Duslkroon Waverenskroon comments

<body topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 marginheight=0 marginwidth=0> <table cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 border=0 height="100%"><tr> <td valign="top" width=30 BGCOLOR="#0066CC" TEXT="#080000"> <bR> </td> <td valign="top" width="100%" style=" border-left: 1px solid #3366CC;" BGCOLOR="#000066" TEXT="#F7F7FF"> <div> <B>Tulbagh Info Information</B></div> <div> Duslkroon Waverenskroon comments </div> <div> <TABLE BORDER="0" CELLPADDING="1" CELLSPACING="1" WIDTH="120" BORDERCOLORLIGHT="#C0C0C0" BORDERCOLORDARK="#808080" FRAME="BOX" RULES="ALL" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" > <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER BGCOLOR=#0099CC HEIGHT= 15 ><NOBR><div> <A HREF="local_news.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Tulbagh News Page 2"><U>Back to Local News</U></A></div> </NOBR></tD> </tR> </TABLE></div> <bR> <div> <B>Previous correspondence - if any - follows after in sequence below.</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>TRIF, the Tulbagh branch of the DA  and other interested and affected parties, lodge comments in respect of the proposed Waverenskoon and Dulskroon developments which are the subject of an EIA application.</B></div> <bR> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div> John A Veschini </div> <div> P O Box 10, Tulbagh, 6820 - Tel. 023 2302172 - Fax. 086 6659232 - Cell : 082 6538229 </div> <div>  Email <A HREF="mailto:rockyvalley@telkomsa.net" TARGET="_top" TITLE="mailto:rockyvalley@telkomsa.net"><U>rockyvalley@telkomsa.net</U></A> </div> <bR> <bR> <div> 27 October, 2010</div> <bR> <div> Resource Management Services</div> <div> P O 4296, </div> <div> Durbanville,</div> <div> 7551</div> <bR> <div> By email</div> <bR> <div> Attention Larry Eichstadt/Karin Neethling</div> <bR> <div> <B>Comments in respect of the proposed Waverenskroon Country Estate (DEADP Ref : E12/2/3/2-B5/13-0376/07) and Dalskroon Seniors Village (DEADP Ref : E12/2/3/2-b5/13-0375/07.</B></div> <bR> <div> I am in receipt of the response by Town Planner for the Applicants to my letter of comment submitted on 13 April, 2010 which is dated 9 July, 2010 and I wish to respond accordingly.</div> <bR> <div> This letter may be accepted as being on behalf of The Tulbagh Branch of the Democratic Party, The Tulbagh Ratepayers and Inwoners Forum (TRIF) - (as Chairperson as both) and in my capacity as the managing member of Erf 1365 owned by V&F Prohase cc, R Guidotti and M Fredericks (Owners of Erf 2455 and J A Veschini - (self).</div> <bR> <div> To obviate the necessity of cross referencing various letters and or comments, I have copy hereunder the response to my letter of 13 April, 2010 as submitted to you on 9 July, 2010 by Anton Lotz Town Planner, with any comments  I am making being added to his in <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#0099CC" FACE="Arial" ><B>Blue Bold type.</B></FONT></div> <bR> <bR> <div> <IMG SRC="fe047580.png" border=0 width="327" height="88" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></div> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div> addressStreetP O Box 51799  Waterfront  8002</div> <div> Phone + 27 (0)21 465 3555</div> <div> Fax + 27 (0)21 465 3550</div> <div> Cell + 27 (0)83 4877 869</div> <div> email: alotz@iafrica.com</div> <bR> <div> 09 July 2010</div> <bR> <div> Resource Management Services</div> <div> addressStreetP O Box 4296</div> <div> Durbanville</div> <div> 7551</div> <bR> <div> <B>Attention: Mr. Larry Eichstadt</B></div> <bR> <div> Dear Sir</div> <bR> <div> <B>Comments in respect of the proposed Waverenskroon Country Estate (DEADP Ref: E12/2/3/2-B5/13-0376/07) and placePlaceNameDalskroon PlaceNameSeniors PlaceTypeVillage (DEADP Ref: E12/2/3/2-B5/13-0375/07). Mr John Veschini </B></div> <bR> <div> With reference to the letter of comment submitted by Mr. John A Veschini dated 13 April 2010 we provide the following planning response:</div> <bR> <div> <B>1.0     Introduction </B></div> <bR> <div> By way of an introduction to the response we would like to mention some important considerations that played a role in the applications that have been lodged:</div> <bR> <div> 1.1     The development companies L'eritage Nouveau Development Company (Pty) Ltd and Dalskroon Development Company (Pty) Ltd (from hereon referred to as `the Applicant/s'), form part of one of the largest independent property developers in the Western Cape with a proven track record across South Africa for the successful implementation of development projects.</div> <div> 1.2     The Applicants considered the merits of investing in Tulbagh over five years ago and still believe that the town has huge potential for growth due to its proximity to placeCityCape Town and its unique characteristics, setting it apart from other towns. They are not in the property game to make quick money by applying for rezoning for the sake of rezoning as many other land-owners or prospectors do, but rather to leave a legacy and develop a long-term relationship with the town, its people and the region. </div> <div> 1.3     Tulbagh is virtually the only town within 1,5 hours' drive from placeCityCape Town that has not experienced growth in the last 30 years.  There has been no development or sustainable economic growth in Tulbagh for a very long time primarily due to the shortage of water and infrastructure constraints as outlined in the Draft EIR.  The Applicant has nevertheless persisted in trying to resolve the infrastructural dilemmas for the sake of Tulbagh with massive delays and cost implications to the projects.  </div> <div>  1.4     Tulbagh desperately needs major investment in order to catalyze any hope for long-term socio-economic growth. In this regard we refer to Prof. Bloom's Socio Economic Assessment (SEA) report where he refers to the <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#FFFFFF" FACE="PalatinoLinotype" >study of the Growth Potential of Towns in the Western Cape (University of Stellenbosch, 2004): </FONT>“<I>Tulbagh could be classified as </I><I><U>a town with social investment,</U></I><I> which implies a high human need and slightly lower than average development potential when compared to the other towns included in the assessment. Social investment implies the allocation of capital to advance people's social and economic wellbeing (Mersham, Rensburg & Skinner, 1995). The high human need is well above average and it is more than two standard deviations from the mean of the human need for all towns included in the study. A further breakdown of the key position variables suggests that Tulbagh is placed 54 for composite infrastructure, 42 for economic activities, 62 for development potential and 99 in terms of composite human needs relative to the other towns included in the assessment. The higher the score on a scale of 1 to 131, the worse the situation.”</I>     </div> <div> 1.5     The Applicants have been diligent with all aspects relating to the environmental and planning processes due to the uniqueness of Tulbagh.  