Consultant response to appellants against Eskom 765kv power line

<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> Consultant response to appellants against Eskom 765kv power line</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 ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div> <B>GAMMA - OMEGA APPEALS</B></div> <bR> <div> APPENDIX B - ISSUES RAISED BY INDIVIDUAL APPELLANTS WITHIN THE NICHOLAS SMITH GROUP</div> <bR> <div> <TABLE BORDER="2" CELLPADDING="1" CELLSPACING="1" WIDTH="892" BORDERCOLORLIGHT="#C0C0C0" BORDERCOLORDARK="#808080" FRAME="BOX" RULES="ROWS" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" > <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP BGCOLOR=#CCCCCC HEIGHT= 30 WIDTH="49"><div> <B>Appellant No.</B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP BGCOLOR=#CCCCCC WIDTH="97"><div> <B>Name of Appellant</B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP BGCOLOR=#CCCCCC WIDTH="185"><div> <B>Issues Raised</B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP BGCOLOR=#CCCCCC><NOBR><div> <B>Response of Consultant</B></div> </NOBR></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP BGCOLOR=#CCCCCC WIDTH="170"><div> <B>Reply of Appellants</B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP BGCOLOR=#CCCCCC WIDTH="191"><div> <B>Comments of DEAT</B></div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 15 WIDTH="49"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="97"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="185"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="175"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="170"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="191"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 30 WIDTH="49"><div> 3</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="97"><div> BDB Farming (Pty) Ltd</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="185"><div> 3.1 See common list at the end of Appendix B</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="175"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="170"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="191"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 30 WIDTH="49"><div> 14</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="97"><div> RIJKS Country Hotel</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="185"><div> 14.1 See common list at the end of Appendix B</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="175"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="170"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="191"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 30 WIDTH="49"><div> 15</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="97"><div> RIJK'S Private Cellar</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="185"><div> 15.1 See common list at the end of Appendix B</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="175"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="170"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="191"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 91 WIDTH="49"><div> 17</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="97"><div> The Tulbagh 4 Star Hotel</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="185"><div> 17.1 Total Disregard for the community. No dialogue with those affected by the proposals- Typical "Rough Shod" attitude by those not affected by the proposal.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="175"><div> See draft EIR Chapter 5 and Appendices 2A to 2I for the full description of the public consultation process.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="170"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="191"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 300 WIDTH="49"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="97"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="185"><div> 17.2 Where is the evidence of a full Impact study having been undertaken? How was it communicated to the wider community?</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="175"><div> The draft EIR sets out the extent of the EIA study undertaken.</div> <bR> <div> As described in Chapter 5 and Appendices 2a to 2I the public consultation process was extensive. It included:</div> <div> Advertisement in national, regional and local newspapers (including Witzenberg Herald)</div> <div> Copies of reports left at Tulbagh municipal offices, farmer's co-op and Tulbagh library</div> <div> Meetings with the Tulbagh Farmers Assoc and Tulbagh Agric. Union</div> <div> A public open day at Tulbagh Town Hall.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="170"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="191"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 60 WIDTH="49"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="97"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="185"><div> 17.3 Progress must be made but not at any price -Eskom must show regards for the nature of this area.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="175"><div>  The draft EIR sets out the aspects considered in the EIA.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="170"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="191"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 151 WIDTH="49"><div> 20</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="97"><div> Tulbagh Landbou Vereniging</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="185"><div> 20.1 Too little public participation, we only received correspondence of this project in March 2005 and that was a petition we filled out, there was 1 meeting held after we filed the petition</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="175"><div>  A presentation was given to the Tulbagh Boerevereeniging late in February 2000 and a personal meeting was held with Mr Theron, then chairperson of the Boerevereeniging. Thereafter they were sent information on the project, notices of report availability, etc. as the project progressed.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="170"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="191"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 91 WIDTH="49"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="97"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="185"><div> 20.2 Tulbagh is a historical Town with lots of old history and cultural development a power line will have a huge impact on any future development and growth for the valley.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="175"><div>  The historical significance was noted in the EIA. See Chapters 2 and 9.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="170"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="191"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 121 WIDTH="49"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="97"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="185"><div> 20.3 We are opposed to the power line being build right next to this beautiful, historical town that has so much potential not only will it have an impact on any future development but also on property value and environmental sustainability</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="175"><div>  The line is routes to the south of the town where the visual impact and impact on land values will be less. However, the visual impact is recognised to be significant as is stated as such in the draft EIR (see Chapter 12 and Chapter 2)</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="170"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="191"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 60 WIDTH="49"><div> 28</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP><NOBR><div> Nadine Aikman</div> </NOBR></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="185"><div> 28.1 In terms of the Section 38(8) of the National Heritage Resources act (15 of 1999) due process has not been followed. </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="175"><div>  See responses to points raised by Nicholas Smith & Assoc.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="170"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="191"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 91 WIDTH="49"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="97"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="185"><div> 28.2 Visual Impact not addressed. The proposed power line will have serious negative Visual Impact. This will impact on the "sense of place" of the Tulbagh Valley  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="175"><div>  This was addressed in the draft EIR (See Chapter 2 and 12).  The impact on the sense of place is acknowledged to be moderate to high (Ch2. Appendix 1).</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="170"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="191"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 60 WIDTH="49"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="97"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="185"><div> 28.3 The Powerline could be placed underground/ along the west coast.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="175"><div>  Alternative routes were considered (Chapter 1 & 2), as well as the option of undergrounding (Chapter 1)</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="170"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="191"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 136 WIDTH="49"><div> 29</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP><NOBR><div> Henry Aikman</div> </NOBR></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="185"><div> 29.1 I am a professional heritage specialist and an accredited member of the association of Heritage Assessment practitioners: Western Cape. In terms of the Section 38(8) of the National Heritage Resources act (15 of 1999) due process has not been followed.  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="175"><div>  See responses to points raised by Nicholas Smith & Assoc.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="170"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="191"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 91 WIDTH="49"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="97"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="185"><div> 29.2 Visual Impact not addressed. The proposed powerline will have serious negative Visual Impact. This will impact on the "sense of place" of the Tulbagh Valley  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="175"><div>  See response to Nadine Aikman</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="170"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="191"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 30 WIDTH="49"><div> 30</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="97"><div> CA Algar</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="185"><div> 30.1 See common list at the end of Appendix B</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="175"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="170"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="191"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 30 WIDTH="49"><div> 31</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP><NOBR><div> Mrs SML Algar</div> </NOBR></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="185"><div> 31.1 See common list at the end of Appendix B</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="175"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="170"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="191"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 30 WIDTH="49"><div> 32</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="97"><div> Michael Damer Ashley -Cooper</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="185"><div> 32.1 See common list at the end of Appendix B</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="175"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="170"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="191"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 30 WIDTH="49"><div> 33</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="97"><div> Meryl Ashley- Cooper</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="185"><div> 33.1 See common list at the end of Appendix B</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="175"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="170"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="191"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 272 WIDTH="49"><div> 34</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP><NOBR><div> Kenton Bagshaw</div> </NOBR></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="185"><div> 34.1The Broader community was not adequately consulted.  Underhand. New Role Players not involved.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="175"><div>  An extensive public consultation campaign was carried out. See Chapter 5 and Appendices 2a to 2I. It included:</div> <div> Advertisement in national, regional and local newspapers (including Witzenberg Herald)</div> <div> Copies of reports left at Tulbagh municipal offices, farmer's co-op and Tulbagh library</div> <div> Meetings with the Tulbagh Farmers Assoc and Tulbagh Agric. Union</div> <div> A public open day at Tulbagh Town Hall.</div> <bR> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="170"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="191"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 106 WIDTH="49"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="97"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="185"><div> 34.2 Sterilisation of the area & Heritage site of major tourism interest. </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="175"><div>  The EIA studies did not suggest that the area would be sterilised. Heritage issues (Ch2 and Ch9) and tourism issues were addressed (Ch2, Ch10-Socio-Economic Assessment and Ch12-Visual Assessment).</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="170"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="191"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 136 WIDTH="49"><div> 35</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="97"><div> Tony & Christine Bond</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="185"><div> 35.1 Tulbagh is on the tourist map. It has more national monuments in one street than anywhere else in South Africa. It has had known seismic activity which could topple the enormous Eskom pylons, causing even more damage than the earthquake itself.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="175"><div>  See above for references to heritage and tourism.</div> <bR> <div> Eskom is aware of the earthquake risk in the area. However the pylons can be designed to withstand earth tremors.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="170"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="191"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 166 WIDTH="49"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="166" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="49" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="97"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="166" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="97" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="185"><div> 35.2 If they decided to conduct the activity underground so as not to disturb the scenic countryside, which most people are utilising for farming and tourist activities. There has to be an alternative method of conveying electricity throughout the western cape without building monstrosities which are not aesthetically appealing.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="175"><div> Undergrounding was addressed in the draft EIR, but is some 20 times more expensive than overhead cables. Eskom will not place the conductors underground at a cost of R20million/km compared to R1million/km for overhead lines (2001 prices).</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="170"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="166" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="170" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="191"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="166" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="191" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 210 WIDTH="49"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="97"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="185"><div> 35.2 If we are to maintain our town as a tourist attraction, producers of some of the most award winning wines in the country, then another route may have to be found, where the effect will be less noticeable.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="175"><div>  The status of Tulbagh as a tourist destination is recognised in the draft EIR (Ch 2, Ch10, & Ch12).</div> <bR> <div> Wine production is not expected to be affected by the line.</div> <bR> <div> Route alternatives were assessed in  the study (see Ch 1), and all have significant impacts, especially through the mountainous sections of the Ceres/Tulbagh area.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="170"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="191"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 91 WIDTH="49"><div> 36</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP><NOBR><div> Mina N Bugan</div> </NOBR></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="185"><div> 36.1 Eskom kan nie bewyse gee dat my en my pasiente se gesondheid nie nadelig daar deur beinvloed sal word nie. Sien aangeheg.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="175"><div>  Chapter 2, Appendix 1 addressed the health risk associated with power lines and EMFs. Residents in the town should not be affected by the EMFs of the line in any way.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="170"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="191"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 136 WIDTH="49"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="97"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="185"><div> 36.2 Plaas dit net ondergronds. (Dit) gaan die pragtige natuur skoon affekteer and wat van die voels?</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="175"><div>  The cost of undergrounding the power line is seen to be prohibitive by Eskom. It is also relevant that undergrounding the line will be substantially more damaging on the natural environment, and many normal landuse activities may be affected.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="170"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="191"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 30 WIDTH="49"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="97"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="185"><div> 36.3 See common list at the end of Appendix B</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="175"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="170"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="191"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 76 WIDTH="49"><div> 37</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="97"><div> Anne Christensen</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="185"><div> 37.1 I was not aware at all that Eskom wants to put pylons through the valley.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="175"><div>  An extensive public consultation campaign was undertaken. See Chapter 5 and Appendices 2A to 2I in the draft EIR.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="170"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="191"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 135 WIDTH="49"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="97"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="185"><div> 37.2 We have a small business and I find the idea stupid and pointless and unhealthy. Pylons will affect our business in a negative way because we rely on tourism.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="175"><div>  The motivation for the line as part of a wider network supplying the Western Cape is set out in Chapter 3 of the draft EIR.</div> <bR> <div> The potential impact on tourism is highlighted in the draft EIR as a concern.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="170"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="191"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 272 WIDTH="49"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="97"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="185"><div> 37.3 I am worried about my health and the health of my fellow town members. I am also concerned about the nature and wildlife.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="175"><div>  Health impacts on the town and wildlife in the area should be negligible. Only persons or animals confined near (within 40m) of the line for long periods of time may be exposed to some risk, but the significance of this risk is uncertain and continues to be debated internationally.</div> <div> Hence, Eskom adopts the precautionary approach and does not permit the building of human dwellings or animal housing within the servitude for the line (ie within the 40m distance from the centre line of the power line).</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="170"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="191"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 76 WIDTH="49"><div> 38</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="97"><div> Daniel Wynand De Jager</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="185"><div> 38.1 The process was supposed to be transparent. Eskom did not consult with the broad public, and just forced their way through.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="175"><div>  The activities in and approach to the public participation process is set out in Chapter 5 and Appendices 2A to 2I in the draft EIR.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="170"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="191"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 45 WIDTH="49"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="97"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="185"><div> 38.2 No consultation with the residents & property owners in the affected area </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="175"><div>  See the meetings held in the area and distribution of reports to the Tulbagh area.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="170"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="191"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 60 WIDTH="49"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="97"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="185"><div> 38.3 We the property owners & residents are the affected parties, not only the farmers.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="175"><div>  The public participation process was open to all potentially affected and interested parties.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="170"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="191"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 91 WIDTH="49"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="97"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="185"><div> 38.4 Eskom has shown no respect for the effect this unsightly power line would have on this picturesque valley. It seems only, to save money and take the line of least resistance.  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="175"><div>  See Chapter 12 for the assessment of visual impact on this area.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="170"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="191"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 30 WIDTH="49"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="97"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="185"><div> 38.5 See common list at the end of Appendix B</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="175"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="170"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="191"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 30 WIDTH="49"><div> 39</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP><NOBR><div> Joe De Villiers</div> </NOBR></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="185"><div> 39.1 See common list at the end of Appendix B</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="175"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="170"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="191"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 30 WIDTH="49"><div> 40</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP><NOBR><div> A N Dorrington</div> </NOBR></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="185"><div> 40.1 See common list at the end of Appendix B</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="175"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="170"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="191"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 30 WIDTH="49"><div> 41</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="97"><div> H du Plessis</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="185"><div> 41.1 See common list at the end of Appendix B</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="175"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="170"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="191"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 30 WIDTH="49"><div> 42</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP><NOBR><div> R. J du Plessis</div> </NOBR></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="185"><div> 42.1 See common list at the end of Appendix B</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="175"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="170"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="191"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 137 WIDTH="49"><div> 43</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="97"><div> C I O du Toit</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="185"><div> 43.1 Eskom only consulted with a small number of the community and did not consult with the large number of people who would be affected by these unsightly and dangerous power lines.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="175"><div>  An extensive public participation process was undertaken that was open to all potentially affected and interested parties.