: Between Brenton-on-Sea T/O and Knysna: SANRAL : Permanent: 4 : 4: 22.983170E : -34.036282S: 2003/10/01 :: 100.0km/hr : : Western Cape : (WC) Eden: NON-TOLL : Western: N002 : N002: 08 : 21.100: N002-08 Km 21.1

Ln Lane Description Direction Pos Log Info RLn Rev.Log Lane Desc.

01 Slow to Knysna East 1 AT,Sp,Ln 00

02 Fast to Knysna East 2 AT,Sp,Ln 03

03 Fast to Sedgefield West 2 AT,Sp,Ln 02

04 Slow to Sedgefield West 1 AT,Sp,Ln 00



TRAFFIC HIGHLIGHTS OF SITE 1203

1.1 Site Identifier 1203

1.2 Site Name Brenton-on-sea New

1.3 Site Description Between Brenton-on-Sea T/O and Knysna

1.4 Road Description Route : N002 Road : N002 Section : 08 Distance : 21.1km

1.5 GPS Position 22.983170E -34.036282S

1.6 Number of Lanes 4

1.7 Station Type Permanent

1.8 Requested Period 2016/01/01 - 2016/12/31

1.9 Length of record requested (hours) 8784

1.10 Actual First & Last Dates 2016/01/01 - 2016/12/31

1.11 Actual available good data (hours) 8724

1.12 Percentage good data available for requested period 99.3

To Knysna To Sedgefield Total

2.1a Total number of vehicles (counted) 1918775 2038643 3957418

2.1b Total number of vehicles (projected for period) 1928273 2041400 3969673

2.2 Average daily traffic (ADT) 5269 5578 10846

2.3 Average daily truck traffic (ADTT) 504 515 1019

2.4 Percentage of trucks 9.6 9.2 9.4

2.5 Truck split % (short:medium:long) 41 : 15 : 44 45 : 15 : 40 43 : 15 : 42

2.6 Percentage of night traffic (20:00 - 06:00) 9.1 8.4 8.7

3.1 Speed limit (km/hr) 100

3.2 Average speed (km/hr) 83.9 80.9 82.4

3.3 Average speed - light vehicles (km/hr) 85.5 83.5 84.4

3.4 Average speed - heavy vehicles (km/hr) 68.2 56.2 62.2

3.5 Average night speed (km/hr) 86.5 75.7 81.2

3.6 15th centile speed (km/hr) 71.6 69.6 69.6


3.8 Percentage vehicles in excess of speed limit 12.2 8.6 10.3

4.1 Percentage vehicles in flows over 600 vehicles/hr 7.5 8.7 77.5

4.2 Highest volume on the road (vehicles/hr) 2016/12/27 13:00:00 2052

4.3 Highest volume in the To Knysna (vehs/hr) 2016/12/28 12:00:00 1069

4.4 Highest volume in the To Sedgefield (vehs/hr) 2016/01/02 11:00:00 1052

4.5 Highest volume in a lane (vehicles/hr) 2016/01/02 11:00:00 664

4.6 15th highest volume on the road (vehicles/hr) 2016/12/22 12:00:00 1725

4.7 15th highest volume in the To Knysna direction (vehs/hr) 2016/12/27 14:00:00 892

4.8 15th highest volume in the To Sedgefield direction (vehs/hr) 2016/01/02 12:00:00 889