This approach and the desire to plan a sustainable development that will add the most value to Tulbagh should be evident to any IAP. The Applicants have committed themselves to ensuring that the proposed developments become “best practice” examples for future development in placecountry-regionSouth Africa and have in this regard implemented all inputs received from the various specialist consultants throughout the environmental process. </div> <div> 1.6     Since acquiring the properties and initiating the proposed projects the general response and feedback from community members and businesses of Tulbagh have been very positive. We refer to the SEA reports in this regard and in particular to the “recommendation and mitigation measures” section which states: </div> <div>      <I>The changes that could result from the proposed Waverenskroon development are welcomed in the light of job creation for local residents and scant attention is given by specifically the low-income communities to issues such as sense of place. Local government also welcome the proposed project based on its potential to uplift the social well-being of the ailing communities in Tulbagh and the contribution of the development to skills and construction activity. In particular, the potential for new employment opportunities and socio-economic upliftment opportunities related to the proposed project make the Waverenskroon development attractive to stakeholders. It is essential for the Tulbagh communities to see economic imperatives of the project being balanced with social values and social benefit that may accrue to the surrounding disadvantaged communities. The proposed development has the potential to create employment and offer skills transfer opportunities to communities in the area of Tulbagh.”</I></div> <bR> <div> <B>I accept the bona-fides of the developer as well as his reasoning and viewpoint in terms of the introduction (1.0) above.</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>2.0     Comments and Responses</B></div> <bR> <div> <U>Comment:</U></div> <bR> <div> <I>Both developments are zoned Agriculture I and therefore cannot be approved in terms of the Subdivision Of Agricultural Land Act 1970, Act 70 of 1970 and therefore, the applications are irrelevant and should not be the subject of an EIA Application to subdivide and develop as a residential township.</I></div> <bR> <div> <U>Response:</U></div> <bR> <div> It is correct that both properties are zoned Agriculture Zone I in terms of the Land Use Planning Ordinance (LUPO) Section 8 Zoning Scheme, but in terms of the environmental and planning legislation in the Western Cape, an EIA process needs to be undertaken for most large-scale projects before a decision can be made on the land use application.</div> <bR> <div> In the case of the proposed Waverenskroon and Dalskroon projects the EIA applications have preceded the preparation and submission of the land use applications in order for the public participation and environmental studies to inform the final proposal to be submitted for consideration.  The land use application will include an application for Subdivision of Agricultural Land in terms of Act 70 of 1970, Amendment of the Urban Edge as approved in the Witzenberg Spatial Development Framework (WSDF) as well as rezoning, subdivision, consent and departures in terms of the relevant sections of LUPO.  </div> <bR> <div> The final decision on subdivision of the land out of agricultural use will be provided by both the regional and national Departments of Agriculture and will inform the Municipality's decision on the LUPO application. The agriculture decision will be informed by the Municipal forward planning for the sites, the agricultural water availability, soil quality and the feasibility of the agricultural units as set out in the Agricultural assessments.  The Agricultural assessment found that the majority of Portion 18 of the Farm Kruisvallei is of medium to medium-low agricultural potential and that Portion 29 is not viable as an agricultural entity. </div> <bR> <div> <B>Explanation accepted without further comment deemed necessary.</B></div> <bR> <div> <U>Comment:</U></div> <bR> <div> <I>Both developments fall outside of the Urban Edge and even if they were approved by the Department of Agriculture contrary to the provisions of the above act, they appear not to conform with the WSDF (2006) plan of the placePlaceNameWitzenberg PlaceTypeMunicipality dated 25 January 2006 in many respects.</I></div> <bR> <div> <I>The (WSDF) plan proposes that Portion 29 of Farm No. 187 (where it is intended to locate the Dulstroom development) be earmarked for Small Scale Farming. It has been and still is my interpretation that the Planners in their wisdom when compiling this plan, were thinking along the lines of creating an agricultural green belt from the South West to North West of Church Street and continuing on the northern boundary of the town of Tulbagh to `soften' the effects of Urban sprawl.  It was and still remains my understanding that it was the intention of the Planners in their wisdom, to limit the density of any development against at the urban edge to encourage this `softening transition' between urban sprawl and future developments and thus recognize the need for a low density agricultural `green belt and to encourage high quality and integrated urban environments. </I></div> <bR> <div> <I>Thus a high density development on 29 of farm 187 (Dulstroom) will compromise the natural and cultural landscape that was intended to be promoted and affect the sense of space enjoyed by the residents of the northern edge of town. I note that the WSPD allows for a density of as little as 5 units per ha, whereas the Dulstroom Seniors development allows for a density of as high as 14 units per hectare (excluding `other ancillary structures). </I></div> <bR> <div> <U>Response:</U></div> <bR> <div> The Witzenberg Spatial Development Framework (approved in January 2006) shows the whole of the Dalskroon site and the majority of the Waverenskroon site to form part of the future growth area of Tulbagh.  These areas were initially included in the urban edge, but due to water supply and infrastructure issues, the areas were excluded from the SDF urban area approved by the Council with the understanding that development proposals would be considered on a project-by-project basis.  The WSDF states that the areas adjacent to the van der Stel and Steinthal axes should be planned and rezoned for middle-high income private sector development (P34). These proposed projects are therefore in line with the development concepts envisaged for Tulbagh.</div> <bR> <div> The principle of development in this location is supported as indicated in a letter from the Municipality dated 19 December 2008 subject to service capacity and formal application processes as it is in line with the Tulbagh's proposed future growth area in the WSDF. The LUPO application will include an amendment of the urban edge and the Municipality does have the delegated authority to amend the urban edge in terms of the guidelines of the statutory Provincial Spatial Development Framework (2009) and the powers and functions of the Municipal Sphere of Government.  </div> <bR> <div> The WSDF states that: `<I>Tulbagh has limited opportunities to build out its character.  Therefore, the few opportunities that exist should be used to achieve the ideal opportunities.  To this end, the sandy soils in the riverine area to the north of the town should be used, as they offer the opportunity of establishing this character, while simultaneously establishing a link between addressStreetChurch Street and Steinthal, other than the activity link through the town.  More than 80 ha of land are available for development along the northern limits of the town, at densities ranging from 15 - 35 units per gross hectare, thus allowing for high density public and private housing development, to round off the development at the Obiqua Correctional Facility (P35)'</I>.  On Farm 187/29 and the adjacent landholdings the WSDF does propose small-scale agriculture integrated with residential development up to a maximum of 5du/ha.