</div> <bR> <div> See Chapter 5 and Appendices 2A to 2I of the draft EIR.</div> <bR> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="170"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="191"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 151 WIDTH="49"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="97"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="185"><div> 43.2 The whole environment people plants and animals will be negatively affected by the electromagnetic radiation emitted by the power lines as has been observed overseas.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="175"><div>  EMF levels above limits deemed safe for long term exposure by the World Health Organisation will only occur within the servitude width of the line (40m either side of the centre line). Eskom will not allow human dwellings or animal housing to be set up within the servitude.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="170"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="191"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 181 WIDTH="49"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="97"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="185"><div> 43.3 These ugly power lines will cause a widespread loss in value of all properties within sight of the badly chosen routes far greater than the cost of putting the cables underground or over less sensitive area.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="175"><div>  Loss of property value was considered in the draft EIR (See Chapter 10, Section 6)</div> <bR> <div> Given the location south of the town of Tulbagh, the landuse at the time of the study and the IDP for the area (including low cost housing allocated to this area), it was not anticipated that there would be a substantial reduction in property values.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="170"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="191"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 30 WIDTH="49"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="97"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="185"><div> 43.4 See common list at the end of Appendix B</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="175"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="170"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="191"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 30 WIDTH="49"><div> 44</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP><NOBR><div> John Haddad</div> </NOBR></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="185"><div> 44.1 See common list at the end of Appendix B</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="175"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="170"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="191"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 30 WIDTH="49"><div> 45</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="97"><div> Gustav Dietrich Haumann</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="185"><div> 45.1 See common list at the end of Appendix B</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="175"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="170"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="191"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 60 WIDTH="49"><div> 46</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="97"><div> Berindiena Horing</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="185"><div> 46.1 Eskom has not notified me at all. Before I lived on Steinthal. We where also not notified while living on Steinthal. </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="175"><div>  Dominie Dreyer of Steinthal was a regular participant in public meetings on the project.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="170"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="191"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 106 WIDTH="49"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="97"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="185"><div> 46.2 I live on a farm where pylons will be very close.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="175"><div>  The location of the pylons will be determined in conjunction with the landowner and Eskom. However, there should be no impact on the buildings, people of farming operations on the farm.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="170"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="191"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 181 WIDTH="49"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="97"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="185"><div> 46.3 I work on this farm & It's a national monument, no one has done any research on the impact of this specific farm.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="175"><div>  The historical significance of the farm has been recognised in the draft EIR. The alignment of the power line was adjusted to minimise impact on the farm. However, the route is aligned to cross the ridge of the mountain at the low point, thereby minimising visual and biophysical impacts, and this brings the route close to Steinthal.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="170"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="191"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 136 WIDTH="49"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="136" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="49" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="97"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="136" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="97" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="185"><div> 46.4 I have two children, 7 and 14. I am very concerned about the health of my family. Also, my employer lives from tourism. If the pylons come in Tulbagh tourism will be affected negatively. I might end without a job. I worry about the future of the economic development of Tulbagh.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="175"><div> Eskom will keep the new line away from houses to avoid any possible health impacts.</div> <bR> <div> The potential impacts on tourism in Tulbagh has been addressed in the draft EIR. (See Chapters 2 and 10) </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="170"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="136" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="170" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="191"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="136" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="191" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 45 WIDTH="49"><div> 48</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="97"><div> Friedrich Ferdinand Jesch</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="185"><div> 48.1 We believe that the broader community was not adequately consulted. </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="175"><div>  Please see Chapter 5 and Appendices 2A to 2I in the draft EIR.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="170"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="191"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 287 WIDTH="49"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="97"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="185"><div> 48.2 Eskom only consulted (we believe by design) with a small segment of the community that they perceived to be stakeholders. The community at large who reside in the areas affected by the proposed power line were not and mostly are still not aware of the project or the magnitude of the size of the power lines (equivalent to a 13 storey building). The communities of small towns of Merweville, Tulbagh, Ceres, Prince Alfred's Hamlet, Riebeek Kasteel and Gouda, are not aware of the power line and it's possible and probable negative effects.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="175"><div>  An extensive public participation process was carried out giving all sectors of the communities the opportunity to participate. See the above references in the draft EIR for information on:</div> <div> Newspaper advertisements</div> <div> Public open days</div> <div> Meetings and presentations</div> <div> Distribution of reports.</div> <bR> <bR> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="170"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="191"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 121 WIDTH="49"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="97"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="185"><div> 48.3 The destruction of the visual beauty of heritage sensitive areas such as the Witzenberg Mountain range, the Riebeek and Tulbagh valleys in general and the Gydo pass in the Ceres valley, is assured by the proposed power line.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="175"><div>  The significance of the potential visual impact has been acknowledged and clearly stated in the draft EIR (see Chapters 2 and 12).</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="170"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="191"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 181 WIDTH="49"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="97"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="185"><div> 48.4 The viability of the area as an investment opportunity to equal Franshoek is assured to diminish and property values will be seriously affected by the project, as nobody likes a power line and especially one that is almost three time that which people are accustomed to seeing.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="175"><div>  Property values were considered in Chapter 10, Section 6 of the draft EIR. Given the location of the line to the south of Tulbagh, near areas identified in the IDP for low cost housing, the impact on property values is not seen to be significant overall. Furthermore, compensation is paid to directly affected landowners as part of the servitude establishment.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="170"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="191"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 108 WIDTH="49"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="97"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="185"><div> 48.5 We believe that if the impact was assessed on any of the affected valleys alone and apart from the entire proposed route EIA, it will have failed dismally. </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="175"><div> The significance of certain impacts (especially visual and tourism) has been noted in the study. A section of the line cannot be seen in isolation but as part of the overall project. </div> <bR> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="170"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="191"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 30 WIDTH="49"><div> 49</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="97"><div> Jean Kotze </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="185"><div> 49.1 See common list at the end of Appendix B</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="175"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="170"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="191"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 226 WIDTH="49"><div> 50</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="97"><div> Dawie Kotze</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="185"><div> 50.1 For basic reason that my farming/tourism ventures will directly be influenced and never been consulted in this regards. </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="175"><div>  Uncertain what ventures are referred to here.</div> <bR> <div> The public consultation campaign gave the wider public and landowners opportunity  to participate in the study. Efforts were made to contact community representatives (e.g. municipal managers or chairpersons of farmers associations) so that their constituents could be informed of the project and contact the consultant.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="170"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="191"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 45 WIDTH="49"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="97"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="185"><div> 50.2 The heritage of this valley will be in jeopardy because of the visual impact.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP><NOBR><div>  See previous comments.</div> </NOBR></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="170"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="191"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 60 WIDTH="49"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="97"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="185"><div> 50.3 Within reasonable standards. RE: Any development must not be detrimental to the look of the valley we love.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="175"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="170"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="191"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 45 WIDTH="49"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="97"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="185"><div> 50.4 I was not asked for my opinion. Could my activities will be affected with the construction </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="175"><div>  The draft EIR sets out the anticipated construction process (Chapter 3, Table 10).</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="170"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="191"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 30 WIDTH="49"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="97"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="185"><div> 50.5 See common list at the end of Appendix B</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="175"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="170"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="191"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 30 WIDTH="49"><div> 51</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="97"><div> L.J Le Roux</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="185"><div> 51.1 See common list at the end of Appendix B</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="175"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="170"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="191"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 30 WIDTH="49"><div> 52</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="97"><div> M Loubser</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="185"><div> 52.1 See common list at the end of Appendix B</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="175"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="170"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="191"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 181 WIDTH="49"><div> 53</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP><NOBR><div> Jesmien Marais</div> </NOBR></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="185"><div> 53.1 I have never been notified officially by Eskom </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="175"><div>  The public consultation campaign gave the wider public and landowners opportunity to participate in the study. Efforts were made to contact community representatives (e.g. municipal managers or chairpersons of farmers associations) so that their constituents could be informed of the project and contact the consultant.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="170"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="191"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 91 WIDTH="49"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="97"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="185"><div> 53.2 I live close to where the pylons will be routed (Witzenville) We are trying to make this a safer place and uplift the community. Pylons across is not going to help.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="175"><div>  The pylons should be placed outside the town area.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="170"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="191"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 106 WIDTH="49"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="97"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="185"><div> 53.3 I am not against development if the community benefits from it. I am against developments that are bad for the health of my family and are bad for the economics and tourism of Tulbagh.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="175"><div>  Health impacts are not anticipated if the line is placed outside or town areas. Dwellings are not allowed in the servitude where health risks may be higher.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="170"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="191"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 166 WIDTH="49"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="97"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="185"><div> 53.4 Living close to the pylons is not good for my family. I have 3 children of 4,10 & 19. I am also worried about work. If the pylons come it will be bad for tourism in Tulbagh. We need more jobs. Pylons this size will keep tourist away and I might be without a job. At the moment I work in tourism. I am very concerned about the future of my children.  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="175"><div>  Previous comments on tourism refer.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="170"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="191"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 30 WIDTH="49"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="97"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="185"><div> 53.5 I did not know about the pylons my employer just told me.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="175"><div>  See previous comments on the public consultation process.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="170"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="191"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 181 WIDTH="49"><div> 54</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="97"><div> Brendon & Sue Mc Hugh</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="185"><div> 54.1 The process was clearly flawed, as I, as an obvious stakeholder & someone that is directly impacted, was never consulted. It appears that the community was never consulted either although Eskom will deny this. They conveniently engaged only those organisation and individuals who they knew in advance would not have undue cause to object.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="175"><div>  An open public consultation process was conducted, allowing all sectors of the community to participate.  Additionally key community representatives such as chairpersons of farmers associations were contacted to facilitate dissemination of information to their members.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="170"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="191"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 202 WIDTH="49"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="97"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="185"><div> 54.2 How could DEAT approve EIA without input from the Heritage Council when Tulbagh has such significant heritage & tourism significance? How too can they approve the EIA without taking the endemic Geometric tortoise habitat into consideration let alone the health risks of living underneath a power line?</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="175"><div>  <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#FFFFFF" FACE="Arial" >To our knowledge, the Heritage Council was established after June 2002. </FONT>SAHRA was invited to comment on the draft EIR.</div> <bR> <div> The geometric tortoise habitat was a specific focus of the ecology studies (see Chapter 8 and Chapter 2, Appendix 1.</div> <bR> <div> Previous comments on EMFs refer.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="170"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="191"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 30 WIDTH="49"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="97"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="185"><div> 54.3 See common list at the end of Appendix B</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="175"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="170"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="191"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 136 WIDTH="49"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="97"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="185"><div> 54.4 We need more power in the Western Cape that is clear. However 'bullying' your way through here is an arrogant fashion with blatant disregard for the community our heritage, our health and the environment is not the way to do it. You should know that already. That is your role. </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="175"><div>  The appellant is referred to the draft EIR in its entirety!</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="170"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="191"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 91 WIDTH="49"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="97"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="185"><div> 54.5 As the application has been so flawed who knows what the 'Consultants' submitted to you! Either way it smacks of intimidation and untruths - It needs to be redone.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="175"><div> The EIR was submitted to DEAT.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="170"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="191"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 106 WIDTH="49"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="97"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="185"><div> 54.5 The minister cannot make an informed decision without taking all the facts into consideration. As he clearly did not have facts which is Eskoms duty to provide, the process is by definition flawed.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="175"><div> No further comment</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="170"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="191"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 45 WIDTH="49"><div> 55</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="97"><div> Tina Nel </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="185"><div> 55.1 The community has not been satisfactory informed about the impact of the project.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="175"><div>  Previous comments on the public participation process refer.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="170"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="191"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 76 WIDTH="49"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="97"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="185"><div> 55.2 There is no way in which the project will not serve to seriously damage the area visually and environmentally.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="175"><div>  The visual impacts (Chapter 12) and environmental (~ecology) impacts (Chapter 8) were addressed in the draft EIR.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="170"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="191"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 212 WIDTH="49"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="97"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="185"><div> 55.3 I live on one of the farms affected and cannot imagine the planned eye-sore being acceptable to anyone apart from those with economic interests here. Yesterday I counted 48 blue cranes in a group on the field outside my house  - Are they not protected? What is to become of them?</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="175"><div> Chapter 7 of the draft EIR sets out the Avifauna assessment for the area. Blue Cranes are known to be in the study area and high, medium and low risk collision areas have been identified (see map 5a in Chapter 7). A number of `Low' and `Medium' risk areas were identified in the Ceres and Tulbagh areas, but with effective mitigation (e.g. bird flappers) the risk is generally reduced to a `Low' or `No' significance.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="170"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="191"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 91 WIDTH="49"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="97"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="185"><div> 55.4 This project serves only a financial purposed for those with interest in it. It will uglify our Beautiful village. The authorities in charge have no respect for untouched areas.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="175"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="170"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="191"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 121 WIDTH="49"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="97"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="185"><div> 55.5 The fact that the Golf Course - which poses no aesthetic threat - was opposed and not this environment makes the decision to go ahead with the project highly suspicious. Who is benefiting really? Can we have an investigation into this matter?</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="175"><div> The consultant is not aware of the circumstances of the golf course application.