5.1 Percentage of vehicles less than 2s behind vehicle ahead 8.8 10.1 9.5

6.1 Total number of heavy vehicles (projected for period) 184436 188345 372781

6.2 Estimated average number of axles per truck 4.7 4.5 4.6

6.3 Estimated truck mass (Ton/truck) 26.7 25.6 26.2

6.4 Estimated average E80/truck 2.2 2.1 2.2

6.5 Estimated daily E80 on the road 2224

6.6 Estimated daily E80 in the To Knysna direction 1131

6.7 Estimated daily E80 in the To Sedgefield direction 1093

6.8 Estimated daily E80 in the worst To Knysna lane 1075

6.9 Estimated daily E80 in the worst To Sedgefield lane 1006

6.10 ASSUMPTION on Axles/Truck (Short:Medium:Long) (2.0 : 5.0 : 7.0)

6.11 ASSUMPTION on Mass/Truck (Short:Medium:Long) (10.9 : 31.5 : 39.8)

6.12 ASSUMPTION on E80s/Truck (Short:Medium:Long) (0.5 : 2.1 : 3.9)








1.5 GPS Position 22.983170E -34.036282S


















































Typical Week Volume Report

Site : 1203 - Brenton-on-sea New

Region : Western Cape

Actual Period : 2016/01/01 to 2016/12/31

Classification : RSA Lgt/Hvy

Day Type : Normal Day&Fixed Public Holiday+

Total

To Knysna

To Sedgefield

Total

Light

Heavy

Typical Flow for a Monday

00 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 0000

01 03 05 07 09 11 13 15 17 19 21 23Typical Flow for a Monday

0100200300400500600700800900

0

Vol

ume

/ hr

Typical Flow for a Tuesday

00 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 0000

01 03 05 07 09 11 13 15 17 19 21 23Typical Flow for a Tuesday

0100200300400500600700800900

0

Vol

ume

/ hr

Typical Flow for a Wednesday

00 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 0000

01 03 05 07 09 11 13 15 17 19 21 23Typical Flow for a Wednesday

0100200300400500600700800900

0

Vol

ume

/ hr

Typical Flow for a Thursday

00 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 0000

01 03 05 07 09 11 13 15 17 19 21 23Typical Flow for a Thursday

0100200300400500600700800900

0

Vol

ume

/ hr

Typical Flow for a Friday

00 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 0000

01 03 05 07 09 11 13 15 17 19 21 23Typical Flow for a Friday

0200400600800

100012001400160018002000

0

Vol

ume

/ hr

Typical Flow for a Saturday

00 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 0000

01 03 05 07 09 11 13 15 17 19 21 23Typical Flow for a Saturday

0100200300400500600700800900

1000

0

Vol

ume

/ hr

Typical Flow for a Sunday

00 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 0000

01 03 05 07 09 11 13 15 17 19 21 23Typical Flow for a Sunday

0100200300400500600700800900

0

Vol

ume

/ hr

TYPICAL FLOW FOR A WEEK

Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun


0200400600800

100012001400160018002000

0

Vol

ume

/ hr

TYPICAL DAILY Light/Heavy/Total VARIATIONS

Total

Light

Heavy



02468

101214161820

0

Vol

ume

/ day

x 1

000






Actual Period : 2017/01/01 to 2017/12/31



Total

To Knysna

To Sedgefield

Total

Light

Heavy


00 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 0000


0100200300400500600700800900

0

Vol

ume

/ hr


00 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 0000


0100200300400500600700800900

1000

0

Vol

ume

/ hr


00 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 0000


0100200300400500600700800900

1000

0

Vol

ume

/ hr


00 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 0000


0100200300400500600700800900

1000

0

Vol

ume

/ hr


00 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 0000


0200400600800

100012001400160018002000

0

Vol

ume

/ hr


00 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 0000


0100200300400500600700800900

1000

0

Vol

ume

/ hr


00 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 0000


0100200300400500600700800900

1000

0

Vol

ume

/ hr




0200400600800

100012001400160018002000

0

Vol

ume

/ hr


Total

Light

Heavy



02468

101214161820

0

Vol

ume

/ day

x 1

000






Actual Period : 2018/01/01 to 2018/12/31



Total

To Knysna

To Sedgefield

Total

Light

Heavy


00 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 0000


0100200300400500600700800900

0

Vol

ume

/ hr


00 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 0000


0100200300400500600700800900

0

Vol

ume

/ hr


00 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 0000


0100200300400500600700800900

1000

0

Vol

ume

/ hr


00 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 0000


0100200300400500600700800900

1000

0

Vol

ume

/ hr


00 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 0000


0200400600800

100012001400160018002000

0

Vol

ume

/ hr


00 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 0000


0100200300400500600700800900

1000

0

Vol

ume

/ hr


00 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 0000


0100200300400500600700800900

0

Vol

ume

/ hr




0200400600800

100012001400160018002000

0

Vol

ume

/ hr


Total

Light

Heavy



02468

101214161820

0

Vol

ume

/ day

x 1