</div> <bR> <div> However, the WSDF proposals for small-scale farming clearly did not take into consideration the viability of these land units for such farming in terms of soil quality, water availability and cost of land. The WSDF also did not taken into account the ecology of the river system. A Freshwater Ecology study was undertaken and the specialist recommended that the river corridor within the floodlines should be rehabilitated to ensure the protection of the river rather than be used for agriculture.  There is an opportunity to create small-scale BEE farming opportunities as part of the combined Waverenskroon and Dalskroon developments as these are substantial enough in scale to provide capital for the initiation of such projects and assistance with sound business planning.  The use of the entire Farm 187/29 for small scale farming and the sustainability of such initiative <U>is in doubt</U> and therefore the proposal is to develop the land outside of the river floodlines to allow a more compact urban footprint while allowing the rehabilitation and greening of the river corridor within the floodlines to create the softening of the urban area.  Some areas outside of the river corridors will be set aside for small-scale farming opportunities, while BEE farming initiatives such as the winery will also be initiated as part of the Waverenskroon land holdings.   </div> <bR> <div> The findings of the Freshwater Ecology Assessment have informed the LUPO motivation for an amendment of the WSDF.</div> <bR> <div> The Heritage, Visual and Socio Economic reports does not support the view that the developments will compromise the natural and cultural landscapes. <I>The Visual Impact Assessment's findings in this regard were inter-alias:</I></div> <div> <I>-    “</I>T<FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#EEEEEE" FACE="Arial" >his report finds that the proposed development has a moderate to high visual and aesthetic impact of medium significance over 500m only which can be further mitigated as per the recommendations.” </FONT></div> <div> <I>“Dalskroon respects the traditional settlement pattern based on the grid and village style development in rural context.”</I></div> <div> <I>“Dalskroon's layout is in keeping with the streetscape and scale of Tulbagh. It is consistent with the traditional town planning and rural character of the area slotting in well with its location on the NE corner of town. Thus it makes a useful contribution to Tulbagh while being sensitive to heritage resources”</I>.</div> <bR> <div> <I>The </I>HIA's<I> findings on Waverenskroon were inter alias:</I></div> <div> <I>“the layout and draft development guidelines for Waverenskroon would ensure that the proposed urban development would make a positive response to the rural setting in terms of the siting, massing, scale, proportion and form of buildings and infrastructure on the property”. </I></div> <div> <I>“The orthogonal/grid pattern is an appropriate response to the site and setting and is one rooted in the historical development of the placeCape. The large sites along the boundary are orthogonally related to the boundary and would reinforce the historic subdivision line.”</I></div> <div> <I>“In addition, the strong link of the development area to the community of Tulbagh is an important feature in the creation of the sense of place experienced by the residents. The residents of Tulbagh did not express concerns over the size of the development, which represents 781 units, but rather the capacity of the current infrastructure to serve the development. The research suggests that as long as the Waverenskroon development considers the issues highlighted by residents, the sense of place will not be compromised, but rather add to the experience and quality of life of local residents and create additional tourism supply. The challenges of creating employment through development appear to supersede any issue related to the sense of place and that sense of community is more important to maintain and improve the social fabric.”</I></div> <bR> <div> <B>Explanation accepted without further comment deemed necessary other than to suggest that the Witzenberg Municipality commences with a process of planning a revised SDFP with appropriate community participative consultation and to extend the `Urban Edge' to accommodate these and other much needed developments immediately.</B></div> <bR> <div> <U>Comment:</U></div> <bR> <div> <I>The developments do not appear to allow for integration of the community, facilities and infrastructure of the town, neither do they create an opportunity to strengthen development along the Steinthal Road activity route/corridor (which in my interpretation, was the intention of the planners when the SDF was compiled). In fact and in total contrast to these ideals, the developer is intending to `face' the entire development northwards, without tangible integration of the community, facilities or infrastructure of the town, as the proposal is apparently designed to create a `gated buffer' between the development and the town - Apartheid style? The only `link' that is proposed, is a mere `pedestrian bridge' and no further access points are planned for on the southern part of the development and to the northern extremities of the town. As a consequence, neither the community will have ease of access (to and from work) - unless they walk. There is no quick and cost effective access for taxis, bus transport, or the for the Municipality to collect refuse and attend to water, electricity, sewerage and stormwater problems, the Police to attend to call-outs, the ambulance to collect patients, or the fire service to fight fires, unless they take the long route to the main entrance? This would involve extra costs as well as delays. Thus a revised traffic plan will have to be submitted which will show the road network, including transport routes linking from Tulbagh and traversing the development.</I></div> <bR> <div> <U>Response:</U></div> <bR> <div> The proposed Dalskroon development is a retirement village, which will by definition offer private facilities and security to its residents. Free movement by the non-residents of the retirement development through the development will not be desirable.  Security and access control is an essential component of the development<FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#FF0000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT>Research has shown that access control and visible security in market driven developments of this nature are key and fundamental to the success of these developments.  If no security exists the residents are likely to erect their own walls with electric fencing, having a negative impact on the aesthetics and overall look of the development.</div> <bR> <div> Waverenskroon is a lifestyle development that will be unique to Witzenberg and the placeStateWestern Cape. The same principles of security, safety and private facilities apply to this development as to Dalskroon. The development will offer unique facilities to its residents and these must be protected as they are private assets.  Access control and perimeter security will have to be implemented and as reflected in the visual impact assessment this should take the form of palisade fencing.</div> <div>   </div> <div> The SEA's findings on this matter were: </div> <div> <I>”residents did not express concern about a security barrier surrounding the proposed Waverenskroon development as they realise that the development will need to be subject to normal security measures” (Patty Nieuwoudt, Mr. J Theron). </I></div> <div> <I>“Residents and stakeholders would approve non-solid fencing” (Izaan Skipper, McIvan Beukes). </I></div> <div> <I>“Residents in the less formal areas perceive the development to be exclusive. However, they regard the potential jobs that a development such as Waverenskroon could create in the Tulbagh area as more important.”