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="170"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="191"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 30 WIDTH="49"><div> 56</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP><NOBR><div> J.A Olde-Olthof</div> </NOBR></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="185"><div> 56.1 See common list at the end of Appendix B</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="175"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="170"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="191"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 30 WIDTH="49"><div> 57</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="97"><div> Roland Pierre Perold</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="185"><div> 57.1 See common list at the end of Appendix B</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="175"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="170"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="191"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 45 WIDTH="49"><div> 58</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP><NOBR><div> Elsabe Putter</div> </NOBR></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="185"><div> 58.1 Eskom was not transparent enough and the public was not suitably informed.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="175"><div>  Previous comments on consultation refer.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="170"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="191"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 30 WIDTH="49"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="97"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="185"><div> 58.2 See common list at the end of Appendix B</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="175"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="170"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="191"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 76 WIDTH="49"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="97"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="185"><div> 58.3 Many issues were raised but were not adequately addressed mainly in respect of the visual & social impact on Tulbagh valley as specific area.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="175"><div>  Need further details on specific shortcomings of the studies in question.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="170"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="191"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 30 WIDTH="49"><div> 59</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="97"><div> Rhan Putter</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="185"><div> 59.1 See common list at the end of Appendix B</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="175"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="170"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="191"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 45 WIDTH="49"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="97"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="185"><div> 59.2 The EIA was superficial and lacked specialist input on visual impacts.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="175"><div>  Specialist input was provided in Chapter 12 of the draft EIR.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="170"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="191"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 30 WIDTH="49"><div> 61</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="97"><div> Mr Bothman Smartryk</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="185"><div> 61.1 See common list at the end of Appendix B</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="175"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="170"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="191"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 30 WIDTH="49"><div> 62</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="97"><div> Henreagan Danwill Steyn</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="185"><div> 62.1 See common list at the end of Appendix B</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="175"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="170"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="191"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 30 WIDTH="49"><div> 63</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="97"><div> Francois Swanelpoel</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="185"><div> 63.1 See common list at the end of Appendix B</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="175"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="170"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="191"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 76 WIDTH="49"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="97"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="185"><div> 63.2 But note that the only way to eliminate the impact would be to re route the line away from the Tulbagh valley or to generate an alternative source of electricity.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="175"><div> Alternative routes and generation was presented in Chapter 1 of the draft EIR.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="170"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="191"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 45 WIDTH="49"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="97"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="185"><div> 63.3 I do not approve of more power lines being erected across our valley.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="175"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="170"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="191"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 181 WIDTH="49"><div> 64</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="97"><div> Schoonderzicht Farm/ C.R van Kooy</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="185"><div> 64.1 We have not been notified about the Eskom pylons officially, before we bought this property. We found out about Eskom's plan and contacted them. Eskom officials E. Groenewald assured us the pylons would not affect our property. As far as we know the pylon-route Eskom has chosen will be very visible and at least two pylons will be just behind and on the side of the property.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP><NOBR><div>  Eskom to comment here.</div> </NOBR></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="170"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="191"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 227 WIDTH="49"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="97"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="185"><div> 64.2 This historical monumental farm "Schoderzicht" (1795) has not been taken into account in the authorisation process, no Eskom - official or EIA specialist has visited the farm or investigated the environmental impacts of this specific farm. The proposed Eskom route goes right behind our property. We can see the pylons coming in the valley through the Wolwekloof, going right through the valley and leaving the valley up the Witzenberg, where we are living.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="175"><div>  The farm Schoderzicht was not mentioned in the draft EIR, but the historic significance of the area around Steinthal and the Witsenberg mountain range within which this farm lies is addressed in the draft EIR (see Chapter 2 and Chapters 9 & 10)</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="170"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="191"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 60 WIDTH="49"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="97"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="185"><div> 64.3 We are only against developments that impact our life, health and well being. And the value of our property.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="175"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="170"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="191"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 212 WIDTH="49"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="97"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="185"><div> 64.4 Having pylons this close to our house is dangerous. Research shows that living so close to pylons like the ones Eskom proposes is a serious health risk. We have two small children of 4 & 6. We also provide a home to a family with 2 children of 7 & 14. Our neighbour, Steinthal is a childrens home and school and provides a home to hundreds of children. They will be exposed to health risks. We also run a business in tourism.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="175"><div>  Previous comments on health risks from EMFs refer.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="170"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="191"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 136 WIDTH="49"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="97"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="185"><div> 64.5 In the process to authorisation we have never been approached by any Eskom official. We have sent a letter and have tried to make contact .Our letter has been ignored and our phone calls not answered. So if this is not known the minister has to take this into consideration.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="175"><div>  Eskom to comment.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="170"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="191"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 15 WIDTH="49"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="97"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="185"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="175"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="170"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="191"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> </TABLE></div> <bR> <bR> <bR> <div> <B>APPENDIX B - LIST OF COMMON ISSUES RAISED BY STAKEHOLDERS REPRESENTED BY NICHOLAS SMITH & associates.</B></div> <bR> <div> <B> <TABLE BORDER="2" CELLPADDING="1" CELLSPACING="1" WIDTH="1068" BORDERCOLORLIGHT="#C0C0C0" BORDERCOLORDARK="#808080" FRAME="BOX" RULES="ROWS" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" > <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP BGCOLOR=#CCCCCC HEIGHT= 20 WIDTH="311"><div> <B><U>Common List</U></B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP BGCOLOR=#CCCCCC WIDTH="274"><div> <B>Response of Consultant</B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP BGCOLOR=#CCCCCC WIDTH="262"><div> <B>Reply of Appellants</B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP BGCOLOR=#CCCCCC WIDTH="202"><div> <B>Comments of DEAT</B></div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 108 WIDTH="311"><div> 1. We believe that the broader community was not adequately consulted.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="274"><div> The public consultation process is set out in the draft EIR (Chapter 5 and Appendices 2A-2I). Effort was made to give all interested and potentially affected parties the opportunity to participate. More specific reference to shortfalls from the Appellants is needed for a more specific response.</div> <bR> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="262"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="202"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 122 WIDTH="311"><div> 2. The visual impact and it's negative effects on the valley and the community have not been adequately addressed. ' Visual' implies visual, aesthetic, cultural, and spiritual aspects of the environment that contribute towards the area's 'sense of place'.    </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="274"><div> Both visual impact and sense of place were addressed in the study (see Chapter 2, Appendix 1 and Chapter 12).</div> <bR> <div> The issues around the cultural landscape were raised in detail by Nicholas Smith & Assoc. and responses given there will apply here.</div> <bR> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="262"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="202"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 151 WIDTH="311"><div> 3. Eskom only consulted (we believe by design) with small segment of the community that they perceived to be the stakeholders. The community at large who reside in the areas affected by the proposed power line were not and mostly are still not aware of the project or the magnitude of the size of the power line (equivalent to a 13 storey building). The communities of small towns of Merweville, Tulbagh, Ceres, Prince Alfred Hamlet, Riebeek Kasteel and Gouda, are not aware of the power line and it's possible and probable negative effects. </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="274"><div> The project was widely advertised and public open days and public meetings were held in all main centres along the study area. See Chapter 5 and Appendices 2A-2I for details.</div> <bR> <div> The size of the tower structures are set out in the draft EIR (see Chapter 1).</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="262"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="202"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 391 WIDTH="311"><div> 4.The economic impact on the loss of job opportunities and wealth creation through tourism and a decline in investment in the area, for a population with a high unemployment ratio, has not adequately been addressed.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="274"><div> The Appellants need to be more specific.</div> <bR> <div> Chapter 10 sets out the detail of the assessment at the time of the EIA. In the Mountain Section of the study area (including Tulbagh & Ceres) and in the Swartland Section (Gouda, Malmesbury, etc.) the following are relevant to the tourism aspects of the socio-economic assessment:</div> <div> Tourism is an important element of the local economy but only contributed around 10% of the local economies.</div> <div> Local attractions were important (e.g. agri-tourism), but regional attractions also supplemented this element of the economy (e.g. Cedarberg, Kouebokkeveld, 4x4 routes, hiking, etc.)</div> <div> The potential for impact (moderate, negative) on tourism in the areas are stated in Chapter 10, but it is also noted that the preferred route avoids the high potential tourism areas as far as possible.</div> <div> Furthermore, the economy of the wider region was considered. Insufficient and unreliable supply to the Western Cape area will have a substantial economic effect across all sectors in the region.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="262"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="202"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 45 WIDTH="311"><div> 5.The disastrous effect that this project will have on a picturesque [<I>sic</I>] steeped in history and heritage has not been addressed.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="274"><div> Disastrous impacts were not identified. The history and scenic qualities of the area were taken into consideration. (Chapters 2, 9, 10, 12)</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="262"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="202"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 45 WIDTH="311"><div> 6.Eskom did not adequately provide for alternatives in it's submission, such as alternative routes, alternative sources of energy generation etc.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="274"><div> This is addressed in Chapter 1.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="262"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="202"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 75 WIDTH="311"><div> 7.Eskom did not adequately consult and be informed by the Spatial Framework plans, or any development plans that the municipality has for the areas affected by the power line in terms of possible sterilisation of the areas.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="274"><div> The EIA was informed by the IDPs and Interim IDPs that were available at the time.</div> <bR> <div> Chapter 10 specifically reports on compatability with the IDPs. </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="262"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="202"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 45 WIDTH="311"><div> 8.Eskom used underhanded tactics to coerce farm owners to sign  (saying things like your neighbour has signed etc.)</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="274"><div> Eskom to comment.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="262"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="202"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 60 WIDTH="311"><div> 9. The level of compensation offered to a farmer in exchange for the servitudes amounted to "peanuts" when the value of the farm would have dropped to almost nil, if the power line is been erected.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="274"><div> Eskom to comment</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="262"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="202"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 30 WIDTH="311"><div> 10. Possible negative health issues were not adequately addressed.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="274"><div> See response to same issues raised by Nicholas Smith & Assoc. on behalf of the Appellants.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="262"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="202"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 76 WIDTH="311"><div> 11. The destruction of the visual beauty of heritage sensitive areas such as the Witzenberg Mountain range, the Riebeek and Tulbagh valleys in general and the Gydo pass in the Ceres valley, is assured by the proposed power line.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="274"><div> It is rare that the visual impact of a power line of this nature would be positive. The anticipated visual impacts are set out in Chapter 12.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="262"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="202"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 121 WIDTH="311"><div> 12. The viability of the area as an investment opportunity to equal Franshoek is assured to diminish and property values will be seriously affected by the project, as nobody likes power line and especially one that is almost three times that which people are accustomed to seeing. </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="274"><div> Property values were considered in Chapter 10, Section 6 of the draft EIR. Given the location of the line to the south of Tulbagh, near areas identified in the IDP for low cost housing, the impact on property values is not seen to be significant overall. Furthermore, compensation is paid to directly affected landowners as part of the servitude establishment.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="262"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="202"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 62 WIDTH="311"><div> 13. We believe that if the impact was assessed on any of the affected valleys alone and apart from the entire proposed route EIA, it will have failed dismally.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="274"><div> A section of the line cannot be seen in isolation but as part of the overall project. Alternative alignments were considered in the EIA.</div> <bR> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="262"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="202"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 91 WIDTH="311"><div> 14. The Heritage Council of the Western Cape was not aware of the project, and were not therefore given the opportunity to object, as they did initially against the proposed Golf Course in Tulbagh, as they considered the area to be of significant Heritage value to the people of South Africa.   </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="274"><div> To our knowledge, this organisation was established after June 2002. <FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#FFFFFF" FACE="Arial" >SAHRA was kept fully informed of the study and received the draft EIR.</FONT></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="262"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="202"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 60 WIDTH="311"><div> 15. The power line is proposed to cross the proposed golf course outside of Tulbagh, thereby seriously affecting it's viability and sustainability as a much needed investment opportunity and job creation project.    </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="274"><div> It is understood that the golf course plans were at a very preliminary stage during the EIA study.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="262"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="202"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 151 WIDTH="311"><div> 16. There is also a perception or understanding from the facts at our disposal, that the 'so called' stakeholders, who were consulted, were not fully representative of the broader community. As a matter of fact, some of the owners of farms approached by Eskom for options to cross their land certainly did not know of the proposed power line and there are many who are not members of and organised Agricultural Union. Then in respect of the ordinary public and general property owners in the valley ,not many ,if any ,knew about the power line at all!</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="274"><div> Previous comments on the public consultation process refer.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="262"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="202"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 166 WIDTH="311"><div> 17. This area is the last refuge of the Geometric Tortoise and it is feared that the Power line will negatively affect their chances of survival.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="274"><div> Known areas of the Geometric Tortoise were identified in the study and the line was routed to avoid these areas where possible. (Chapter 8) One known area may be affected, and other localised sites may be identified during the specialist `walk through' survey during detailed design. The habitat of the tortoise should not be negatively affected by the power line provided pylons are correctly located (in detailed design) and the construction process is properly managed. </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="262"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="202"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 136 WIDTH="311"><div> 18. The area is a breeding place for the Blue Crane and other rare bird life and Power lines pose a danger to these birds.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="274"><div> Chapter 7 of the draft EIR sets out the Avifauna assessment for the area. Blue Cranes are known to be in the study area and high, medium and low risk collision areas have been identified (see map 5a in Chapter 7). A number of `Low' and `Medium' risk areas were identified in the Ceres and Tulbagh areas, but with effective mitigation (e.g. bird flappers) the risk is generally reduced to a `Low' or `No' significance.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="262"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="202"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 60 WIDTH="311"><div> 19. We believe that the Eskom has taken the most cost effective route for them, without due regards to the well being of this community and that of our neighbouring communities.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="274"><div> Cost is a relevant consideration in an EIA, but it is not considered in isolation of other environmental issues. The draft EIR sets out all the issues considered in detail.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="262"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="202"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 106 WIDTH="311"><div> 20. It is considered that this Power Line infringes on our Constitutional Rights both in terms of our property rights, as well as in terms of the protection of minorities, as the residents of the small towns affected by the proposed Power Lines most certainly are.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="274"><div> It is unclear what aspect of the Constitution is considered here to be infringed. The EIA undertook to consider the environment as a whole and a public consultation process was undertaken that gave all potentially affected and interested parties the opportunity to contribute to the content of the EIA.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="262"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="202"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 76 WIDTH="311"><div> 21. This is a rural area which is hanging on by a thread in many respect in terms of wealth creation already. The power line could be a bigger disaster that the 1969 earthquake in the Tulbagh valley for these communities.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="274"><div> The economic situation was considered in the Assessments undertaken in 2001/02. Please refer to Chapter 10 of the draft EIR for the assessment of economic impacts. Disastrous economic consequences were not anticipated.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="262"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="202"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 121 WIDTH="311"><div> 22. We were not informed of the Record of Decision. As a crucial and mandated interest group in the Tulbagh valley, we believe that the failure by Eskom or it's consultants to inform this organisation, could be interpreted as deliberate and prejudicial to an appeal by us, given the period in which we have available to now lodge our appeal - more especially due to the complex nature of this appeal process.                           </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="274"><div> The availability of the RoD was advertised and all registered stakeholders were sent a notice.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="262"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="202"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 76 WIDTH="311"><div> 23. It is our belief that the EIA process was 'fatally flawed' and at the very least, Eskom should be to undertake the process again. We believe that the Record of Decision by Government, should never have been issued under the circumstances. </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="274"><div> DEAT to comment.