000






Actual Period : 2019/01/01 to 2019/05/09



Total

To Knysna

To Sedgefield

Total

Light

Heavy


00 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 0000


0100200300400500600700800900

0

Vol

ume

/ hr


00 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 0000


0100200300400500600700800900

1000

0

Vol

ume

/ hr


00 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 0000


0100200300400500600700800900

1000

0

Vol

ume

/ hr


00 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 0000


0100200300400500600700800900

1000

0

Vol

ume

/ hr


00 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 0000


0200400600800

100012001400160018002000

0

Vol

ume

/ hr


00 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 0000


0100200300400500600700800900

1000

0

Vol

ume

/ hr


00 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 0000


0100200300400500600700800900

1000

0

Vol

ume

/ hr




0200400600800

100012001400160018002000

0

Vol

ume

/ hr


Total

Light

Heavy



02468

101214161820

0

Vol

ume

/ day

x 1

000








1.5 GPS Position 22 58 59.4E -34 02 10.6S






1.11 Actual available data (hours) 898

1.12 Percentage data available for requested period 10.2


2.1 Total number of vehicles 261016 254923 515939
















4.3 Highest volume in the North (vehs/hr) 2007/12/26 12:00:00 928

4.4 Highest volume in the South (vehs/hr) 2007/12/27 12:00:00 862



4.7 15th highest volume in the North direction (vehs/hr) 2007/12/21 11:00:00 805

4.8 15th highest volume in the South direction (vehs/hr) 2007/12/26 14:00:00 734




5.1 Percentage of vehicles less than 2s behind vehicle ahead10.9 13.2 12.1

6.1 Total number of heavy vehicles 20460 21024 41484





6.6 Estimated daily E80 in the North direction 812

6.7 Estimated daily E80 in the South direction 785

6.8 Estimated daily E80 in the worst North lane 747

6.9 Estimated daily E80 in the worst South lane 731





Mikros Traffic Monitoring (Pty) Ltd (011) 695-9200 1






1.5 GPS Position 22 58 59.4E -34 02 10.6S




















































Actual Period : 2007/11/24 to 2007/12/31

Classification : RSA Ext Lgt/Hvy


Total

To Knysna

To Sedgefield

Total

Light

Heavy

00 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 0000

01 03 05 07 09 11 13 15 17 19 21 23


0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

0

Volu

me /

hr

00 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 0000

01 03 05 07 09 11 13 15 17 19 21 23


0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

0

Volu

me /

hr

00 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 0000

01 03 05 07 09 11 13 15 17 19 21 23


0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

0

Volu

me /

hr

00 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 0000

01 03 05 07 09 11 13 15 17 19 21 23


0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

0

Volu

me /

hr

00 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 0000

01 03 05 07 09 11 13 15 17 19 21 23


0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

0

Volu

me /

hr

00 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 0000

01 03 05 07 09 11 13 15 17 19 21 23


0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

0

Volu

me /

hr

00 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 0000

01 03 05 07 09 11 13 15 17 19 21 23


0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

0

Volu

me /

hr



Flow for a typical week

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

0

Volu

me /

hr



Typical Daily Light/Heavy Variations

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

0

Volu

me /

day x

1000






Actual Period : 2008/01/01 to 2008/12/31



Total

To Knysna

To Sedgefield

Total

Light

Heavy

00 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 0000

01 03 05 07 09 11 13 15 17 19 21 23


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

0

Volu

me /

hr

00 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 0000

01 03 05 07 09 11 13 15 17 19 21 23


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

0

Volu

me /

hr

00 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 0000

01 03 05 07 09 11 13 15 17 19 21 23


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

0

Volu

me /

hr

00 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 0000

01 03 05 07 09 11 13 15 17 19 21 23


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

0

Volu

me /

hr

00 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 0000

01 03 05 07 09 11 13 15 17 19 21 23


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

0

Volu

me /

hr

00 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 0000

01 03 05 07 09 11 13 15 17 19 21 23


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

0

Volu

me /

hr

00 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 0000

01 03 05 07 09 11 13 15 17 19 21 23


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

0

Volu