</I></div> <bR> <div> The project team considered a number of access alternatives for the development, including the possibility of access from the south through the extension of existing roads in Tulbagh. It was found that the width of addressStreetLoop Street, addressStreetWitzenberg Street and addressStreetTheron Street was insufficient to serve as major access roads to the Waverenskroon development. Jacaranda Street in Witzenville has a wide enough reserve width, but the extension of this road would either necessitate the expropriation of private property to provide a straight road, or alternatively the road will follow a dog-leg route via the existing cul de sac to Waverenskroon. addressStreetKaree Street also has a wide enough reserve, but the extension of this road may also require expropriation.</div> <div> In the Traffic Impact Assessment the traffic engineer has confirmed that all traffic can be handled by a single access from addressStreetMain Road 313/Van der Stel Street with an emergency access being provided by the existing addressStreetKruysvallei Road which exits at the Obiqua Prison.  A road link from the Steinthal road or the existing town would not be required to create more traffic capacity.  It was thus confirmed that improvement of the existing access and the creation of new access points onto Main Road 313 and distribution of the traffic via Van der Stel/Tulbagh Main Road would be the most efficient and cost-effective traffic management option.</div> <bR> <div> The crossing of the placePlaceNameMalkops PlaceTypeRiver and linking into the existing residential road system would require costly new infrastructure and the upgrading of a number of streets.  At the public open day some of the participants indicated that there would be considerable resistance from the community to bringing additional traffic through the existing residential areas. Both DWAF and the freshwater consultant in letters provided as part of the EIA process indicated that they do not support a bridge over the Malkops unless it is completely necessary. </div> <bR> <div> Integration must be seen in context of the socio and economic growth opportunities that could be generated because of the developments to the entire region rather than physical integration only.  There are numerous meaningful ways for the proposed development to contribute to Tulbagh's social integration as highlighted in the social and economic assessments rather than physical integration through roads and bridges.  </div> <bR> <div> The merits of a road bridge need to be examined to determine whether it will ultimately serve a purpose to integrate and “get people to work”.  A light weight widespan pedestrian bridge over the placePlaceNameMalkops PlaceTypeRiver could be adequate to address any public access issues. In this case some form of access control will be implemented.  As part of the proposed development the rehabilitation of the stream will take place which will improve its quality and turn it into a landscaped open space with recreational opportunities and will provide the visual relief and strengthening of the natural and cultural environments that are referred to in the comment.</div> <bR> <div> The link from addressStreetChurch Street and the strengthening of the van der Stel's street corridor would hold long term benefits for Tulbagh as it is underutilized as a tourism resource along a major scenic route. The drive to the North along the main road is probably one of the most picturesque in the StateWestern Cape and a great asset to the town of placeCityTulbagh from many perspectives. The upgrading of Van der Stel Street/ Main Road 313, the creation of pedestrian and bicycle links and a possible public transport route to the development and to the Winterhoek farms will add value with long term benefits for the community which could hold more benefit for the creation and strengthening of the Steinthal activity corridor than what a physical link will hold in the short term.</div> <bR> <div> The upgrading of the addressStreetvan der Stel/Main Road 313 tourism route will be a more sustainable, cost-effective and beneficial way of creating integration between the existing town and the proposed developments than creating a road link over the placePlaceNameMalkops PlaceTypeRiver.</div> <bR> <div> The applicants are of the opinion that these two projects will have a substantial combined impact that will ensure the long-term socio-economic growth of the town, but the unique concepts require security and access management as one of the key success factors.</div> <bR> <div> <B>Explanation accepted. I am more especially satisfied with the intention of the Developer to upgrade addressStreetVan der Stel/Main Road 313 to compliment his development. </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>I have further concluded with due investigation, that the distances involved for Municipal refuse collection vehicles, Fire fighting vehicles, Police etc. to access the development without the need for a bridge over the Malkops river, are only fractionally different to what we have at present (within the confines of the current Tulbagh Municipal area).</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>The following approximate distances were measured to a point central to the area;</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>Waverenskroon to Tulbagh Police Station                 = 2km</B></div> <div> <B>Chris Hani to Police Station                                           = 1.4km</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>Waverenskroon to Municipal service yard                   = 1.8km</B></div> <div> <B>Chris Hani to Municipal service yard                           = 1.5km</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>Therefore it is my considered opinion that due to the limited differences in distances involved the cost pertaining to the extra kilometers that Municipal, police or other service vehicles would have to travel to service the subject developments, would be offset by the additional revenue that the Municipality would derive by way of additional income from additional consumers and ratepayers. </B></div> <bR> <bR> <div> <U>Comment:</U></div> <bR> <div> <I>The `Servitude across Erf 1365 (now subdivided into two to include Erf 2455), that the document refers to as being available for emergency services, farm tractors etc. (and probable refuse removal, ambulance, fire fighting services, crime fighting, taxis, busses, construction or other vehicles and SAPS patrols and responses), does not exist. This is a misrepresentation of the facts.  The current servitude is there but does not extend over the full extent of the property as is suggested and is as such is a servitude to nowhere. </I></div> <bR> <div> <I>The developer is aware of this and has not been willing to accept a prior agreement between the previous owners of his land and the original owner of Erf 1365 to legitimize an alternative servitude on the north of Erf 1365 which would have given such access. Moreover, it is doubtful that the present owners will now agree to the servitude being used for anything other than normal farm use traffic to portion 29 of the farm 187 - as was clearly the intention when it originally formed and was to be used to serve the single portion with a farming enterprise on that property - unless it can be seen that other more appropriate access will be provided between the town and the developments.