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="262"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="202"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> </TABLE></B></div> <bR> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div> <B>GAMMA - OMEGA APPEALS</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>APPENDIX A - ISSUES RAISED BY NICHOLAS SMITH & ASSOCIATES</B></div> <bR> <div> <TABLE BORDER="2" CELLPADDING="1" CELLSPACING="1" WIDTH="1049" BORDERCOLORLIGHT="#C0C0C0" BORDERCOLORDARK="#808080" FRAME="BOX" RULES="ALL" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" > <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER BGCOLOR=#CCCCCC HEIGHT= 15 ><NOBR><div> Issues Raised by Nicholas Smith & Assoc.</div> </NOBR></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER BGCOLOR=#CCCCCC WIDTH="256"><div> <B>Response of Consultant</B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER BGCOLOR=#CCCCCC WIDTH="256"><div> <B>Reply of Appellants</B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER BGCOLOR=#CCCCCC WIDTH="256"><div> <B>Comments of DEAT</B></div> </tD> </tR> </TABLE></div> <div> <B> <TABLE BORDER="2" CELLPADDING="1" CELLSPACING="1" WIDTH="1049" BORDERCOLORLIGHT="#C0C0C0" BORDERCOLORDARK="#808080" FRAME="BOX" RULES="ALL" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" > <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 16 ><NOBR><div> <B>5   Non Compliance with ECA</B></div> </NOBR></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> </TABLE></B></div> <div> <B> <TABLE BORDER="2" CELLPADDING="1" CELLSPACING="1" WIDTH="1049" BORDERCOLORLIGHT="#C0C0C0" BORDERCOLORDARK="#808080" FRAME="BOX" RULES="ALL" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" > <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 20 ><NOBR><div> <B>Eskom as a juristic person</B></div> </NOBR></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="20" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="20" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="20" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> </TABLE></B></div> <div> <TABLE BORDER="2" CELLPADDING="1" CELLSPACING="1" WIDTH="1049" BORDERCOLORLIGHT="#C0C0C0" BORDERCOLORDARK="#808080" FRAME="BOX" RULES="ALL" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" > <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 136 WIDTH="256"><div> 5.1 Section 22 of the ECA states that "no <U>person</U> shall undertake an activity….or cause such an activity to be undertaken except by virtue of a written authorisation…" (Emphasis supplied). Accordingly, it is respectfully submitted that only a person may lawfully apply for, and hold, an authorisation for an identified activity issued by a competent authority in terms of section 22 of the ECA.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div> No comment from the consultant. (Eskom/DEAT to comment)</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 121 WIDTH="256"><div> 5.2 The RoD describes the applicant <I>in casu </I>as Eskom Transmission. It is respectfully submitted that whilst Eskom Holdings Limited is a juristic person in terms of the Eskom Act 40 of 1987, the applicant, namely Eskom Transmission, is merely a division of Eskom holdings Limited with no separate corporate personality.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div> No comment from the consultant. (Eskom/DEAT to comment)</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 106 WIDTH="256"><div> 5.3 It is respectfully submitted that the ROD is invalid in so far as it authorises a person that does not exist in law (and which, therefore, cannot lawfully undertake the activity of constructing the proposed transmission line). The Director General therefore acted <I>ultra vires</I> her power of the ECA.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div> No comment from the consultant. (Eskom/DEAT to comment)</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 76 WIDTH="256"><div> 5.4 Accordingly, the appellants appeal against the ROD on the basis that it purports unlawfully to issue the ROD in the name of an applicant that does not constitute a legal person for the purpose of section 22 of the ECA.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div> No comment from the consultant. (Eskom/DEAT to comment)</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> </TABLE></div> <div> <B> <TABLE BORDER="2" CELLPADDING="1" CELLSPACING="1" WIDTH="1049" BORDERCOLORLIGHT="#C0C0C0" BORDERCOLORDARK="#808080" FRAME="BOX" RULES="ALL" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" > <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 16 WIDTH="256"><div> <B>6  Gaps in the EIA process</B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 151 WIDTH="256"><div> 6.1 The final bullet-point on page 1 of the ROD records that the Department issued the ROD on the basis that the EIA undertaken in relation to the proposed activity, complies with the requirements of the EIA Regulations. It is respectfully submitted that the EIA undertaken by the environmental consultant (and as reflected in the draft EIR) failed to comply with the EIA Regulations in certain material respects, as described below.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="151" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> </TABLE></B></div> <div> <B> <TABLE BORDER="2" CELLPADDING="1" CELLSPACING="1" WIDTH="1049" BORDERCOLORLIGHT="#C0C0C0" BORDERCOLORDARK="#808080" FRAME="BOX" RULES="ALL" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" > <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 20 ><NOBR><div> <B>Inadequate public consultation</B></div> </NOBR></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="20" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="20" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="20" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 106 WIDTH="256"><div> 6.2 The Appellant's appeal against the ROD on the ground that there has been inadequate public consultation in relation to a development of this magnitude which, it is submitted, will result in significant adverse impact for the Witzenberg Municipal area and its inhabitants.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="106" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 30 WIDTH="256"><div> 6.3 There are two components to this ground of appeal, which are as follows:</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="30" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 272 WIDTH="256"><div> 6.3.1 Firstly, as a result of the time that has passed since the public participation process conducted by the environmental consultant in terms of the EIA Regulations was concluded in 2002 and the issuing of the ROD in June 2006, such persons were not aware of the proposed 764kV transmission line until the authorization for this activity (embodied in the ROD) was communicated to them by word of mouth during the month of June 2006. As a result, the public consultation process conducted by the environmental consultant between 1999 and 2002 is out of date and wholly inadequate.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div> The consultant's responsibility was to conduct public consultation for the duration of the EIA itself, and to inform registered stakeholders and the general public on the award of the ROD. The consultant had no involvement in the intervening period other than attend a site visit arranged by Eskom with key stakeholders in the Ceres and Tulbagh areas (<I>date to be provided</I>).</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 76 WIDTH="256"><div> 6.3.2 Secondly, the public consultation process conducted by the environmental consultant in terms of the EIA Regulations was procedurally flawed. </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div> No comment from the consultant. (DEAT to address)</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 242 WIDTH="256"><div> 6.4 With regard to the first component of this ground of appeal, one of the many mandatory requirements of the EIA Regulations that the EIR must contain a description of "<I>the public participation process followed, including a list of interested parties and their comments</I>". It is submitted that an EIA process undertaken between 1999 and 2002 is not capable of identifying those parties who will be directly affected by the construction and/or erection of a transmission line in 2006 and beyond. Accordingly, the EIA process <I>in casu</I> failed to assess comprehensively the impacts of the proposed development in so far as they relate to the individuals and communities that reside in the Witzenberg Municipal area at present.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div> The EIA was undertaken with the understanding that and ROD (whether positive or negative) would be issued within a reasonable time after the submission of the EIR.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 121 WIDTH="256"><div> 6.5 In addition, NEMA provides for various principles that must be applied throughout South Africa to the actions of all organs of state that may significantly affect the environment, including the taking of decisions relevant to environmental matters. The following NEMA principles are relevant to public participation in the EIA process:</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div> No comment required</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 111 WIDTH="256"><div> b) Environmental management must be integrated, acknowledging that all elements of the environment are linked and interrelated, and it must take into account the effects of decisions on all aspects of the environment and all people in the environment by pursuing the selection of the best practicable environmental option</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div> No comment required</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 97 WIDTH="256"><div> f) The participation of all interested and affected parties in environmental governance must be promoted, and all people must have the opportunity to develop the undertaking, skills and capacity necessary for achieving equitable and effective participation</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div> No comment required</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 83 WIDTH="256"><div> g) Decisions must take into account the interests, needs and values of all interested and affected parties, and this includes recognising all form of knowledge, including traditional and ordinary knowledge." (Emphasis supplied)</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div> No comment required</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 121 WIDTH="256"><div> 6.6 It is submitted that, the Director-General's decision to authorise the proposed 765kV transmission line on the basis of the (inadequate) public participation process conducted prior to 2002, does not comply with the requirements of section 2 of NEMA in so far as the decision-making process has failed <I>inter alia</I>.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div>  - </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 45 WIDTH="256"><div> 6.6.1 to take into account the interests of all interested and affected parties; or  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div> General comment on power line process to be as an addendum to this Appendix</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 60 WIDTH="256"><div> 6.6.2 to ensure that environmental management take into account the effects of decisions on all people in the environment.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div> General comment on power line process to be as an addendum to this Appendix</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="60" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="60" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 45 WIDTH="256"><div> 6.7 With regards to the second component of this ground of appeal, the Appellants submit the following: </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="45" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="45" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="45" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 151 WIDTH="256"><div> 6.7.1 On the facts of this matter, the applicant failed to comply with one of the mandatory requirements of the EIA Regulations that all interested parties (as defined in the EIA Regulations) are given the opportunity to participate in <U>all the relevant procedures</U> contemplated in the EIA Regulations. This ground of appeal is based on the fact that:</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div> The consultation process carried our during the EIA was structured to provide opportunity for all interested parties to participate in the EIA. This process is set out in Chapter 5 and Appendices 2A to 2I of the Draft EIR.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="151" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="151" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 303 WIDTH="256"><div> 6.7.2 Interested parties were confined to making submissions on an earlier draft of the EIR (dated March 2002) - in other words, interested parties were not entitled to make further written submission on the final EIR <U>before</U> a decision was made by the Department. Such an approach (in terms of which the environmental consultant seeks to limit the participation of interested parties to the investigation phase of the EIA process - that is, only up to submission of the final EIR) was held to be "fundamentally unsound" by the High Court (Cape Provincial Division) in the Earthlife Africa case. It is respectfully submitted, therefore, that the EIA process was fatally flawed on this basis alone. </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div> The draft EIR was prepared as a final document, to be updated only by way of adding comments received from interested parties during the comment period.</div> <bR> <div> See comments on Addendum Report below.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="303" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="303" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 265 WIDTH="256"><div> 6.7.3 New facts (in the form of an addendum to the EIR (dated June 2002) and a report on investigations into different alternatives), were submitted to the Department and placed before the decision-maker, on behalf of the applicant, without interested parties being afforded an opportunity to comment thereon.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div> The Addendum Report contained the comments received on the draft EIR.  <I>(A copy should be given to the Appellants)</I></div> <bR> <div> There were no changes to the draft EIR other than two additional recommendations:</div> <bR> <div> 6-XII - recommending Eskom Transmission to liase with local authorities with regard to local building regulations, and</div> <bR> <div> 6-XIII - reaffirms the recommendation that an EMP be implemented for the new 765kV line, but that this must include a communication strategy with stakeholders along the servitude.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="265" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="265" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 121 WIDTH="256"><div> 6.8 In view of the fact that interested parties were not provided with an opportunity to comment on the final EIR, a mandatory and material procedure prescribed by the EIA Regulations was not complied with. It is respectfully submitted, therefore, that on this basis alone the EIA process is fatally flawed and falls to be set aside on appeal.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div> The procedure of releasing Addendum reports (or similar) is now standard. This was not the case in 2002. Only new information regarding the study would have been released had this arisen at the time. Under the circumstances, no new information was seen to be withheld from interested parties by not releasing the Addendum report to the wider public.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="121" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="121" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 136 WIDTH="256"><div> 6.9 The appellants also respectfully submit that the Department's officials should have identified that regulations 3(1)(f) of the EIA Regulations was not complied with by the applicant and, further, should have appraised the applicant of the shortcomings in the public participation process. The Department's failure to do so is indicative of non-compliance with regulation 3 (3)(a) of the EIA Regulations.  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div> No comment from the consultant. (DEAT to address)</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="136" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="136" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 166 WIDTH="256"><div> 6.10 In summary, the Appellant's respectfully submit that their rights (as well as the rights of their constituent member, where applicable) stand to be directly and materially adversely affected without them having been afforded an adequate opportunity of commenting on or participating in the decision-making process (and thereby contributing to the discussion and assessment of impacts). Accordingly, this appellants appeal against the ROD on the basis that: </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div> Legal opinion is required on whether rights have been affected under these specific circumstances.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="166" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="166" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 330 WIDTH="256"><div> 6.10.1 In view of the changes to the demographic composition of the Witzenberg Municipal area that have taken place since March 2002 the public participation process was wholly inadequate.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div> With regard to the Witzenberg Municipal area the following is considered relevant here:</div> <div> Members of the Witzenberg Farmers Assoc. were involved in the EIA since the beginning of the study.</div> <div> The Witzenberg Agricultural Union was specifically invited to participate in the project. Discussions were held with their members who identified themselves as the “Witzenberg Groep”.</div> <div> Witzenberg Municipality were themselves particularly active in commenting on the draft EIR.</div> <div> As such, community representatives were well aware of the potential for the development of a new power line in their area, and were aware of the proposed route of the line. They were therefore in a position to advise newcomers to the area.</div> <bR> <div> This should be considered in evaluating the significance of this point of the appeal.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="330" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="330" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 60 WIDTH="256"><div> 6.10.2 The opportunities provided to interested parties to comment on the EIR were limited to the draft EIR dated March 2002.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div> Response as per Appellants item 6.8 remains relevant here.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="60" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="60" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 121 WIDTH="256"><div> 6.10.3 The decision-making process fails to comply with the national environmental management principles contained in NEMA (in particular, the decision making process falls short of the standard of decision-making required by virtue of section 2(4)(f) and (2)(4)(g) of NEMA).</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div> No comment from the consultant. (DEAT to address)</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="121" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="121" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 60 WIDTH="256"><div> 6.10.4 The applicant and the Department failed to comply with the peremptory requirements of the EIA Regulations.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div> No comment from the consultant. (DEAT to address)</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="60" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="60" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 151 WIDTH="256"><div> 6.10.5 The Department based it's decision on documents and/or other information that were not previously made available to the Appellant or other interested parties, which has infringed the Appellants' right to procedurally fair administrative action enshrined in section 33(1) of the Constitution, read with section 6(2)(c) of PAJA. </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div> No comment from the consultant. (DEAT to address)</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="151" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="151" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 30 WIDTH="256"><div> <U>Inadequate description and assessment of alternatives</U></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="30" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="30" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="30" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 166 WIDTH="256"><div> 6.11 The EIA Regulations provide that the alternatives to each principal activity applied for must be considered and assessed as part of the assessment phase of the EIA process which culminates in the production of such information in an EIR. The Appellant submit that the approach adopted by the environmental consultant towards the assessment of alternatives during the EIA process has been unlawfully circumscribed. This is based on the following grounds:   </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="166" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="166" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="166" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 346 WIDTH="256"><div> 6.11.1 The approach by the environmental consultant to the identification and assessment of project alternatives was constrained at the outset, as the EIR records that preliminary planning studies undertaken  (presumably by Eskom) during the 1980s and 1990s resulted in Eskom identifying its preferred route for the 765kV transmission lines as being via the Ceres and Tulbagh areas, notwithstanding the topographic and social constraints of this preferred route. </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div> Chapter 2, Section 3.1 in the draft EIR sets out the review, by the consultant, of route options identified in the initial planning stages.</div> <bR> <div> It is also common practice in route planning for linear projects to begin with the straightest route between the start and end points. Alternatives will develop as deviations from this shortest route. Section 3.1 sets out that any deviation away from the Ceres/Tulbagh valleys would result require the crossing of more extensive mountainous areas (with associated technical and ecological costs), more developed areas (e.g. along the N1 route to the south (with associated socio-economic problems), or far to the north. Eskom confirmed they would not accept the northern alternative as it more than double the cost of the project.</div> <bR> <div> It is not required of the consultant to assess the potential impacts of alternatives that will not be accepted by the developer.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="346" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="346" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 136 WIDTH="256"><div> 6.11.2 Based on Eskom's preferred choice of route, various alignment alternatives were identified by the environmental consultant during the scoping phase of the EIA process. As a result, the focus on Eskom's preferred choice of route was carried through to the assessment phase of the EIA process.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div> Response above refers.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="136" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="136" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 333 WIDTH="256"><div> 6.11.3 As a result of Eskom's predetermined preferred route, the study area itself was geographically limited. The geographical study area is illustrated in figure 5 of chapter 1 of the EIR, which indicates that the corridor width of the study area is only 20 kilometres wide. At the outset, therefore, studies undertaken by the environmental consultant excluded viable project alternatives that fell outside of the study area. To illustrate this, by way of example, ….. a viable route between Beaufort West, Sutherland, Piketberg and Saldanha (…Omega) …would not have been identified …on the basis that it fell outside the corridor of the study area. It is submitted that the historical approach to the study has limited the scope and the effectiveness of the EIA process. </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div> Routes north of the Ceres/Tulbagh valleys would be crossing the more pristine environments of the Kouebokkeveld, and would still involve significant areas of mountainous terrain (unless the route was taken north of Clanwilliam).</div> <bR> <div> Furthermore, this route (via Sutherland and Piketberg) will still require an additional substation due to the extra length of line, and would reduce the benefit of running parallel to the existing 400kV lines as the new line would need to deviate from the proposed route some distance east of Sutherland.</div> <bR> <div> <I>(more details regarding the Kouebokkeveld to be included here)</I></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="333" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="333" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 286 WIDTH="256"><div> 6.11.4 It is inadequate and/or inappropriate to exclude, as the environmental consultant has done, power generation initiatives from the ambit of the identification and assessment of project alternatives. This is a mandatory requirements in terms of the EIA Regulations and insofar as parallel power generation initiatives constitute a viable alternative to the proposed activity, they fall to be considered and assessed by the environmental consultant.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div> Chapter 1, Section 5.2 clearly states..” <I>At this stage of the planning process, there is no certainty on the future of these generation alternatives, and with the planning timeline required for project of this magnitude….the planning stages </I>[for the 765kV power line] <I>already need to be underway</I>”.