me /

hr




0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

0

Volu

me /

hr




0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

0

Volu

me /

day x

1000






Actual Period : 2009/01/01 to 2009/12/31



Total

To Knysna

To Sedgefield

Total

Light

Heavy

00 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 0000

01 03 05 07 09 11 13 15 17 19 21 23


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

0

Volu

me /

hr

00 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 0000

01 03 05 07 09 11 13 15 17 19 21 23


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

0

Volu

me /

hr

00 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 0000

01 03 05 07 09 11 13 15 17 19 21 23


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

0

Volu

me /

hr

00 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 0000

01 03 05 07 09 11 13 15 17 19 21 23


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

0

Volu

me /

hr

00 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 0000

01 03 05 07 09 11 13 15 17 19 21 23


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

0

Volu

me /

hr

00 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 0000

01 03 05 07 09 11 13 15 17 19 21 23


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

0

Volu

me /

hr

00 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 0000

01 03 05 07 09 11 13 15 17 19 21 23


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

0

Volu

me /

hr




0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

0

Volu

me /

hr




0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

0

Volu

me /

day x

1000






Actual Period : 2010/01/01 to 2010/12/31



Total

To Knysna

To Sedgefield

Total

Light

Heavy

00 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 0000

01 03 05 07 09 11 13 15 17 19 21 23


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

0

Volu

me /

hr

00 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 0000

01 03 05 07 09 11 13 15 17 19 21 23


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

0

Volu

me /

hr

00 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 0000

01 03 05 07 09 11 13 15 17 19 21 23


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

0

Volu

me /

hr

00 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 0000

01 03 05 07 09 11 13 15 17 19 21 23


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

0

Volu

me /

hr

00 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 0000

01 03 05 07 09 11 13 15 17 19 21 23


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

0

Volu

me /

hr

00 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 0000

01 03 05 07 09 11 13 15 17 19 21 23


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

0

Volu

me /

hr

00 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 0000

01 03 05 07 09 11 13 15 17 19 21 23


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

0

Volu

me /

hr




0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

0

Volu

me /

hr




0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

0

Volu

me /

day x

1000






Actual Period : 2011/01/01 to 2011/05/10



Total

To Knysna

To Sedgefield

Total

Light

Heavy

00 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 0000

01 03 05 07 09 11 13 15 17 19 21 23


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

0

Volu

me /

hr

00 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 0000

01 03 05 07 09 11 13 15 17 19 21 23


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

0

Volu

me /

hr

00 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 0000

01 03 05 07 09 11 13 15 17 19 21 23


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

0

Volu

me /

hr

00 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 0000

01 03 05 07 09 11 13 15 17 19 21 23


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

0

Volu

me /

hr

00 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 0000

01 03 05 07 09 11 13 15 17 19 21 23


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

0

Volu

me /

hr

00 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 0000

01 03 05 07 09 11 13 15 17 19 21 23


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

0

Volu

me /

hr

00 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 0000

01 03 05 07 09 11 13 15 17 19 21 23


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

0

Volu

me /

hr




0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

0

Volu

me /

hr




0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

0

Volu

me /

day x

1000



ANNEXURE D SIDRA

OUTPUT SHEETS 2020

Before Development

MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: 01 [01 AM ND]

Traffic Impact Assessment for the Proposed GroupHousing Development, Sedgefield2020 Before DevelopmentSite Category: (None)Stop (Two-Way)

Movement Performance - VehiclesDemand Flows 95% Back of QueueMov

ID Turn Deg.