</I></div> <bR> <div> <U>Response:</U></div> <bR> <div> The access servitude does exist and the servitude diagram at the scale it is depicted does not clearly indicate this. The existence of the servitude is also described in the title deed (available on request). This could be used as a secondary access to the Dalskroon land unit, but will not be used as a primary access as it is limited to 5m in width.  The current owners cannot be held to an agreement with a previous owner to which they were not party to.</div> <bR> <div> <B>Whilst I stand by my comment above, that the servitude does not extend over the entire property (the consultant may verify this by scrutinising at the approved surveyor's diagram for Erf 1365 and Erf 2455, or the original prior to subdivision) and it is my opinion that the consultant has erred in his response above, I believe that this matter can be satisfactorily resolved between the parties in due course. Therefore, I do not believe that this matter need stand in the way of approval of the development and need not be commented upon further as part of this application.  </B></div> <bR> <div> <U>Comment:</U></div> <bR> <div> <I>I refer to Page 38 of the Draft EIA of the Dulskroon development 3.2.3, wherein the developer's consultant refers to the “embodying of the following Guidelines”. The reference is as follows;</I></div> <bR> <div> <I>“Urban development for all residents, whether in subsidy, social economic housing, or residential estates, must occur in an integrated manner with the specific intent of reversing the outward growth of the urban areas and the further separation of race and income groups.”</I></div> <bR> <div> <I>Let us be quite frank at this point. I can hardly subscribe to the acknowledgement that this development adheres to the `Guidelines' as set out above.</I></div> <bR> <div> <U>Response:</U></div> <bR> <div> The proposed developments are on land that has been earmarked through the Municipality's SDF as a future growth area. The higher density nature of the development nodes will help to create a development model that limits the standard suburban outward growth of the town, while the substantial open space system will allow a more effective transition between urban and rural.  The proposed developments will not include subsidy or socio-economic housing, but the range of proposed housing typologies will allow a broad spectrum of income groups irrespective of race or creed to own property in Tulbagh.</div> <bR> <div> `Lifestyle development' is a concept that is supported by the Municipality in the SDF and their LED as these types of developments have the potential to entice further investment and job creation. In a town which for the last 30 years has seen very little substantial development and growth, these two projects will provide an unprecedented socio-economic injection that will be to the benefit of all community members including assisting with the generation of income for those groups that could then access socio-economic housing.</div> <bR> <div> <B>Explanation accepted without further comment deemed necessary.</B></div> <bR> <div> <U>Comment:</U></div> <bR> <div> <I>Page 39 refers to “Land Reform”. It is common knowledge that virtually no members of the previously disadvantaged community of the Tulbagh valley have been able to acquire viable agricultural land and this can hardly be achieved within the urban edge, given the shortage of land for housing, let alone for the acquisition of land for the settlement of displaced farm workers?  So, perhaps there is some merit in the ideals behind the promulgation of Act 70 of 1970 - unless the developers of hitherto agricultural land are prepared to make provision for some small sustainable farming operations with tenure confirmed by Title for the occupiers. I see no provision for this in the developments. On the contrary, I see the 50m portion of the Dulskoon development merely as a `smoke screen' towards this end. I believe that given the scope of the developments, some tangible gesture towards the resettlement of displaced farm workers should have been provided for.</I></div> <bR> <div> <U>Response:</U></div> <bR> <div> As indicated earlier the developers have a range of BEE and PDI agricultural and business initiatives that are being considered including the winery, small business opportunities and agricultural activity.  The applicant has acquired 193 ha of agricultural land in order to implement sustainable PDI agricultural initiatives that will be linked to the proposed developments.  The Socio-economic studies prepared by Prof Jonathan Bloom also outline a number of social and economic actions that will form part of the developments.</div> <bR> <div> As per the Draft EIR report, the current owners are considering two possibilities to address the relocation of the farm workers:</div> <div> Option 1 entails the relocation of the families to the nearby settlement of Witzenville. An erf and a house will be sourced for each family and they will receive title to the property; or</div> <div> Option 2 entails relocating the workers to the adjacent farm of Rooiland, which also belongs to the owners of Kruisvallei, where housing and continued employment will be provided. The farm workers will also be able to select the option of relocating to Witzenville and continuing to work on Rooiland.</div> <bR> <div> <B>Explanation accepted without further comment deemed necessary.</B></div> <div> .</div> <div> <U>Comment:</U></div> <bR> <div> <I>Page 40 of the document states; “In terms of practical application of the WSDF principles to Witzenberg, it is clear that the Show Grounds and Obiqua Prison towards the north of the town are limiting growth of the town to some extent. Between the current town and prison, there are smallholdings on sandy soil along the river running from the mountains to the east of Steinthal. This land is suitable for any use but it represents the ideal area for the expansion of the agricultural erven from Church Street towards the northern side of the town to create a continuous agricultural zone in the town, This can significantly improve the character and attraction of the town and also allow infill residential development”. This development does not subscribe to these ideals of the WSDF.</I></div> <bR> <div> <I>It further states - bottom of page 40 and top of page 41; “the PSDF growth limit (contain urban area until average density of 25 units/ ha rule must apply”. I do not subscribe to this `rule' for the simple reason that it would make Tulbagh (inside the urban edge) nothing but a `rabbit warren' with the over-densification proposed. But, one must take cognizance of the presumed reasoning behind this? </I></div> <bR> <div> <U>Response:</U></div> <bR> <div> As stated earlier the WSDF did not take into consideration the soil quality, cost of land and lack of agricultural water when the proposal for agricultural smallholdings were put forward. It is therefore unlikely that a viable and sustainable continuous agricultural zone would be created.   </div> <bR> <div> Neither was the effect of agricultural on the ecology of the placePlaceNameMalkops PlaceTypeRiver and the importance of using the areas within the floodlines to rehabilitate the water course clearly understood.  The focus should thus be on creating a more compact urban footprint with the rehabilitation of the river corridors providing the botanical corridors and visual softening that will be required.</div> <bR> <div> The WSDF is very clear that the PSDF growth limit of 25du/ha should not be applicable to Tulbagh as there are special circumstances that do not warrant such densification.  