</div> <bR> <div> Chapter 6, Section 5 also clearly states the planning requirements for a new power line in parallel with other power related projects.</div> <bR> <div> Therefore, in effect the power generation initiatives were not excluded from the consideration of alternatives. It is also relevant that to date no viable local power generation source has emerged that was not already part of Eskom's network planning (including the Palmiet hydro scheme).</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="286" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="286" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 181 WIDTH="256"><div> 6.11.5 For the reasons stated elsewhere in this appeal, developments in Eskom's power generation and/or transmission initiatives since 2002 may have given rise to viable alternatives sources of power generation and /or transmission (which may have direct baring on the contemporary relevance of the transmission line) and which fall to be considered during the EIA process.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div> See above. </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="181" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="181" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 197 WIDTH="256"><div> 6.11.6 The exclusion of certain project alternatives by the environmental consultants has more to do with cost sensitivity of the applicant rather than valid environmental considerations. For example, the alternative of situating the proposed 76kV transmission line underground was not considered in the EIR as a viable alternative on the grounds that it will be approximately 20 times more expensive than the overhead lines supported by pylons.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div> It is not for the consultant to decide what the developer will or will not build. There is no requirement to assess the environmental impacts of developments that will not be built. The application to undertake an EIA for this project specifically stated that it was for a new 765kV Transmission power line between the Gamma and Omega substations.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="197" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="197" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 60 WIDTH="256"><div> 6.12 In the result, it is respectfully submitted that the EIA process followed was circumscribed and fundamentally flawed in that: </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div> Given the above, the EIA process is not seen to be flawed.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="60" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="60" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 45 WIDTH="256"><div> 6.12.1 viable alternatives were considered and subsequently eliminated; and </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div> This is good process</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="45" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="45" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 30 WIDTH="256"><div> 6.12.2 other alternatives were not considered at all.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER><NOBR><div> Motivation was provided in the draft EIR.</div> </NOBR></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="30" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="30" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 272 WIDTH="256"><div> 6.13 In support of the above, it is respectfully submitted that the true purpose of an EIA is to serve as a planning tool which informs the regulatory decision-making process (as well as the public ) of the environmental consequences of projects so that the project in question can be modified to prevent and/or mitigate substantial detrimental effects on the environment. By limiting the study area at the outset, and by focusing on Eskom's preferred choice of route, the consideration of alternatives has been stifled. In the result, the EIA process has been rendered ineffective in promoting sustainable development and ensuring that activities described in the Identified Activities Regulations do not have a substantial detrimental effect on the environment. </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div> DEAT to comment in consideration of the above.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="272" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="272" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 166 WIDTH="256"><div> 6.14 In summary, it is submitted that as a direct result of the historical approach to this project and the planning methodologies which informed the project, a comprehensive and objective process (undertaken in the context of the legislative requirements imposed by the current environmental regulatory framework) of identifying and assessing all project alternatives including all alignment alternatives was not undertaken by the environmental consultant.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div> DEAT to comment in consideration of the above.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="166" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="166" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 30 WIDTH="256"><div> <U>Inadequate description of the public participation process</U></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="30" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="30" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="30" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 106 WIDTH="256"><div> 6.15 The fourth bullet-point under the first paragraph of section 2 ROD refers to an undated report on the investigations into different alternative to accommodate issues raised by the Eskom Transmission Line Action Committee and certain members of the Tulbagh community. </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div> This was undertaken by Eskom after the final EIR was submitted to DEAT. Eskom to provide the necessary details.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="106" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="106" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 136 WIDTH="256"><div> 6.16 The completion of the EIR predates the compilation by the applicant of the Report on Alternatives and the EIR, therefore, does not comply with the requirements of the EIA Regulations in its current form as it does not describe the further engagements that took place between interested parties and the applicant subsequent to the completion of the EIR.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER><NOBR><div> Eskom to provide the necessary details.</div> </NOBR></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="136" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="136" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 30 WIDTH="256"><div> <U>Inadequate description of the place where the activity is to be undertaken.</U></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="30" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="30" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="30" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 30 WIDTH="256"><div> 6.17 With regards to the description, extent and location of the activity, the ROD records that:</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="30" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="30" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="30" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 166 WIDTH="256"><div> " The development entails the construction of a +-520km Eskom Gamma-Omega 765kV transmission power line from the proposed Gamma (Koeberg) [<I>sic</I>] substation to the proposed Omega (Victoria West) [<I>sic</I>] substation, as per the route corridor description in the description in the environmental impact report dated March 2002 and as shown on the locality maps 2a,2b and 2c of the environmental impact report dated March 2002, the route corridor described as the Central Route.”</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="166" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="166" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="166" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 197 WIDTH="256"><div> 6.18 The EIA Regulations prescribe that a record of decision (issued in terms of regulation 10(1) of the EIA Regulations) must include a description of the specific place where the identified activity is to be undertaken. However, instead of clearly identifying the exact alignment of the proposed transmission line that has been authorised, the ROD refers broadly to the route corridor description in the EIR (and as reflected on maps 2a,2b and 2c of the EIR). By way of further clarification, the ROD refers to "the route corridor as being described as the Central Route."</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div> Chapter 2, Section 3.4, Table 9 of the draft EIR defines the Central Route in terms of Maps 2a, 2b, and 2c.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="197" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="197" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 318 WIDTH="256"><div> 6.19 It is submitted that the use of the term " route corridor" is misleading and vague and is not used anywhere in the EIR itself. The Appellants presume, therefore, that this term is used to refer to the study area corridor (which has a width of 20 kilometres) and which study area contains all of the alignment alternatives. Importantly, map 2a of the EIR does not assist in clarifying which alignment has so called "Proposed Route Alternatives" and none of which is described on the map itself as "the Central Route" (as this term is used in ROD to describe the alignment that apparently has been authorised by the Department). It is therefore, respectfully submitted that the ROD is vague and incapable of reasonable interpretation and/or implementation. In this regard, it is submitted that the Director-General has failed to comply satisfactorily with one of the mandatory requirements of the EIA Regulations.  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div> Chapter 6 in the draft EIR, Section 6, Recommendation 6-II, clearly sets out the recommended corridors for each section of the Central Route (between 200m and 500m depending on location).</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="318" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="318" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 242 WIDTH="256"><div> 6.20 In addition, the lack of clarity regarding the specific route alignment for the 765kV transmission line is illustrated with reference to the Report on Alternatives prepared by Eskom in 2004 (I.e. after the EIR had been submitted to the Department for adjudication). In terms of this report, Eskom amended the proposed alignment in order to take into account concerns raised by the local community in the Tulbagh area. The final route chosen by Eskom (and as recorded in the Report in Alternatives) constitutes the mean of Routes 1 and 3 ( as reflected on page 3 of the Report on Alternatives) which differs markedly from the proposed alternative route alignments that formed the basis of the EIR.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div> Eskom to comment. </div> <div> <I>(I'm not aware of this!)</I></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="242" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="242" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> </TABLE></B></div> <div> <B> <TABLE BORDER="2" CELLPADDING="1" CELLSPACING="1" WIDTH="1049" BORDERCOLORLIGHT="#C0C0C0" BORDERCOLORDARK="#808080" FRAME="BOX" RULES="ALL" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" > <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 39 WIDTH="256"><div> <B>Inadequate description of the consultants</B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="39" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="39" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="39" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 60 WIDTH="256"><div> 6.21The EIA Regulations prescribe that a record of decision must include the name, address and telephone number of any consultant involved in the EIA process.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div> No comment from the consultant. (DEAT to address)</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="60" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="60" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 45 WIDTH="256"><div> 6.22 Notwithstanding the fact that the EIR reveals that a range of consultants were involved in the EIA process</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div> No comment from the consultant. (DEAT to address)</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="45" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="45" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> </TABLE></B></div> <div> <B> <TABLE BORDER="2" CELLPADDING="1" CELLSPACING="1" WIDTH="1049" BORDERCOLORLIGHT="#C0C0C0" BORDERCOLORDARK="#808080" FRAME="BOX" RULES="ALL" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" > <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 39 WIDTH="256"><div> <B>Inadequate description of site visits</B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="39" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="39" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="39" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 60 WIDTH="256"><div> 6.23 The EIA regulations provide that a ROD must include a description of the date of any site visits undertaken (as well as the names of the persons present).</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div> No comment from the consultant. (DEAT to address)</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="60" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="60" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 166 WIDTH="256"><div> 6.24  The ROD falls short of this mandatory requirement of the EIA regulations in that it records in general terms that “<I>a number of site visits were undertaken by the applicant, consultants, specialists and officials from the Western cape Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning, the Northern Cape Department of Tourism, Environment and Conservation and the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism”</I>.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div> No comment from the consultant. (DEAT to address)</div> <div> (<I>Our initial site visits - 1999 - were with Vanessa Marais from DEAT national, and Danie Smit attended the first Key Stakeholder Workshop in January 2000. Thereafter I will need to check our archives to see whether any of the others attended a site visit. To my recollection, Western Cape never came to site during the EIA, though we met with them a number of times in cape Town</I>).</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="166" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="166" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 75 WIDTH="256"><div> 6.25 It is not possible to determine from the aforementioned description whether any of</div> <div> the site visits allegedly undertaken were in respect of the Witzenberg Municipal</div> <div> area.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div> <I>To my recollection, only Vanessa Marais attended during the EIA period.</I></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="75" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="75" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 18 WIDTH="256"><div> <B>7. Gaps in the EIA Process</B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="18" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="18" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="18" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 136 WIDTH="256"><div> 7.1 The first bullet-point on page 2 of the ROD records that one of the key factors informing the Department's decision was that "[n]o fatal flaws have been identified during the EIA process and review of the information submitted." It is submitted that the Director-General failed to apply her mind properly to the review of the application for authorisation, for the following reasons:</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div> The consultants response to the points below have been provided above.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="136" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="136" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 91 WIDTH="256"><div> 7.1.1 It should have been clear that an EIA process which limits the public participation process to the submission of comments on a draft EIR is fundamentally unsound and procedurally unfair.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div> No comment from the consultant. (DEAT to address)</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="91" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="91" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 181 WIDTH="256"><div> 7.1.2 It should have been readily apparent that issuing a ROD in respect of a linear development (that will entail significant adverse impacts on the environment, cultural heritage, human health and well-being and socio- economic considerations of directly affected communities) some four years after the identification and assessment of such impacts in the context of the EIR is in itself fundamentally flawed.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div> No comment from the consultant. (DEAT to address)</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="181" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="181" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> </TABLE></B></div> <div> <B> <TABLE BORDER="2" CELLPADDING="1" CELLSPACING="1" WIDTH="1049" BORDERCOLORLIGHT="#C0C0C0" BORDERCOLORDARK="#808080" FRAME="BOX" RULES="ALL" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" > <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 39 WIDTH="256"><div> <B>Inadequate and/or irrelevant information</B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="39" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="39" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="39" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 347 WIDTH="256"><div> 7.2 The second paragraph under section 2 of the ROD lists (in the form of 10 bullet-points), the findings made by the Department after having reviewed the documentation placed before the decision-maker. The first two bullet-points relate to the motivation for the proposed construction of the power line and provide as follows:</div> <div> The proposed development is part of Eskom's new capacity installation programme and is intended to meet the future peak electricity demands of South Africa.</div> <div> The Gamma-Omega 765kV transmission power line is a major component of the Cape Strengthening Programme being undertaken by Eskom transmission with the aim to improve the reliability of the existing network and to upgrade the transmission capacity of the network to the Western Cape to meet the increased demand for reliable supply of electricity. "</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER><NOBR><div> No comment from the consultant.</div> </NOBR></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="347" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="347" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 136 WIDTH="256"><div> 7.3 Whilst the need and desirability for a 765kV transmission line between Gamma and Omega substations was justified (in the EIR) in 2002, it is not possible ( on the basis of the information that served before the Department) to assess what effect (if any) the recent transmission and/or generation initiatives in the Western Cape have had on Eskom's strategic planning process.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div> The consultant is not aware of any detraction from the original strategic plan. In fact, power failures in the Western Cape late in 2005 and early 2006 highlight the instability of the Transmission network under current loading, emphasising the need for the reinforcement of the network.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="136" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="136" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 121 WIDTH="256"><div> 7.4 As a result of the effluxion in time between the date on which the motivation for the proposed transmission line was prepared and the date on which the Department authorised the activity in question, has resulted in the Director-General's decision being based upon out of date factual information and, therefore, irrelevant considerations.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER><NOBR><div> No comment from the consultant.</div> </NOBR></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="121" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="121" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 106 WIDTH="256"><div> 7.5 It is submitted that the Department is obliged to consider and assess the applicant's application for authorisation (in terms of section 22 of the ECA) against the backdrop of all relevant factual considerations. This was not possible to achieve on the facts of the present matter for the following reasons:</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div> Previous comments refer. No additional comment from the consultant.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="106" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="106" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 212 WIDTH="256"><div> 7.5.1 The Department cannot discharge this obligation on the basis of an EIR prepared in 2002. It is respectfully submitted that in the six years that have passed since the environmental consultant was first appointed to undertake the EIA components of Eskom's Cape Strengthening Programme, there would have been developments in Eskom's power generation and power transmission strategies that may impact directly on the need for the 765kV transmission line.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div> Previous comments refer. No additional comment from the consultant.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="212" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="212" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 76 WIDTH="256"><div> 7.5.2 An EIR prepared in 2002 is incapable of accounting for Eskom's parallel power generation and/or transmission initiatives that have occurred since then.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div> Previous comments refer. No additional comment from the consultant.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="76" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="76" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 151 WIDTH="256"><div> 7.5.3 The EIR acknowledges the gaps in information relevant to the EIA process by stating that (at the time of undertaking the EIR in 2002) "t<I>here is no certainty on the future of these [power] generation alternatives. ..it is recognised that a further environmental review will need to be undertaken closer to the intended construction time</I>".</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div> Statement is confirmed as appearing in Chapter 6, Section 5 of the draft EIR.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="151" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="151" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 136 WIDTH="256"><div> 7.6 The second bullet-point on page 2 of the ROD records that "[i]nformation submitted by the independent environmental consultant is deemed to be sufficient and adequate to make an informed decision". On the contrary it is respectfully submitted that the information submitted by the environmental consultant is</div> <div> inadequate and insufficient for the following reasons:</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="136" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="136" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="136" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 76 WIDTH="256"><div> 7.6.1 The information contained in the EIR was gathered during or before 2002 and, therefore, the information contained therein is largely out of date.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER><NOBR><div> No further comment from the consultant</div> </NOBR></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="76" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="76" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 257 WIDTH="256"><div> 7.6.2 There have been substantive and material social, economic and environmental changes in the Witzenberg Municipal area since 2002 (which differ markedly from the facts recorded in the documents that were submitted to the Department) and which changes have rendered the information in the EIR obsolete. For example, the proposal by the Witzenberg Municipality (as evidenced in the municipality's Spatial. Development Framework dated January 2005) to relocate informal settlements to the south of the town of Tulbagh impacts directly on the proposed transmission line).</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div> Given the involvement of the Witzenberg Municipality's involvement in the EIA and the high profile of the proposed power line project in the local media since the submission of the final EIR to DEAT, it may be concluded that the municipality has put forward their proposal with full understanding of the implications.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="257" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="257" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 76 WIDTH="256"><div> 7.6.3 The information in relation to alternatives to this project is inadequate (see the submissions set out in paragraph 6.11 <I>et seq</I>. of this document). </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div> No further comment from the consultant. Previous comments refer.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="76" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="76" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 106 WIDTH="256"><div> 7.7 In view of the above, we respectfully submit that concerns regarding and/or flowing from the proposed transmission line and which relate principally to the impact of the proposed development on the environment have not been assessed properly in accordance with the requirements of the ECA.