SatnAverage

Delay Level ofService

Prop. Queued

Effective Stop Rate

Aver. No.Cycles

AverageSpeed Total HV Vehicles Distance

veh/h % v/c sec veh m km/hSouth: Egret Road1 L2 73 0.0 0.523 14.6 LOS B 2.8 19.3 0.58 1.04 0.98 33.42 T1 13 0.0 0.523 37.1 LOS E 2.8 19.3 0.58 1.04 0.98 20.03 R2 53 0.0 0.523 42.8 LOS E 2.8 19.3 0.58 1.04 0.98 33.5Approach 138 0.0 0.523 27.4 LOS D 2.8 19.3 0.58 1.04 0.98 32.6

East: National Road N24 L2 31 0.0 0.098 5.5 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.10 0.00 54.55 T1 348 0.0 0.098 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.04 0.00 59.66 R2 8 0.0 0.009 7.4 LOS A 0.0 0.2 0.45 0.61 0.45 48.5Approach 387 0.0 0.098 0.6 NA 0.0 0.2 0.01 0.06 0.01 59.1

North: Egret Road7 L2 12 0.0 0.107 9.1 LOS A 0.3 2.4 0.61 0.91 0.61 38.88 T1 7 0.0 0.107 28.3 LOS D 0.3 2.4 0.61 0.91 0.61 22.89 R2 6 0.0 0.107 35.6 LOS E 0.3 2.4 0.61 0.91 0.61 38.8Approach 25 0.0 0.107 21.3 LOS C 0.3 2.4 0.61 0.91 0.61 35.7

West: National Road N210 L2 1 0.0 0.117 5.6 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 57.511 T1 451 0.0 0.117 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 60.012 R2 29 0.0 0.030 7.1 LOS A 0.1 0.8 0.42 0.62 0.42 46.8Approach 481 0.0 0.117 0.5 NA 0.1 0.8 0.03 0.04 0.03 59.4

All Vehicles 1032 0.0 0.523 4.6 NA 2.8 19.3 0.11 0.20 0.16 55.1

Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay (SIDRA). Site LOS Method is specified in the Parameter Settings dialog (Site tab).Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay per movement.Minor Road Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all vehicle movements.NA: Intersection LOS and Major Road Approach LOS values are Not Applicable for two-way sign control since the average delayis not a good LOS measure due to zero delays associated with major road movements.SIDRA Standard Delay Model is used. Control Delay includes Geometric Delay.Gap-Acceptance Capacity: SIDRA Standard (Akçelik M3D).HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation.

SIDRA INTERSECTION 8.0 | Copyright © 2000-2019 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.comOrganisation: ENGINEERING ADVICE & SERVICES | Processed: Monday, 20 May 2019 3:02:00 PMProject: F:\1600-1699\1666\Design\SIDRA\[01] 2020 Before Development.sip8

MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: 01 [01 PM ND]



ID Turn Deg.

SatnAverage


Prop. Queued

Effective Stop Rate

Aver. No.Cycles


veh/h % v/c sec veh m km/hSouth: Egret Road1 L2 72 0.0 0.449 13.5 LOS B 2.1 14.9 0.56 0.99 0.85 34.02 T1 14 0.0 0.449 41.6 LOS E 2.1 14.9 0.56 0.99 0.85 20.53 R2 29 0.0 0.449 50.5 LOS F 2.1 14.9 0.56 0.99 0.85 34.0Approach 115 0.0 0.449 26.4 LOS D 2.1 14.9 0.56 0.99 0.85 32.9


North: Egret Road7 L2 13 0.0 0.228 10.1 LOS B 0.7 5.2 0.72 0.94 0.77 34.38 T1 22 0.0 0.228 38.0 LOS E 0.7 5.2 0.72 0.94 0.77 18.89 R2 4 0.0 0.228 43.6 LOS E 0.7 5.2 0.72 0.94 0.77 34.4Approach 39 0.0 0.228 29.5 LOS D 0.7 5.2 0.72 0.94 0.77 27.2


All Vehicles 1157 0.0 0.449 4.8 NA 2.1 14.9 0.12 0.24 0.15 54.5






ID Turn Deg.