However, the unique development philosophy and building typologies that are being proposed as part of the Waverenskroon and Dalskroon projects will allow a different development pattern that will increase the nett densities of the nodes proposed, but which will be balanced by the extensive open space components that are being proposed.</div> <bR> <div> These changes in development approach and the information that subsequently became available through the specialist studies conducted during the impact assessment phase regarding the agricultural smallholdings is provided as motivation to allow for a deviation from the proposals of the WSDF.</div> <bR> <div> <B>Explanation accepted without further comment deemed necessary.</B></div> <bR> <div> <U>Comment:</U></div> <bR> <div> <I>There is a serious shortage of land for low cost housing within the urban edge due to the uncontrolled influx of homeless people. The problem is that the Municipality cannot be relied upon to control this influx (as is apparent from the experience over the last 10 years) and cannot provide homes for all these people and to provide even for their most basic hygienic and health needs (as they apparently cannot even do currently). </I></div> <bR> <div> <I>A development of this scale (both developments)  - almost doubling the size of Tulbagh, will exacerbate this problem for the reasons as set out above. Therefore, further expansion of the low cost housing areas for the current needs of the community as well as natural growth must be provided for. The Municipality does not have the land and apparently does not have the capacity to plan and control the expansion. Thus I am acutely concerned that any further expansion must occur naturally and organically in the areas where the low cost housing needs are to be met. Thus any developer in Tulbagh must provide some form of endowment or levy to the Municipality to `cross subsidise' and provide the Municipality with the funds to procure more land. This can be done in terms of an endowment calculated on each subdivision/unit proposed.</I></div> <bR> <div> <I>There is no apparent provision in the draft EIA that indicates that the developer will be prepared to contribute towards this end. On the contrary, the document states that neither the developer of the municipality cannot be expected to provide housing for the additional influx of workers (who may remain - let alone those in need now). So, who is to provide for this? The ratepayer? A `low cost component' must therefore be provided by the developer, or an acceptable contribution in lieu of?  </I></div> <div> <U>Response:</U></div> <bR> <div> Prof. Jonathan Bloom in the socio-economic impact assessments extensively dealt with the issues raised.  More specifically, the social engagement mitigation measures proposed are intended to address the said problems.  In addition the proposed ”Tulbagh First” policy will be applied as per the socio-economic recommendations to ensure the limitation of influx and the other challenges associated therewith. </div> <bR> <div> The developers have given their commitment to enter into negotiations with the Municipality on these matters as long as the same principles are applied to all other developments in the Witzenberg region.  The development proposals have taken the interests of the community to heart through various proposed PDI initiatives, the investment of the 193 hectares of agricultural land for a BEE winery and the many business opportunities that can be created through the development. An increase in the Municipal rates base will also assist the Municipality with their current challenges to supply adequate services and housing to the poor.  </div> <bR> <div> <B>Explanation accepted without further comment deemed necessary.</B></div> <bR> <div> <U>Comment:</U></div> <bR> <div> <I>The document refers to the water availability for both potable and irrigational purposes. Therefore, one must question whether there is not sufficient water for a sustainable small scale farming enterprise as the developer's `social' contribution towards tangible and sustainable job creation projects - with skills training, on land which was hitherto set aside for agricultural purposes.  </I></div> <bR> <div> <I>Let's face it, there will be benefits in terms of short term job creation as a result of the developments for those who aspire to be in the construction industry but what happens after?  The document indicates that only a very small percentage of construction workers from Tulbagh are expected to be trained and employed on the projects.</I></div> <bR> <div> <U>Response:</U></div> <bR> <div> The opportunities offered by the proposed developments are multi faceted and as indicated in the socio-economic reports the developments will be phased over a 5 to 10 year period. The proposed developments provide a huge potential for further catalytic growth, investment and job creation, far exceeding the benefits of a sustainable small-scale farming enterprises in isolation.  </div> <bR> <div> The Economic Impact Assessment for each project sets out the potential job creation impact and unemployment reductions should based on the use of 10%, 20%, 30% or 40% local labour during construction.  These percentages are considered realistic based on the estimation of the skills and man power available at any given moment within a town such as Tulbagh.  The Tulbagh First Policy will be an important tool to maximize the local job creation opportunities during both the construction and operational phases of the projects.  </div> <bR> <div> <B>Explanation accepted without further comment deemed necessary.</B></div> <bR> <div> <U>Comment:</U></div> <bR> <div> <I>The writer is not of the opinion that there will even be a demand for all the property that is to be made available with all the developments proposed, or whether given the magnitude in numbers, of property that could be available, that these developments will be sustainable in Tulbagh? In addition to the numbers of units proposed by the developer (well over 1000), the substantial number of vacant residential plots available in Tulbagh proper, the developments of the proposed Golf Course and residential estate, a 45 or so residential plot development and Nature conservation area on Schalkenbosh farm to the south/east of Tulbagh, an approximately 150  unit secure village to the south/west of Tulbagh, the 315 unit development on the Digby farm, the 13 large country plots proposed on Erf 1365, and whatever is planned for Farm 413 in process and other subdivisions of existing residential properties make for a huge availability of land which may never achieve an market demand for many years to come? </I></div> <bR> <div> <U>Response:</U></div> <bR> <div> The commercial success of any development is based on a number of factors including timing, uniqueness of product, facilities offered, feasibility of project, phasing and the most importantly the commitment of the developers to ensure the successful marketing and completion of the project and to make a difference in the community. These proposed developments are unique in many respects and will have a strong market demand, different in appeal to the others proposed in Tulbagh.  As with most of the other proposed projects, the implementation of the developments will be phased.  It should be taken into account that the units will be phased in over a number of years for all the developments listed.</div> <bR> <div> Tulbagh has seen very little residential development in the last 30 years.  Numerous reasons can be listed for the lack of investment in a town that is often referred to as `the next Franschhoek'.  