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div> No further comment from the consultant. Previous comments refer.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="106" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="106" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 166 WIDTH="256"><div> 7.8 Insofar as the current factual circumstances relating to the Witzenberg Municipal area have changed and differ markedly from those recorded in the EIR, it is respectfully submitted that the decision-maker either failed to apply her mind to relevant considerations, or alternatively considered irrelevant considerations. The failure by the decision-maker to consider all relevant factors renders the ROD susceptible to setting aside on appeal.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div> No further comment from the consultant. Previous comments refer.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="166" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="166" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 151 WIDTH="256"><div> 7.9 Accordingly, it is respectfully submitted that for the reasons outlined above, the Director-General's decision was based on inadequate and out of date information and, as such, the Director-General's decision to approve the application is fatally flawed because irrelevant considerations were taken into account during the decision-making process and/or relevant considerations were not considered by the Director-General.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div> No further comment from the consultant. Previous comments refer.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="151" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="151" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 30 WIDTH="256"><div> <U>Inadequate identification/assessment of heritage impacts</U></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="30" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="30" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="30" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 121 WIDTH="256"><div> 7.10 It is respectfully submitted that the heritage specialist studies undertaken as part of the EIR do not adequately address the minimum requirements for a heritage impact assessment (HIA) required for a proposed linear development of this nature (set out in section 38 of the National Heritage Resources Act, 25 of 1999).</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="121" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="121" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="121" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 197 WIDTH="256"><div> 7.11 In particular there is no evidence to suggest that the Department has complied with the proviso to section 38(8) of the National Heritage Resources Act, which stipulates that "the consenting authority must ensure that the evaluation [i.e. an EIA undertaken in terms of the ECA] fulfils the requirements of the relevant heritage resources authority in terms of subsection (3), and any comments and recommendations of the relevant heritage resources authority with regard to such development have been taken into account prior to the granting of the consent."</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div> SAHRA was advised of the availability of the draft EIR on the 20<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#FFFFFF" FACE="Arial" >th</FONT> March 2002. An electronic copy of the draft EIR were sent to SAHRA for comment, though no comment on the report was received. The heritage consultant visited SAHRA's offices to discuss the report and saw a copy with the case officer.</div> <bR> <div> Furthermore, DEAT gave written approval of the approach to the study and content of the EIR. This was sent to all registered stakeholders (including SAHRA) on the … (date to be confirmed)</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="197" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="197" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 272 WIDTH="256"><div> 7.12 The level of heritage specialist input in the EIA process was limited to a Heritage Review, which in general terms implies a "scoping level" of heritage assessment and not a full heritage impact assessment ("HIA "). It is respectfully submitted that, in view of the nature and scale of proposed intervention in the landscape by the proposed transmission line, and the significance and sensitivity of the affected heritage contexts, the EIA process undertaken <I>in casu</I> should have complied with, as a bare minimum, the minimum requirements for HIA set out in section 38(3) of the National Heritage Resources Act. It is submitted that the level of heritage specialist input involved in the EIA process only partially complied with the abovementioned legal requirements.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div> Power lines have a unique interaction with the environment, and this guided the level of study undertaken at the time. See supporting document for Appendix A. Due to the reasons given in the attached document, SAHRA had been advised (August 2001) that a `desk level' investigation was planned for the EIA.</div> <bR> <div> Again, DEAT gave their approval of the approach to the study and content of the EIR.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="272" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="272" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 121 WIDTH="256"><div> 7.13 Further, it is submitted that the scope and expertise of heritage specialist input involved in the EIR did not provide a sufficient basis to inform appropriate decision-making with respect to the range and complexity of heritage issues relating to the proposed transmission line. The Appellants support this contention on the following grounds:</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="121" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="121" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="121" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 136 WIDTH="256"><div> 7.13.1 The scope of study undertaken in the Heritage Review report was inadequate in that it was limited to the identification and mapping of potential archaeological and palaeontological sites, and buildings, graves, cemeteries, built structures and landscape features of historical significance.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="136" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="136" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="136" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 318 WIDTH="256"><div> 7.13.2 The limited scope of study undertaken in the Heritage Review report provides for a very limited definition of heritage resources, which does not take into account the broad definition of heritage resources in the National Heritage Resources Act, in terms of which heritage resources are defined as places and objects of cultural significance for aesthetic, architectural, historical, scientific, social, spiritual, linguistic and/or technological reasons. Accordingly this definition includes both tangible forms of heritage (e.g. archaeological remains and historical fabric), as well as intangible forms of heritage (e.g. the experiential qualities/character of a place, and cultural traditions, values and meanings associated with a place).</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div> The focus of the study undertaken was in line with EIAs of the time. See separate supporting document for Appendix A.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="318" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="318" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 91 WIDTH="256"><div> 7.13.3 The scope of study does not clearly take into account the broad criteria for assessing heritage significance of a place of object as outlined in section 3(3) of the National Heritage Resources Act, namely:</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="91" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="91" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="91" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> </TABLE></B></div> <div> <TABLE BORDER="2" CELLPADDING="1" CELLSPACING="1" WIDTH="1049" BORDERCOLORLIGHT="#C0C0C0" BORDERCOLORDARK="#808080" FRAME="BOX" RULES="ALL" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" > <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 143 WIDTH="256"><div> 7.13.4 The scope of study does not refer to the system for grading of heritage resources as outlined in the National Heritage Resources Act, namely:</div> <div> Grade I: significant within a national context;</div> <div> Grade 2: significant within a provincial or regional context; and</div> <div> Grade 3: significant within a local context.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="143" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="143" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="143" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 166 WIDTH="256"><div> 7.13.5 The Heritage Review report states that fieldwork and the desktop survey undertaken were severely limited and allowed for a cursory assessment only. It is submitted that any limitations to the survey information relating to archaeological and palaeontological sites should have been subject to professional opinion from experts within these disciplines.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div> The approach followed is specific to power lines and reflects the nature of the impact of power lines on the ground. The study was done with the understanding that a detailed site survey of the final route would be undertaken during detailed design to ensure appropriate mitigation is achieved.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="166" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="166" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 318 WIDTH="256"><div> 7.13.6 The Heritage Review report largely relies on a list of existing formally declared heritage sites and published survey information ( e.g. Fransen & Cook (1980)). It is submitted that such survey information is generally regarded by heritage practitioners and heritage resources authorities as incomplete and limited, especially with respect those outlying areas of the Swartland, Boland and Karoo regions affected by the proposed transmission line. Further, the emphasis of such previous surveys is on the identification of heritage resources based on historical and architectural criteria rather than the intangible and contextual heritage criteria defined in terms of the National Heritage Resources Act.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div> No destruction of heritage sites is anticipated as a result of this line (provided adequate survey during detailed design and construction management is implemented). New sites of heritage significance, if found during this process, will be avoided by the line within the corridors recommended in the draft EIR.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="318" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="318" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 272 WIDTH="256"><div> 7.13.7 The expertise of the specialist (The Agency for. Cultural Resource Management) has not been established as the Agency is a consultancy specialising in the field of pre-colonial archaeology. In terms of the accreditation criteria of the Association of Heritage Practitioners in the Western Cape ("AHAP"), the Agency is accredited as a heritage specialist in pre-colonial archaeology. It is submitted, therefore, that the Agency does not have the relevant expertise to address the range and complexity of heritage issues involved in the project, namely historical archaeological, cultural landscape or intangible heritage issues.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div> At the time the study was undertaken, the heritage consultant met with SAHRA to discuss the report. It is understood specific aspects of the study area were discussed, but no formal response was received from SAHRA on the draft EIR.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="272" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="272" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 318 WIDTH="256"><div> 7.13.8 Notwithstanding the fact that cultural landscapes provide the essential context for a range of heritage resources, which can take a variety of forms and are themselves a heritage resource, the Heritage Review report focuses on individual heritage resources (in the form of historical farmsteads, outspans, fortifications, routes, etc.) without sufficient consideration having been given to the cultural landscape context, whilst best practice in heritage management, as well as the recently published DEA&.DP Guidelines for Involving Heritage Specialists in EIA processes (2005) recognises cultural landscape analysis as a critical aspect in the identification and management of heritage resources.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div> The study was done prior to the guidelines mentioned, and was at a time when cultural landscapes was not well defined. See supporting document for Appendix A.</div> <bR> <div> However, the draft EIR does not summarily ignore the cultural and historical significance of the area, including the Ceres, Witzenberg and Tulbagh areas. In addition to the heritage report, Chapter 2 of the main report  (Section 5 and Appendix 1) addresses this, providing important and relevant information in this context for decision making.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="318" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="318" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> </TABLE></div> <div> <TABLE BORDER="2" CELLPADDING="1" CELLSPACING="1" WIDTH="1049" BORDERCOLORLIGHT="#C0C0C0" BORDERCOLORDARK="#808080" FRAME="BOX" RULES="ALL" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" > <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 407 WIDTH="256"><div> 7.13.9 The primary overarching heritage issue relating to the proposed transmission line is the potential impacts on varying cultural landscape contexts through which the transmission line will pass. Some of the significant cultural landscapes affected by the proposed project include the following:</div> <div> Palaeontological landscapes e.g. the fossil remains of the Great Karoo. </div> <div> Historical farmlands, e.g. Tulbagh Valley, which has a history of agricultural production and settlement dating to the late 17th century.</div> <div> Historical rural towns and missions settlements and associated settings, (e.g.. the historical core of Tulbagh and the nearby Steinthal Mission).</div> <div> Pristine/natural or wilderness landscapes, e.g. adjacent proclaimed Nature Reserves and Fynbos/riverine areas.</div> <div> Historical farm werfs and their associated settings, e.g. Bartholomews Klip and Elandsfontein.</div> <div> Scenic/visual amenity landscape contexts, e.g. scenic route network<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#FFFFFF" FACE="Arial" >.</FONT></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div> See Chapter 2: Section 5 and Appendix 1, and Chapter 9 - Heritage Assessment</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="407" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="407" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 316 WIDTH="256"><div> 7.14 The potential adverse heritage impacts of the proposed transmission line on the cultural landscape contexts have not been adequately assessed. The potential adverse impacts include <I>inter alia</I> the following:</div> <div> Incompatibility of an industrial land use within a rural or natural landscape context.</div> <div> Functional and visual-spatial severance of a cultural landscape context in terms of historical patterns of access, visual linkages and settings.</div> <div> Strong linearity of the proposal in relation to historical geometries and related settlement patterns.</div> <div> Over-scaled nature of the intervention in relation to the sense of fit of historical settlement patterns with their surroundings.</div> <div> Visual intrusion into scenic corridors, gateway conditions.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div> Above comments refer. </div> <bR> <div> The impact of the proposed line for the mountain region (including Tulbagh, Witzenberg and Ceres areas) was given as follows (Chapter 2: Appendix 1):</div> <bR> <div> <U>Visual impact: </U><B>moderate (valleys) to high (ridges) - negative</B></div> <bR> <div> <U>Sense of place:</U> <B>moderate to high - negative</B></div> <bR> <div> <U>Cultural and historic sites:</U> <B>moderate to high - negative</B></div> <bR> <div> Again the potentially high negative impact on the area was not ignored, and was clearly stated in the draft EIR. </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="316" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="316" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 181 WIDTH="256"><div> 7.15 There is a degree of overlap between the visual and heritage issues of the proposed project, which should have involved the integration of the two specialist studies, especially in terms of addressing scenic resources and landscape character (including both natural and cultural attributes). It is submitted that the absence of such integration is due to the limited scope of the HIA with respect to the definition of heritage resources and insufficient consideration given to heritage related visual issues.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="181" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="181" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="181" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 240 WIDTH="256"><div> 7.16 Further, the Visual Impact Assessment ("VIA ") tends to focus on the natural physical elements of landscape character (e.g. landform and vegetation), with limited consideration being given to cultural attributes ( e.g. historical patterns of land use and settlement, relationships between places and their settings). While the VIA addresses scenic route issues, it does not give sufficient attention to the range of potential visual-spatial impacts of the proposed project on the regional scenic network, including historical passes, gateway conditions and approach roads.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div> The report on the visual impact assessment (Chapter 12 of the draft EIR) sets out the assumptions and limitations of the study. </div> <bR> <div> The report does, however, assess the visual quality and character of the environment in question. The report describes these qualities as influenced “by cultural values as well as the landscapes intrinsic physical properties”. </div> <bR> <div> Further, the report describes the mountain region (including Tulbagh, Ceres, etc.) as having a <B>high visual quality</B>.</div> <bR> <div> Therefore, again the report does not ignore or discount the visual significance of the area.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="240" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="240" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 60 WIDTH="256"><div> 7.17 The proposed management recommendations of the Heritage Review are inadequate and/or inappropriate for the following reasons:</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="60" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="60" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="60" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 45 WIDTH="256"><div> 7.17.1 No clear indication is given to the preferred alternative routes from a heritage perspective.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="45" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="45" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="45" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 150 WIDTH="256"><div> 7.17.2 Despite the very cursory nature of the assessment and the identification of potentially high to moderate negative impacts on a number of historical sites, no further detailed heritage assessment was recommended.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div> The heritage report (Chapter 9) recommends further involvement by a professional archaeologist during detailed design.</div> <bR> <div> Recommendation 6-VIII (Chapter 6) recommends further specialist surveys, including heritage, during detailed design.</div> <bR> <div> Appendix 1 (Chapter 2) gives a list of more specific recommendations</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="150" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="150" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 257 WIDTH="256"><div> 7.17.3 The Heritage Review recommends that suitable mitigation measures for historical sites be resolved at detailed planning and design stages. This is inappropriate in the context of where moderate to high negative heritage impacts have been identified, e.g. Bartholomews Klip (Section 1 ), Steinthal mission settlement near Tulbagh (Section 2) and Karoopoort Outspan (Section 3). In this regard, the "No-Go" option or modification to the proposal have not been sufficiently considered, as well as what specific methods of mitigation need to be considered in this regard.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER><NOBR><div> See supporting document for Appendix A.</div> </NOBR></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="257" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="257" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 151 WIDTH="256"><div> 7.18 The Heritage Review report states that the recommendations outlined in report should be subject to SAHRA approval, yet this recommendation has not been carried through into the EIR. It is submitted that this falls short of the requirements of section 38(8) of the National Heritage Resources Act which require that the decision-making authority consult with the relevant heritage authority prior to reaching a final decision.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div> See comments above. Copies of the report had been sent to SAHRA and the heritage specialist met with a SAHRA official who had the report. However, no response on the report was received from SAHRA.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="151" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="151" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 360 WIDTH="256"><div> 7.19 The broader Tulbagh Valley is a landscape context of special cultural significance in terms of the following:</div> <div> It is an intact, representative and coherent agricultural landscape.</div> <div> It has a rich temporal and thematic layering of history.</div> <div> It has unique scenic qualities related to valley condition and interface between agricultural, natural mountain slopes and sheer mountain backdrop.</div> <div> It has a history of agricultural production and settlement spanning more than 300 years.</div> <div> It has a concentration of heritage places including historical farmsteads, the historical town of Tulbagh and the mission settlement of Steinthal.</div> <div> It is traversed by a number of regional and local scenic routes.</div> <div> It a number of architectural-historical set pieces, namely Church Street in Tulbagh, which is a provincial heritage site.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div> The draft EIR is clear that the Central Route is not the preferred route from a heritage or visual impact perspective. The preferred route given by these specialists is the southern route. However, with due consideration to other environmental issues, the Central Route was considered to be the better option overall. (see Chapter 2, Section 5, Figure 2).</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="360" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="360" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 287 WIDTH="256"><div> 7.20 The Appellants submit that the proposed transmission line will undoubtedly have significant negative visual impacts on the surrounding area and inevitably will detract from the scenic and historical rural character of the area. In this regard, the VIA concludes that the central route through the Tulbagh Valley just south of the town of Tulbagh is preferred from a visual perspective due to the fact that it is aligned along existing infrastructure, e.g. transmission lines and roads, is in close proximity to fewer towns, and is located along a valley floor which can more easily accommodate tall structures or changes to landform due to the presence of the mountain backdrop. However, without due consideration of the above mentioned cultural landscape qualities, the above conclusion cannot be substantiated on heritage grounds.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER><NOBR><div> Comments above have reference here.</div> </NOBR></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="287" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="287" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 151 WIDTH="256"><div> 7.21 A recent heritage scoping study undertaken by CS Design and Melanie Attwell Associates (2006) for the Schalkenbosch Golf Estate in the Tulbagh Valley identified a range of heritage resources located within the immediate vicinity of the town. The diagram (attached hereto as Annexure "E") gives an indication of the range of heritage resources likely to be affected by the preferred central route.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div> Annexure E not received.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="151" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="151" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 151 WIDTH="256"><div> 7.22 In summary, it is respectfully submitted that insufficient heritage and visual assessment has been given to this local cultural landscape context in order to assess the potential heritage/visual impacts of the proposed project. The Appellants submit that in view of the flawed and/or inadequate assessment of heritage impacts in the EIR, the ROD should be set a side on this basis alone. </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div> Response required from DEAT</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="151" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="151" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 30 WIDTH="256"><div> <U>Inadequate identification/assessment of socio-economic impacts</U></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="30" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="30" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="30" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 75 WIDTH="256"><div> 7.23 The Appellants submit that the adverse socio-economic impacts of the proposed</div> <div> transmission line have not been adequately assessed during the EIA process and</div> <div> considered during the EIA process.