SatnAverage


Prop. Queued

Effective Stop Rate

Aver. No.Cycles


veh/h % v/c sec veh m km/hSouth: Makou Street1 L2 5 0.0 0.032 5.6 LOS A 0.0 0.3 0.03 0.10 0.03 54.72 T1 51 0.0 0.032 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.3 0.03 0.10 0.03 57.23 R2 5 0.0 0.032 5.6 LOS A 0.0 0.3 0.03 0.10 0.03 53.3Approach 61 0.0 0.032 1.0 NA 0.0 0.3 0.03 0.10 0.03 56.5

East: Egret Road4 L2 4 0.0 0.114 8.1 LOS A 0.4 2.9 0.22 0.93 0.22 44.65 T1 46 0.0 0.114 8.2 LOS A 0.4 2.9 0.22 0.93 0.22 40.66 R2 60 0.0 0.114 8.3 LOS A 0.4 2.9 0.22 0.93 0.22 23.8Approach 111 0.0 0.114 8.3 LOS A 0.4 2.9 0.22 0.93 0.22 31.0

North: Egret Road7 L2 23 0.0 0.032 4.8 LOS A 0.1 0.5 0.07 0.31 0.07 45.68 T1 26 0.0 0.032 0.1 LOS A 0.1 0.5 0.07 0.31 0.07 53.19 R2 11 0.0 0.032 4.8 LOS A 0.1 0.5 0.07 0.31 0.07 44.7Approach 60 0.0 0.032 2.7 NA 0.1 0.5 0.07 0.31 0.07 49.2

West: Pelican Lane10 L2 19 0.0 0.042 8.2 LOS A 0.2 1.1 0.16 0.94 0.16 31.411 T1 24 0.0 0.042 8.2 LOS A 0.2 1.1 0.16 0.94 0.16 40.712 R2 5 0.0 0.042 8.3 LOS A 0.2 1.1 0.16 0.94 0.16 44.2Approach 48 0.0 0.042 8.2 LOS A 0.2 1.1 0.16 0.94 0.16 37.7

All Vehicles 280 0.0 0.114 5.5 NA 0.4 2.9 0.14 0.62 0.14 40.0






ID Turn Deg.

SatnAverage


Prop. Queued

Effective Stop Rate

Aver. No.Cycles






All Vehicles 407 0.0 0.098 4.7 NA 0.3 2.3 0.14 0.51 0.14 44.0






ID Turn Deg.

SatnAverage


Prop. Queued

Effective Stop Rate

Aver. No.Cycles


veh/h % v/c sec veh m km/hSouth: Egret Road1 L2 1 0.0 0.010 5.6 LOS A 0.0 0.1 0.04 0.09 0.04 54.42 T1 17 0.0 0.010 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.1 0.04 0.09 0.04 57.63 R2 2 0.0 0.010 5.6 LOS A 0.0 0.1 0.04 0.09 0.04 55.8Approach 20 0.0 0.010 0.9 NA 0.0 0.1 0.04 0.09 0.04 57.1

East: Fraser Street4 L2 2 0.0 0.102 8.1 LOS A 0.4 2.5 0.14 0.92 0.14 49.85 T1 6 0.0 0.102 7.9 LOS A 0.4 2.5 0.14 0.92 0.14 48.96 R2 93 0.0 0.102 7.8 LOS A 0.4 2.5 0.14 0.92 0.14 48.2Approach 101 0.0 0.102 7.8 LOS A 0.4 2.5 0.14 0.92 0.14 48.2


West: Kokkewiet Street10 L2 1 0.0 0.003 8.1 LOS A 0.0 0.1 0.08 0.96 0.08 41.911 T1 1 0.0 0.003 8.0 LOS A 0.0 0.1 0.08 0.96 0.08 48.712 R2 1 0.0 0.003 7.6 LOS A 0.0 0.1 0.08 0.96 0.08 43.5Approach 3 0.0 0.003 7.9 LOS A 0.0 0.1 0.08 0.96 0.08 45.3

All Vehicles 179 0.0 0.102 6.0 NA 0.4 2.5 0.08 0.70 0.08 49.8






ID Turn Deg.