Tulbagh needs major investment to harness its true potential and these developments offer this opportunity. Tulbagh must place itself on the map as an enticing and real tourism destination with products that appeal to a broad spectrum of international and South African visitors.  The applicant believes that the market demand will be generated once Tulbagh and the Witzenberg region is positioned and marketed to its true potential.</div> <bR> <div> <B>Explanation accepted without further comment deemed necessary other than to suggest that my initial comment was informed by the state of the economy due to the global recession then but that I am now confident that the situation has changed for the better and demand is strengthening and that phased developments such as these would be sustainable and good for the town and its long term future.</B></div> <bR> <div> <U>Comment:</U></div> <bR> <div> <I>Yes, once the development is completed, there will be a number of permanent job opportunities in the `built' environment and a number of skills acquired during the process but construction jobs and considering the projections of jobs in the development for Tulbagh workers in the documents, this `spurt' of jobs may even be considered `seasonal or temporary' to some extent? Then there is the aftermath of workers who will stay and must be housed?</I></div> <bR> <div> <U>Response:</U></div> <bR> <div> The creation of 9 959 direct and 6 775 indirect construction jobs over a 7 - 10 year period together with 3 146 direct and 2 816 indirect operational (including seasonal) jobs over a 10 year period is a significant increase in job opportunities in a local economy which currently is highly dependent on agriculture which is largely seasonal in nature for job creation.  The potential reduction in unemployment in the local economy, the skills sets that can be transferred to other opportunities in the longer term as well as the number of local entrepreneurial opportunities that are envisaged as part of these developments are immense and will not be temporary in nature.</div> <bR> <div> The SEA outlines a complete list of potentially sustainable initiatives that could arise from the proposed developments. These are not restricted to construction jobs, but will include long-term opportunities such as those associated with tourism, viticulture, accommodation, restaurants, equestrian facilities, conferencing, security, landscaping, etc. </div> <bR> <div> <B>Explanation accepted without further comment deemed necessary.</B></div> <bR> <div> <U>Comment:</U></div> <bR> <div> <I>The document (on page 75) refers to the most recent SDF as being dated 25 January 2006 and in fact depicts a previous version of a draft SDF plan dated 25 February 2003, which was never approved as Figure 21. In fact, Figure 22 is the final approved SDF plan as approved by Council. This signifies a misrepresentation of the facts and is therefore misleading as to what the developer or the consultant may be appearing to be attempting to put across to any I&AP's to influence a favorable decision.  The latter SDF plan is substantially different to the previous draft version and as such implies a completely different picture as to what informs the process as far as the current SDF plan is concerned.</I></div> <bR> <div> <U>Response:</U></div> <bR> <div> Reference is made to the 2003 SDF draft because when the developers initiated discussions with the Municipality and tabled the first proposals for the developments, this was the draft document that was referred to by the Municipality to inform the possible development size.  It was this public document which informed the decision to purchase the properties by the developers.</div> <bR> <div> When the 2006 version was finally approved the developers were not in a position to change the proposals substantially to be more in line with the now approved SDF, and had to find alternative services options as it is understood that the lack of services capacity and infrastructure were the major informants to the changes that were made to the SDF.  The process was already underway for the three years prior to 2006 and a substantial change in the development numbers were not possible at such a late stage. </div> <bR> <div> The references to the 2003 SDF draft are not included to mislead, but rather to sketch the context of why the applicant proceeded with the application once the service constraints had been dealt with (i.e. the reason why the 2003 SDF was not approved).    </div> <bR> <div> <B>Explanation accepted without further comment deemed necessary.</B></div> <bR> <div> <U>Comment:</U></div> <bR> <div> <I>In respect of the proposed water supply, it appears as though the developer will reticulate and supply to the owners internally. My understanding is that only a Municipality may be a provider of potable water. In which case, the entire system should be handed over to the municipality by arrangement. Thereafter, the Municipality shall be the owner of the water and this cannot be given back to the developers if and when the Municipality is able to augment its water supply.</I></div> <bR> <div> <U>Response:</U></div> <bR> <div> Developments in placecountry-regionSouth Africa are able to supply their own water via private water schemes. Due to the lack of capacity in the municipal infrastructure, the lack of water to be supplied by the municipal system as well as the lack of finance to supply water to new developments, the applicants investigated alternative methods of water supply for the proposed developments.    </div> <bR> <div> The system will cost a substantial amount more to put in place and the developers had to apply for the transfer of agricultural water to commercial use to ensure the supply of potable water.  The Municipality will have to supply potable water to the developments as stipulated in the conditions of the Water License issued by the Department of Water Affairs and this connection will be put in place once the Municipality is in a position to do so. The transferred agricultural water also needs to be returned to agriculture once the Municipal water supply is available and can therefore not be transferred to the Municipality.  An agreement will be negotiated with the Municipality regarding the cost and management of the water system once the Municipal supply is available.  The creation of a private water supply system is not the first choice of the applicants as this is substantially more expensive to implement, but an alternative had to be sought.</div> <bR> <div> The Municipality has also recently been granted a License by DWAF for 1 million cubic meters of water out of the placePlaceNameKleinberg PlaceTypeRiver. This supply should be sufficient to also cover the demand of both developments. </div> <bR> <div> <B>Explanation accepted without further comment deemed necessary other than to suggest that it appears as though the developer could negotiate with the Municipality for them (the Municipality) to use that Dam as additional storage in line with what they (the Municipality/DWAF) are proposing in respect  of the Klein Berg Tulbagh Water Augmentation Scheme instead of a duplication of efforts. This would be most beneficial to Tulbagh?</B></div> <bR> <div> <U>Comment:</U></div> <bR> <div> <I>I have no problem with the developer undertaking the purification of sewerage effluent at a Waste Treatment works and using the treated effluent for irrigation purposes. Despite correspondence from the Municipality referred to in the application somewhere, to the effect that the Municipality is capable of processing raw sewerage to cater for (about) 1700 units, I would seriously doubt that this is possible, unless a major upgrade to the Tulbagh Sewerage treatment works in undertaken. Any upgrade will have to be funded by either loans, grants, or endowments. So even the cost of the disposal of dry sludge will have to be the responsibility of and be borne by the developer.