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="75" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="75" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="75" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 387 WIDTH="256"><div> 7.24 The terms of reference for the Social and Socio-economic Specialist Study (the "Socio-economic Study" in this document), did not include an assessment of the possible adverse impacts on human health and, in particular, those impacts caused by exposure to electromagnetic radiation. In this regard, the Socio-economic Study states that the impact of Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) " has been left open in the event that further conclusive research evidence is released during the assessment phase". There is nothing in the EIR to suggest that any attempts were made by the environmental consultants to obtain up to date research information on this issue.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div> Chapter 2, Appendix 1 - Impact Tables, Page 8 sets out the anticipated severity of impacts on health arising from EMFs.</div> <bR> <div> The approach adopted in the EIA was not to engage in an ongoing international debate, but to understand that Eskom has adopted a precautionary approach to avoiding placing humans and animals at risk.  Here the function of the servitude is to keep it clear of dwellings, etc. such that any long duration exposure to EMFs is below levels recommended by internationally recognised organisations (in this case the World Health Organisation). </div> <bR> <div> However, given that the debate continues internationally, the draft EIR recommended that Eskom continues to review the scientific evidence and any changes in recommended exposure levels. Indeed, Eskom has recently (2006) undertaken a professional review of the health impacts of EMFs from power lines and the precautionary approach described above remains to be a sound approach.</div> <bR> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="387" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="387" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 151 WIDTH="256"><div> 7.25 It is respectfully submitted that an assessment (supposedly) based on research information available during the assessment phase (the Socio-Economic Study expressly records that the information used for the purposes of the study was collated during 2000-2001) would differ significantly from an assessment based on current research material that exists at the time a decision was rendered (i.e. some 5 years later).</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div> The results of the recent review mentioned above do not change the assessment of significance of this issue.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="151" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="151" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 151 WIDTH="256"><div> 7.26 It is respectfully submitted that any assessment of socio-economic aspects of the proposed transmission line, and specifically the potential adverse impacts on human health should have included a comprehensive literature review which examines the contemporary research in terms of the impact of electromagnetic radiation. The fact that this has not occurred constitutes a major gap in the EIA process.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div> No further comment.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="151" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="151" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 213 WIDTH="256"><div> 7.27 The Socio-economic Study states that any changes in alignment will require "further investigations to assess the implications". In view of the fact that changes to the route alignment were mooted in 2004 (in the Report on Alternatives) it is evident that insofar as these variations post-date the undertaking of the Socio-economic Study that no such assessment of alternative alignments has taken place.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div> The consultant is not aware of any changes to the alignment proposed in the EIA. </div> <bR> <div> However, it is to be noted that the route recommended in the draft EIR is given a corridor of 200m (in the Tulbagh and Ceres area) either side of the alignment shown on the map. This allows for local adjustment to the alignment to suit landowner requirements and any site specific environmental issues identified in the detailed design field surveys by the specialists. (See Chapter 6, Recommendation 6-II).</div> <bR> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="213" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="213" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 333 WIDTH="256"><div> 7.28 On the contrary, the nature of the proposed linear development appears to have informed a "cart before horse" approach to the EIA process, insofar as the Socio-economic Study records that site specific assessment of impacts will need to be undertaken "once the servitude has been finalised". It is respectfully submitted that this defeats the purpose behind an EIA, which is to identify potential adverse impacts and mitigation measures in advance so that the proposed development may be adjusted, where necessary and, in particular, where the adverse impact of a proposed development is deemed to be unacceptably high. In the case of a transmission line, the servitudes will be finalised only after the route alignment has been finalised. Accordingly, undertaking an assessment/identification of impacts at the stage where the servitude has already been finalised will be an academic exercise and of no relevance to the EIA process.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div> The comments above are relevant here. Many of the site specific impacts cannot be assessed until Eskom has reached an agreement with the landowner for the location of the line, towers, access roads, etc.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="333" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="333" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 318 WIDTH="256"><div> 7.29 The substantial changes to the social fabric of the Witzenberg Municipal area since the data for the undertaking of the Socio-economic Study was collated in 2001, have rendered the information contained therein obsolete. For example, the Chris Hani informal settlement has expanded considerably since 2000 and the impacts of the proposed transmission line have not been comprehensively assessed insofar as they may impact on that community. The economic viability of subsequent developments has similarly not been assessed nor taken into account in the decision-making process. For example, the development of the proposed Golf Estate at Schalkenbosch is at an advanced stage and the substantial adverse impact of the proposed transmission line on the economic viability of that development has not been assessed nor taken into account in the decision-making process.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div> Earlier comments relating to development within the Witzenberg Municipal area after the completion of the EIA refer. </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="318" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="318" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 393 WIDTH="256"><div> 7.30 Finally, whilst acknowledging the aesthetic qualities of the Tulbagh Valley and its importance from a tourism point of view, the Socio-economic Study recommends that "[e]fforts should be made to continue to ensure that the transmission line is constructed away from high potential tourist areas". This statement reveals that the Socio-economic Study has failed to appreciate and assess properly the significance of the impacts of the proposed transmission line on the tourism value of the Tulbagh Valley as the valley itself is an important tourist area. Whilst it may be possible to mitigate the adverse impacts of certain kinds of linear developments, it is submitted that this is not the case with regard to the nature and scale of the proposed 765kV transmission line. Accordingly, it is submitted that there is no basis for attributing a low level of significance (after mitigation) to the impacts of the proposed transmission line on the tourism value of the Tulbagh. Valley. Indeed, the cumulative impact of having more than one transmission line traversing the Tulbagh Valley will result in an unacceptably high adverse impact on the pristine qualities of the valley.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div> The text referred to is on page 56 of the Socio-economic Study (Chapter 10), not page 63 as stated.</div> <bR> <div> It is believed the Appellants have misread the table: </div> <bR> <div> The `Low' (negative) significance was assigned to construction related activities.</div> <bR> <div> A `<U>Moderate'</U> (negative) significance was assigned to the operational phase of the line in the draft EIR (Chapter 10, Section 6). </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="393" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="393" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 318 WIDTH="256"><div> 7.31 On the basis that the Socio-economic Study has failed to assess properly the true nature and scale of the adverse impacts of the proposed transmission line on the tourism value and economic development of the valley, it is submitted that a related impact (i.e. the adverse impact on property values in the Tulbagh Valley) has similarly been inadequately assessed. Whilst the Appellants concur with the findings of the Socio-economic Study that the occurrence of a reduction in property values will be highly probable, the Appellants submit that there is no basis for concluding that the level of significance of this impact is Moderate or Low (after mitigation). In view of the aforegoing, it is submitted that the impact of the proposed transmission line on the economic viability of the Tulbagh Valley has been grossly underestimated in the Socio-economic Study and the finding therein should have been "High" in both respects.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div> The basis assumed by the Appellants is seen to be incorrect (see above).</div> <bR> <div> Furthermore, given the location south of the town of Tulbagh, the landuse at the time of the study and the IDP for the area (including low cost housing allocated to this area), it was not anticipated that there would be a substantial reduction in property values.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="318" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="318" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 106 WIDTH="256"><div> 7.32 For the reasons set out above, it is respectfully submitted that the methodologies used in preparing the Socio-economic Study were flawed and, as a result, it does not provide an accurate reflection of the issues and impact associated with the proposed transmission line.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER><NOBR><div> No further comment from the consultant. </div> </NOBR></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="106" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="106" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 30 WIDTH="256"><div> <B>8. NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PRINCIPLES</B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="30" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="30" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="30" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 136 WIDTH="256"><div> 8.1 It is respectfully submitted that the section 2 NEMA principles are applicable to the ROD as the decision to authorise the proposed transmission line may significantly effect the environment. It is submitted further that the Director-General's decision falls short of the requirements of section 2 of NEMA in more than one respect, and as described in detail below.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="136" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="136" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="136" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 181 WIDTH="256"><div> 8.2 The cultural landscape incorporating the Tulbagh Valley forms an integral component of South Africa Is cultural heritage, and the construction of the proposed 765kV transmission line through the valley will result in significant disturbance of this landscape in such a manner that will incapable of being minimised and/or remedied. Accordingly, it is respectfully submitted that the Director-General's decision is incompatible with section 2(4)(a)(iii)of NEMA and falls to be set aside on appeal on this basis alone.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER><NOBR><div> Previous comments from the consultant refer.</div> </NOBR></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="181" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="181" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 18 ><NOBR><div> 8.3 Health issues - animals and humans</div> </NOBR></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER><NOBR><div> Previous comments from the consultant refer.</div> </NOBR></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="18" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="18" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 60 ><NOBR><div> 8.4  proximity to the Chris Hani settlement</div> </NOBR></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div> The Chris Hani settlement was identified in the EIA. At the time the location of the new line was not in conflict with the IDP for the Witzenberg Municipality.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="60" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="60" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 30 WIDTH="256"><div> 8.5…PPP and opportunity to comment on the final EIR</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER><NOBR><div> Previous comments from the consultant refer.</div> </NOBR></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="30" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="30" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 18 WIDTH="256"><div> 8.6 </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER><NOBR><div> Previous comments from the consultant refer.</div> </NOBR></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="18" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="18" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 18 WIDTH="256"><div> 8.7..</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="18" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="18" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="18" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 346 WIDTH="256"><div> 8.8  NEMA places people and their needs at the forefront of its concern….the development will have a devastating effect on the health, well being and economic prosperity of those individuals and communities….</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><div> The EIA studies did not show there would be a `devastating effect'.</div> <bR> <div> Furthermore, the project was well publicised during the EIA and individuals and communities had every opportunity to participate in the study and to voice their concerns.  Hence, the very slow and very limited response suggested a general lack of concern. This is despite targeting key representatives within the communities and providing them with information on the project.</div> <bR> <div> A power line is an unwelcome development in most environments, and the responses from stakeholders, and in particular the directly affected landowners, can be emotive. This EIA highlighted the negative impacts on local environments that will arise from the development of a new 765kV line. Some of these will be significant and this is clearly stated. However, the study did not find that the outcome would be devastating.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="346" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="256"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="346" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="256" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> </TABLE></div> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div> <B>GAMMA - OMEGA APPEALS</B></div> <bR> <div> APPENDIX C - ISSUES RAISED BY DIVERSE APPELLANTS INCLUDING THOSE REPRESENTED BY RAUCH VAN VUUREN INC.</div> <bR> <bR> <div> <TABLE BORDER="2" CELLPADDING="1" CELLSPACING="1" WIDTH="1083" BORDERCOLORLIGHT="#C0C0C0" BORDERCOLORDARK="#808080" FRAME="BOX" RULES="ALL" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" > <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP BGCOLOR=#CCCCCC HEIGHT= 33 WIDTH="29"><div> <B>No.</B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP BGCOLOR=#CCCCCC WIDTH="112"><div> <B>Name of Appellant</B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP BGCOLOR=#CCCCCC WIDTH="250"><div> <B>Issues Raised</B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP BGCOLOR=#CCCCCC WIDTH="219"><div> <B>Response of Consultant</B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP BGCOLOR=#CCCCCC WIDTH="219"><div> <B>Reply of Appellants</B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP BGCOLOR=#CCCCCC WIDTH="219"><div> <B>Comments of DEAT</B></div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 81 WIDTH="29"><div> 1</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="112"><div> Ceres Business Initiative</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="250"><div> 1.1 EIA defective. Did not fully consider alternative routes or impact on business.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  See Chapter 1 in draft EIR for alternatives considered.</div> <bR> <div> See Chapter 10 for socio-economic impact assessment.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 279 WIDTH="29"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="112"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="250"><div> 1.2 Farming with export fruit and effect was not considered, nor impact on tourism in area.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div> A working height of up to 10m is possible under the lines and most fruit farming is expected to be able to continue under the lines (draft EIR, Chapter 10, Section 5, pg 73). However, in the event that the fruit trees exceed this height, compensation is paid to the landowner at the time the servitude is established. Construction related damage could be severe if not properly managed, but again compensation would be payable in such cases.</div> <bR> <div> Impacts on tourism are similarly assessed. See pages 56 and 57 of Section 5, Chapter 10.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 33 WIDTH="29"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="112"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="250"><div> 1.3 Different route can minimise negative effects</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  See Chapter 1 for discussion on alternatives.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 99 WIDTH="29"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="112"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="250"><div> 1.4 If activity comprises erection of power line, yes will have permanently devastating effect on farming business and tourism.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  The alignment of the proposed line in the EIA was selected to minimise such impacts, though avoidance of impacts is not possible. However, `devastating' impacts are not anticipated.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 49 WIDTH="29"><div> 2</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP><NOBR><div> Norman Collins</div> </NOBR></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="250"><div> 2.1 The broader community was not adequately consulted </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  An extensive public consultation process is set out in Chapter 5 and Appendices 2A-2I in the draft EIR.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 33 WIDTH="29"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="112"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="250"><div> 2.2 The Heritage Council of the Western Cape was not consulted.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  To our knowledge, this organisation was established after June 2002.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 49 WIDTH="29"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="112"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="250"><div> 2.3 The visual impact was not taken into consideration.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  It was. See Chapter 12 for a detailed report and Chapter 2 for an integration of impacts.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 33 WIDTH="29"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="112"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="250"><div> 2.4 This valley has heritage value. Tulbagh is closely surrounded by mountains.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  This is acknowledged in Chapters 2 and 9.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 16 WIDTH="29"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="112"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="250"><div> 2.5 See Appendix A</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 66 WIDTH="29"><div> 3</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="112"><div> Du Toit Groep (Edm) Bpk</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="250"><div> 3.1 EIA fundamentally defective re routes investigated and information furnished to the public.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  Full disclosure to the public of the routes investigated was made via the public consultation process. See Chapter 5 and Appendices 2A-2I.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 147 WIDTH="29"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="112"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="250"><div> 3.2 The effects on the farming with export fruit and export regulations for e.g. Europe gap in areas near the line was not taken into account. The effect of radiation on fruit and insects were ignored and not determined scientifically.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  The effects on fruit farming was addressed in the draft EIR, Chapter 10, Section 5, pg 73.</div> <bR> <div> The effects of EMFs on fruit and insects were not investigated. However, the effect on humans and animals was considered (Chapter 2, Appendix 1).</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 33 WIDTH="29"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="112"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="250"><div> 3.3 Different route than one of the best areas for producing export pears & apples.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  Comments above refer.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 82 WIDTH="29"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="112"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="250"><div> 3.4 Opposed to power line through Ceres valley / Witzenberg valley because of permanent damage and devastating effect on farming, tourism and the future of the Ceres economy and community.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  See previous comments in this regard.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 49 WIDTH="29"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="112"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="250"><div> 3.5 EIA process defective. We were furnished with wrong information regarding routes.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  Not sure what this refers to. Need further details on the `wrong' information. </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 65 WIDTH="29"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="112"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="250"><div> <U>Contents of supporting Notice of Appeal (</U><I>only itemised points presented here</I><U>)</U></div> <div> 3.6.1 The ground as set out in the appeal Questionnaire.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 33 WIDTH="29"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="112"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="250"><div> 3.6.2 The flawed Environmental Impact Assessment.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 280 WIDTH="29"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="112"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="250"><div> 3.6.2.1 The environmental Impact Report only reviewed alternative route alignments in a corridor of approximately 25km wide along the route of the existing Eskom 265kV power lines. No other alternative routes or viable options were reviewed for instance the route along the N1 or further north of Citrusdal. The study area of the Environmental Impact Assessment was therefore done in an area, which included the Witzenberg, the Agter-Witzenberg valley, the Skurweberg, the Ceres valley and the Tulbagh and did not include any other possible routes further than 15 km from the existing route corridor through the Witzenberg area and Ceres valley, was confirmed verbally by officials of Eskom. </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  Routes outside of this area were considered. See Chapter 1, Section 5.3.3.</div> <bR> <div> Routes to the south, including following the N1, would still be affected by mountainous terrain, but would also affect a more densely populated area.</div> <bR> <div> Routes to the north were either going to affect areas of pristine natural habitat or would need to be diverted a great distance at more than double the cost of the project.