SatnAverage


Prop. Queued

Effective Stop Rate

Aver. No.Cycles






All Vehicles 211 0.0 0.070 5.6 NA 0.2 1.7 0.07 0.61 0.07 50.3



ANNEXURE E SIDRA

OUTPUT SHEETS 2020

After Development

MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: 01 [01 AM AD]

Traffic Impact Assessment for the Proposed GroupHousing Development, Sedgefield2020 After DevelopmentSite Category: (None)Stop (Two-Way)


ID Turn Deg.

SatnAverage


Prop. Queued

Effective Stop Rate

Aver. No.Cycles


veh/h % v/c sec veh m km/hSouth: Egret Road1 L2 98 0.0 0.710 22.9 LOS C 5.1 36.0 0.61 1.18 1.43 29.12 T1 16 0.0 0.710 47.7 LOS E 5.1 36.0 0.61 1.18 1.43 16.33 R2 71 0.0 0.710 54.1 LOS F 5.1 36.0 0.61 1.18 1.43 29.1Approach 184 0.0 0.710 37.0 LOS E 5.1 36.0 0.61 1.18 1.43 28.3


North: Egret Road7 L2 12 0.0 0.119 9.1 LOS A 0.4 2.6 0.64 0.91 0.64 38.18 T1 8 0.0 0.119 29.0 LOS D 0.4 2.6 0.64 0.91 0.64 22.29 R2 6 0.0 0.119 38.4 LOS E 0.4 2.6 0.64 0.91 0.64 38.1Approach 26 0.0 0.119 22.5 LOS C 0.4 2.6 0.64 0.91 0.64 34.6


All Vehicles 1094 0.0 0.710 7.3 NA 5.1 36.0 0.14 0.27 0.27 52.6


SIDRA INTERSECTION 8.0 | Copyright © 2000-2019 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.comOrganisation: ENGINEERING ADVICE & SERVICES | Processed: Monday, 20 May 2019 3:33:44 PMProject: F:\1600-1699\1666\Design\SIDRA\[02] 2020 After Development.sip8

MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: 01 [01 PM AD]



ID Turn Deg.

SatnAverage


Prop. Queued

Effective Stop Rate

Aver. No.Cycles


veh/h % v/c sec veh m km/hSouth: Egret Road1 L2 81 0.0 0.576 19.2 LOS C 3.2 22.7 0.58 1.06 1.08 30.22 T1 15 0.0 0.576 50.6 LOS F 3.2 22.7 0.58 1.06 1.08 17.23 R2 37 0.0 0.576 61.1 LOS F 3.2 22.7 0.58 1.06 1.08 30.2Approach 133 0.0 0.576 34.3 LOS D 3.2 22.7 0.58 1.06 1.08 29.1


North: Egret Road7 L2 13 0.0 0.275 11.6 LOS B 0.9 6.5 0.76 0.96 0.86 32.38 T1 25 0.0 0.275 42.7 LOS E 0.9 6.5 0.76 0.96 0.86 17.19 R2 4 0.0 0.275 48.7 LOS E 0.9 6.5 0.76 0.96 0.86 32.4Approach 42 0.0 0.275 34.0 LOS D 0.9 6.5 0.76 0.96 0.86 24.8


All Vehicles 1218 0.0 0.576 6.3 NA 3.2 22.7 0.14 0.28 0.20 52.9






ID Turn Deg.

SatnAverage


Prop. Queued

Effective Stop Rate

Aver. No.Cycles






All Vehicles 372 0.0 0.189 6.1 NA 0.7 5.2 0.16 0.68 0.16 37.6






ID Turn Deg.

SatnAverage


Prop. Queued

Effective Stop Rate

Aver. No.Cycles






All Vehicles 499 0.0 0.125 5.3 NA 0.5 3.2 0.16 0.56 0.16 42.4






ID Turn Deg.

SatnAverage


Prop. Queued

Effective Stop Rate

Aver. No.Cycles






All Vehicles 271 0.0 0.175 6.5 NA 0.7 4.6 0.11 0.74 0.11 49.4






ID Turn Deg.

SatnAverage


Prop. Queued

Effective Stop Rate

Aver. No.Cycles






All Vehicles 302 0.0 0.103 5.9 NA 0.4 2.5 0.08 0.63 0.08 50.1



ANNEXURE F SIDRA

OUTPUT SHEETS 2025

After Development




ID Turn Deg.