</I></div> <bR> <bR> <div> <U>Response:</U></div> <bR> <div> The DEIRs state that the Municipality does not have the capacity of taking the developments' outflows. In addition, the environmental approvals and relevant licenses are not in place for the upgrade of the Municipal sewerage plant. The developments therefore propose to include an on-site private treatment works as an alternative should the municipal works not be ready.  </div> <bR> <div> Should the municipal works approvals be completed, bulk service levies will be applicable to pay the costs relating to upgrades to the Municipal works and will be calculated on a pro-rata basis taking other developments and the general increase in municipal demand into consideration.</div> <bR> <div> <B>Explanation accepted without further comment deemed necessary.</B></div> <bR> <div> <U>Comment:</U></div> <bR> <div> <I>If these developments are to be essentially part of the town and be incorporated, then the Municipality should be the Bulk purchaser of electricity from Eskom and thereafter reticulate and supply to the developments and not Eskom.</I></div> <bR> <div> <U>Response:</U></div> <bR> <div> The preferred option is to hand over the network to the Municipality - who will become the bulk supplier. <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#FFFFFF" FACE="Arial Narrow" > </FONT></div> <bR> <div> <B>Explanation accepted without further comment deemed necessary.</B></div> <bR> <div> <U>Comment:</U></div> <bR> <div> <I>in respect of Freshwater and Floodlines - let us allude also to the Stormwater expected to be generated at this point, I note that floodlines are not shown in the development proposals and not enough detail is provided in respect of the effects of the substantial volumes of stormwater water which will be discharged into the Malkops River and how it may affect the floodlines of the properties down stream.  In respect of the Dulstroom development, any runoff (that which is not drained into the ground) from the undeveloped farm land currently flows into a dam on Erf 1365. That arrangement has existed for many years. The building of over 400 buildings with their cumulative roof area, paved areas, roadways etc, will seriously increase the runoff to the river and thus increase the flow in winter and possibly affect the floodlines of the river. Any widening of the flood lines will most certainly affect the property below and render parts of it useless for development - including part of the dam? Also and as a result of the development, the natural runoff to the existing dam will be negatively affected, thus rendering that dam useless for irrigation as well. This is unacceptable.</I></div> <bR> <div> <U>Response:</U></div> <bR> <div> All new developments are legally required to mitigate stormwater runoff by providing enough attenuation capacity on site to ensure that post-development flows are less or equal to pre-development flows.  This will prevent an increase in floodline levels or negative impacts on downstream land owners. </div> <bR> <div> All 1:50 and 1:100 year floodlines are shown on the development and services plans.</div> <bR> <div> <B>Explanation accepted and I am satisfied with an assurance given by the developer through his consultant that normal water run-off  which currently fills the dam on Erf 1365, will be augmented by the developer from the storm water attenuation holding/staging dam proposed on the Dullskroon Development as, opposed to releasing all of the storm water into the river and thereby diminishing the water available for the dam on Erf 1365 as has been the case historically.</B></div> <bR> <bR> <div> The project team would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your participation during the EIA Process. </div> <bR> <div> Yours sincerely</div> <bR> <bR> <div> Anton Lotz</div> <bR> <bR> <div> I am acutely aware that of the need and desirability for security estates, which are in huge demand throughout South Africa, due to the unreasonably high crime rates that people are faced with and the desire for residents to enjoy a sense of `peace of mind' and a high degree of `safety of person'. I accept that Tulbagh crime levels are low in comparison to larger urban areas but housebreaking occurrences are evident in this town (as in most towns), according to statistics released by the local Sector Manager of the Tulbagh SAPS.</div> <bR> <div> But, aside from the above factor, Security Estates do offer other advantages for a community such as ours and that includes unique facilities which people are quite prepared to pay for that neither a municipality nor the SAPS can necessarily provide, security being but one factor. Furthermore, Security, or `Lifestyle Estates' which they are sometimes termed, do attract people who would not normally consider living in a typical urban environment and this pertains to retirees especially. </div> <bR> <div> I am also acutely aware that these developments can attract the sort of investment that this rural town needs, which in turn can facilitate wealth creation opportunities for the community. I have no doubt that the residents of these developments will integrate with the community as people are `normally' inclined to do in our modern placecountry-regionSouth Africa. More money will be spent in the businesses of the town and this would naturally increase the sustainability of jobs in an area where jobs are in the main seasonal and this reflects on the profitability of businesses in town and their ability to offer long term employment opportunities in turn. Then there is the poverty alleviation and `wellness' factor to be considered?</div> <bR> <div> Tulbagh suffers from a high degree of unemployment,  AIDS and Tuberculosis cases, drug and drink abuse and despair for the youth, or school leavers as a result of the limited job opportunities available. Development is sorely needed in the town and it must be accepted that this is a society dependent on the agricultural economy mostly, as there is very little potential for growth of that sector, or even industrialisation. But one of the most significant aspects of developments like these, are their potential to contribute significantly to our municipal rates and services income and they could be substantial catalysts for tourism growth and further social and economic interventions that make a real difference to economically and socially disadvantaged people living in an area such as ours.</div> <bR> <div> In summation, we are in support of the developments.  We are satisfied that the planning is in the main, thorough and tasteful and urge the authorities to approve the developments subject to the mitigation measures as explained in the EIR and specialist reports being implemented.</div> <bR> <div> Yours Faithfully,</div> <bR> <bR> <div> <IMG SRC="fe27e560.png" border=0 width="126" height="86" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></div> <bR> <bR> <div> John Veschini</div> <div> On behalf of;</div> <bR> <div> The Tulbagh Ratepayers and Inwoners Forum (TRIF) - as Chairperson</div> <div> The Tulbagh Branch of the DA - as Chairperson</div> <div> V&F Prophase 1011 cc (owners of Erf 1365)</div> <div> R Guidotti and M Fredericks (Owners of Erf 2455</div> <div> J A Veschini - self.</div> <bR> </td> <td valign="top" width=28 style=" border-top: 1px solid #0066CC; border-left: 1px solid #0066CC;border-right: 1px solid #0066CC; border-bottom: 1px solid #0066CC;" BGCOLOR="#0066CC" TEXT="#080000"> <bR> </td> </tr></table></body>