SatnAverage


Prop. Queued

Effective Stop Rate

Aver. No.Cycles


veh/h % v/c sec veh m km/hSouth: Egret Road1 L2 109 0.0 1.070 92.4 LOS F 16.5 115.6 1.00 1.80 3.80 13.62 T1 18 0.0 1.070 136.9 LOS F 16.5 115.6 1.00 1.80 3.80 6.23 R2 80 0.0 1.070 150.1 LOS F 16.5 115.6 1.00 1.80 3.80 13.6Approach 207 0.0 1.070 118.5 LOS F 16.5 115.6 1.00 1.80 3.80 13.1


North: Egret Road7 L2 14 0.0 0.185 9.4 LOS A 0.6 3.9 0.73 0.92 0.73 34.88 T1 9 0.0 0.185 37.5 LOS E 0.6 3.9 0.73 0.92 0.73 19.29 R2 7 0.0 0.185 52.5 LOS F 0.6 3.9 0.73 0.92 0.73 34.9Approach 31 0.0 0.185 28.5 LOS D 0.6 3.9 0.73 0.92 0.73 31.4


All Vehicles 1259 0.0 1.070 20.7 NA 16.5 115.6 0.20 0.37 0.66 43.0






ID Turn Deg.

SatnAverage


Prop. Queued

Effective Stop Rate

Aver. No.Cycles


veh/h % v/c sec veh m km/hSouth: Egret Road1 L2 93 0.0 0.922 67.1 LOS F 8.7 61.0 0.70 1.49 2.45 16.82 T1 18 0.0 0.922 114.0 LOS F 8.7 61.0 0.70 1.49 2.45 8.03 R2 41 0.0 0.922 132.0 LOS F 8.7 61.0 0.70 1.49 2.45 16.8Approach 152 0.0 0.922 90.2 LOS F 8.7 61.0 0.70 1.49 2.45 15.9


North: Egret Road7 L2 15 0.0 0.455 21.2 LOS C 1.6 11.4 0.85 1.03 1.13 25.38 T1 28 0.0 0.455 67.6 LOS F 1.6 11.4 0.85 1.03 1.13 12.19 R2 5 0.0 0.455 78.3 LOS F 1.6 11.4 0.85 1.03 1.13 25.3Approach 48 0.0 0.455 54.6 LOS F 1.6 11.4 0.85 1.03 1.13 18.5


All Vehicles 1403 0.0 0.922 13.0 NA 8.7 61.0 0.16 0.33 0.36 47.5






ID Turn Deg.

SatnAverage


Prop. Queued

Effective Stop Rate

Aver. No.Cycles






All Vehicles 416 0.0 0.213 6.1 NA 0.8 5.9 0.18 0.67 0.18 37.8






ID Turn Deg.

SatnAverage


Prop. Queued

Effective Stop Rate

Aver. No.Cycles



East: Egret Road4 L2 3 0.0 0.146 8.4 LOS A 0.5 3.7 0.40 0.94 0.40 43.55 T1 52 0.0 0.146 9.2 LOS A 0.5 3.7 0.40 0.94 0.40 39.46 R2 58 0.0 0.146 10.1 LOS B 0.5 3.7 0.40 0.94 0.40 23.2Approach 113 0.0 0.146 9.6 LOS A 0.5 3.7 0.40 0.94 0.40 30.6



All Vehicles 563 0.0 0.146 5.3 NA 0.5 3.7 0.18 0.55 0.18 42.5






ID Turn Deg.

SatnAverage


Prop. Queued

Effective Stop Rate

Aver. No.Cycles






All Vehicles 298 0.0 0.192 6.5 NA 0.7 5.2 0.12 0.72 0.12 49.5






ID Turn Deg.

SatnAverage


Prop. Queued

Effective Stop Rate

Aver. No.Cycles






All Vehicles 335 0.0 0.117 5.9 NA 0.4 2.9 0.09 0.63 0.09 50.1