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 197 WIDTH="29"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="112"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="250"><div> 3.6.2.2 The communities of Ceres, Prince Alfred Hamlet, the Witzenberg Valley and Tulbagh were not adequately consulted in the process. Very few residents were aware of the proposed line and those that did know, understood the pylons to be of the same size as the existing lines (15 metres) as opposed to the 45 to 55 metres as proposed. Furthermore the Eskom fieldworkers did not furnish all relevant information to affected parties or interested members of the public.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  The public consultation process is set out in Chapter 5 and Appendices 2A-2I. The process included all the locations mentioned.</div> <bR> <div> The size of the pylons is clearly stated in the draft EIR (Chapter 1). </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 99 WIDTH="29"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="112"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="250"><div> 3.6.2.3 The Environmental Assessment did not scientifically test effect of radiation on fruit and other plants, animals and insects which ca affect the future of the Ceres and Tulbagh agricultural sectors and therefore the future of the towns.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  The draft EIR does address the potential impacts of EMFs on humans, animals and vegetation. (see Chapter 2, Appendix 1, pge 8). The report does not discuss the impacts on insects.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 99 WIDTH="29"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="112"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="250"><div> 3.6.2.4 Health risks as a result of radiation on fruit and natural organisms that may die, as have already happened with the current 265kV line, were also not investigated and assessed in the Environmental assessment.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  The consultant is not aware of detrimental effects on fruit and natural organisms under an existing 275kV line.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 165 WIDTH="29"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="112"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="250"><div> 3.6.2.5 The Environmental Assessment did not take into account that farmers in arguably the best area for producing apple and pears for the export market, already have to comply with stringent regulations and that the proposed power line over farms along Theronberg, Gydopas and the Witzenberg Valley can in no way be reconciled with, for example Eurepgap standards.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  It is not clear whether these standards were in place at the time of the study.</div> <bR> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 82 WIDTH="29"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="112"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="250"><div> 3.6.3 The proposed power line will have a devastating effect on the towns and valleys of Ceres and Tulbagh. Without doubt it will have an extremely negative impact on the economy of the area. </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  The potential impacts on the economies is set out in the draft EIR - Chapter 2, Appendix 1, and Chapter 10, Section 5.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 197 WIDTH="29"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="112"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="250"><div> 3.6.4 It will have a negative effect on tourism and property market. Apart from the permanent visual damage to the surroundings by the proposed pylons and the servitude area of 80 meters, damage to the environment under the power line because of excavation and the building of Roads in the construction process of the power line, will also disfigure the greater area along the route. </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  Refer to Chapters 2 and 10 for comment on tourism and property values.</div> <bR> <div> Damage due to the construction of the line and associated infrastructure is addressed in the draft EIR. While the potential for physical damage is high (in any environment), following good process and management of the construction process would reduce to low in all areas of the route</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 115 WIDTH="29"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="112"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="250"><div> 3.6.5 Farming in one of the best areas for apples, pears and other product, will also be negatively influenced. Buyers of fruit, such as for example European supermarket groups, will definitely not purchase fruit, which was produced near the proposed power lines.  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP><NOBR><div>  This needs to be confirmed.</div> </NOBR></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 115 WIDTH="29"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="112"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="250"><div> 3.6.6 Property will lose value. Apart from the loss of productive land people will in any event not be prepared to live or farm near the proposed line.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  There are a number of large (400kV) lines through the area around which farming, living and tourism continue. However, property values may be affected and this is addressed in Chapters 2 (Appendix 1) and Chapter 10.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 311 WIDTH="29"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="112"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="250"><div> 3.6.7 In the construction process of the power line and pylons, which is higher than any pylons previously built in this country, damage to the environment is inevitable. Despite Eskom's promise to properly rehabilitate the land, property owners still struggle with erosion and permanent damage caused by the Eskom construction teams when a previous power line of much less magnitude, was constructed. There is sufficient proof that the Eskom contractors did not comply with the prescribed conditions when the previous power line was built and apart from desecrating historical buildings, it resulted in damage to the environment and sensitive habitats.   </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  This was noted in the EIA (Chapter 6, Section 4.1). This will also affect any environment.</div> <bR> <div> Eskom has acknowledged problems with past construction and maintenance of lines. As result, Eskom now implements an Environmental Management Plan for construction that is monitored by an independent environmental contractor.</div> <bR> <div> It is to be noted that the impact assessment set out in the draft EIR assumes Eskom will follow good design, construction and maintenance process as set out in the recommendations (Chapter 6 and Chapter 2, Appendix 1). </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 165 WIDTH="29"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="112"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="250"><div> 3.6.8 The construction and future maintenance of the power line and the extremely high pylons, will result in big machinery having to move through the area and at regular intervals. This will have a further negative impact on the agricultural sector. Large construction vehicles and machinery will also inevitably cause damage to the roads in the Ceres and Tulbagh district</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  There is potential for substantial damage unless the construction process is properly managed (see above).</div> <bR> <div> Also, it is our understanding Eskom will compensate for damage caused by them or their contractors during the construction or maintenance of the line.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 197 WIDTH="29"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="112"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="250"><div> 3.6.9 For the construction of the line, teams of contractors will move into the Witzenberg Valley, which is an environmentally sensitive valley in many ways. Apart from the risk to the agricultural sector, a large number of construction workers will have to stay in the area for a long period, due to the mountainous terrain over which Eskom proposes to erect the line. These construction camps will increase health risks for example sexually contractible diseases such as HIV/AIDS.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  This is acknowledged in Chapters 2 and 10. See above for comments on good construction management.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 132 WIDTH="29"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="112"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="250"><div> 3.6.10 During the negotiation process with certain landowners, Eskom's agent and field workers were reported to influence landowners by representing that a neighbour have already signed the necessary documentation for consent. If these reports are true, it amounts to misrepresentation and coercion.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  The EIA consultant is not involved in the negotiation process.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 197 WIDTH="29"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="112"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="250"><div> 3.6.11 The Ceres Valley and the larger Ceres area, which includes the towns of Ceres, Tulbagh, Prince Alfred Hamlet, Wolseley, Op-die-Berg, Koue Bokkeveld and the Wintzenberg Valley, is completely dependant on the agricultural sector and tourism. The erecting of the 765 kV power lines on any route in the area, as described on page VI of the EIA (Mountainous Region), would jeopardize the future of these towns and the Witzenberg Municipality.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  The draft EIR acknowledges (Chapter 6) that the resulting net impact on the <U>local </U>environment is negative. It is also acknowledged that the tourism sector is linked between the local towns and areas, and hence all will be affected to some extent by the new line (Chapter 10). Hence the route of the line has been done with due consideration of this aspect, but in conjunction with all other environmental issues (Chapter 2).</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 82 WIDTH="29"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="112"><div> Basil & Gail Friedlander </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="250"><div> 4.1 As far as we are aware there has been, no public participation where any opinion could be expressed and although we had heard of the proposed power lines we had no detailed information.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  The public participation process is described in detail in Chapter 5 and Appendices 2A-2I in the draft EIR.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 99 WIDTH="29"><div> 4</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="112"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="250"><div> 4.2 The environmental impact for the whole region ie Tulbagh valley, Riebeek valley will be disastrous in terms of 1) visual impact on a growing tourist area, 2) heritage impact, 3) environmental impact to ……. flora. <I>(text uncertain)</I></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  The visual impacts are addressed in Chapter 12, potential impacts on tourism in Chapter 10, heritage impacts in Chapter 9 and ecological impacts in Chapter 8.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 82 WIDTH="29"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="112"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="250"><div> 4.3 The impact on development and future growth in Tulbagh and Riebeek will be considerable. The golf course and agri-tourism industries in the Riebeek and Tulbagh valleys will be negatively affected.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  The potential impacts on growth and tourism has been considered and is noted in the draft EIR (see Chapter 10 and Chapter 2). </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 148 WIDTH="29"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="112"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="250"><div>  4.4 Underground lines would not visually impact on the area and the alternative routes that are available could be used without affecting this sensitive heritage area.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  The undergrounding of Transmission lines would require substantial excavation and construction works and is understood to result in its own visual impact due to severe limitations on landuse over the buried line. Hence it is not automatic that an underground line would be better than overhead lines.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 49 WIDTH="29"><div>  5</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="112"><div> C. Herbst</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="250"><div> 5.1 The impact on the development or/and the future growth of the community and the valley was not addressed adequately.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  More details are required as to the shortfall in the information provided in Chapters 2 and 10 of the draft EIR.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 18 WIDTH="29"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="18" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="29" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="112"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="250"><div> 5.2 Property prices drop.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  See Chapter 10</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 82 WIDTH="29"><div>  6</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="112"><div> Angela & Marc Kincaid</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="250"><div> 6.1 The broader community was not consulted. We have been owner of Fairview Farm for the past six years and as the project would visually affect my farm, we should have been consulted. We were not.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>   The public participation process is described in detail in Chapter 5 and Appendices 2A-2I in the draft EIR. The consultation process continued up to the middle of 2002.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 66 WIDTH="29"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="66" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="29" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="112"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="250"><div> 6.2 None of the people of Gouda had been consulted. This quickly became apparent when we informed them during the signing of the petitions.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  Comment as above.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 66 WIDTH="29"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="112"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="250"><div> 6.3 These power lines will be a danger to Geometric Tortoise and the Blue Crane, as this area is their breeding ground/last refuge.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  Both were addressed in the EIA - Chapter 7 (blue crane) and Chapter 8 (geometric tortoise)</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 82 WIDTH="29"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="112"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="250"><div> 6.4 The power lines will have a destructive affect on the visual beauty of heritage sensitive areas such as the Witzenberg Mountain Range, the Riebeek and Tulbagh valleys in general.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  There will be a negative visual impact, as stated in Chapters 2 and 12 of the draft EIR.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 82 WIDTH="29"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="112"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="250"><div> 6.5 The Heritage Council of the Western Cape was not aware of the project and therefore not given an opportunity to object. This area is considered to be of significant Heritage value to the people of SA.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  It is our understanding that this organisation was not operational at the time the EIA was undertaken.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 66 WIDTH="29"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="112"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="250"><div> 6.6 The visual impact and it's negative effects on the valley and the community is far too great just to rectify the process and eliminate the impacts of the activity.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  The negative visual impact is acknowledged (see above). Uncertain as to the meaning of `rectify the process'.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 148 WIDTH="29"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="112"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="250"><div> 6.7 Another route or alternatives such as underground the power lines would be the only answer that would make me agree to the project.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  Undergrounding is addressed in Chapter 1, and will have its own environmental impacts. These were not assessed in any detail as Eskom advised the consultant that they would not be able to afford the additional cost that was estimated to be as much as 20 times the cost of the overhead lines.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 66 WIDTH="29"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="112"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="250"><div> 6.8 I am fundamentally opposed to any development of power lines, especially the size of the proposed power lines for this development.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 49 WIDTH="29"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="112"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="250"><div> 6.9 Other alternatives such as underground lines or a re-route of the existing line would be acceptable. </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  See above.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 66 WIDTH="29"><div>  7</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="112"><div> Koelfontein Familie Trust</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="250"><div> 7.1 The applicant admitted that the EIA was only conducted with reference to an area 15kms on each side of the existing power lines through Ceres.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  Chapter 1 sets out the scope of alternatives considered.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 66 WIDTH="29"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="66" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="29" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="112"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="250"><div> 7.2 The EIA was fundamentally defective as alternative routes along the N1 or through the Karoo and Sandveld were not investigated.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  See Chapter 1 for alternatives considered.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 82 WIDTH="29"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="112"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="250"><div> 7.3 The nature of Ceres and the impact on the environment if line allowed along proposed route over farms and mountains in Prince Alfred Hamlet/Ceres will be permanently fatal.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  The socio-economic assessment (Chapter 10) undertaken during the EIA did not foresee `fatal' consequences. However, a number of negative impacts were clearly stated.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 66 WIDTH="29"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="112"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="250"><div> 7.4 Opposed to the permanent defacing and damage to the Ceres/ Prince Alfred Hamlet valley.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  Two 400kV power lines already pass through this valley, apparently without the consequences suggested by the Appellant.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 66 WIDTH="29"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="112"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="250"><div> 7.5 Line can be built through Karoo and around mountains to the north with much less impact. Two other possible routes along N1 or Sandveld/Clawilliam.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP><NOBR><div>  This is addressed in Chapter 1.</div> </NOBR></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 66 WIDTH="29"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="112"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="250"><div> 7.6 The EIA process was flawed and wrong information regarding routes proposed were furnished to the public.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  More specific details about the `wrong' information supplied during the EIA will need to be given to address this point.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 16 WIDTH="29"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="112"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="250"><div> 7.7 See 3.1 to 3.6 11</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 115 WIDTH="29"><div>  8</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="112"><div> Christopher Errol Oelschig</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="250"><div> 8.1 I never knew about the project and was never advised when I bought my farm in February 2005.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  It is understood there has been considerable discussion in the Tulbagh area in recent years regarding this project. The municipality and local farmers union were aware, and it is anticipated that all of the local estate agents would have been aware. </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 115 WIDTH="29"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="115" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="29" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="112"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="250"><div> 8.2 The route of the power line will run right on the boundary of my vineyards where I plan to develop a shareblock housing scheme. The power line will cause the project to be abandoned in view of the ruination of the aesthetics and also the potential health hazard from radiation.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  Previous comments refer.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 66 WIDTH="29"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="112"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="250"><div> 8.3 [This power line] will dramatically reduce the value of my farm from a resale perspective.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div> Chapter 10 of the draft EIR sets out the potential effects on land values. It is difficult to comment further on this appeal. </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 49 WIDTH="29"><div> 9 </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="112"><div> Ferch Olsen</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="250"><div> 9.1 Inadequate information / not well informed at all.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  See Chapter 5 and Appendices 2A-2I for information on the public consultation process.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 33 WIDTH="29"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="33" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="29" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="112"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="250"><div> 9.2 Will affect business negatively as we are based in (Church str) Heritage site.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP ROWSPAN=4 WIDTH="219"><div>  The draft EIR addresses all the issues raised here. The Appellant will need to provide more detail.</div> <div>  </div> <div>  </div> <div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 33 WIDTH="29"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="112"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="250"><div> 9.3 Environmental impact and negative impact on business and local economy.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 49 WIDTH="29"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="112"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="250"><div> 9.4 [Opposed to..] entry in to Tulbagh and valley overall, natural beauty of valley will be spoiled.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 33 WIDTH="29"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="112"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="250"><div> 9.5 Was never consulted at all community leaders or anyone else.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 213 WIDTH="29"><div> 10</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="112"><div> Du Plessis Boerdery,  `Oude Tol'</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="250"><div> 10.1 Oude Tol se inkomste potensiaal is gebaseer op die grootmaak van volstruiskuikens tot volwasse diere. Die voorgestelde kraglyn sal weispasie vir hoerdie sensitiewe diere impak. Daar loop alreeds `n 66kV kraglyn dwarsoor die plaas, wat voortdurend in ag geneem moet word by planne vir die huisvesting van mens, dier en aanplantings.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div> There should be minimal impact on grazing area unless the ostrich chicks are confined to a small area within the servitude. If they are free range, then the activity is most likely to be able to continue.</div> <bR> <div> However, if they are confined within the servitude, Eskom adopts the precautionary approach and will require the ostriches to be removed from the servitude. The landowner should be compensated for this.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="213" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="219" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="213" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="219" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 82 WIDTH="29"><bR> <bR> <bR> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="112"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="82" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="112" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="250"><div> 10.2 Oude Tol is saamgestel uit drie afsonderlike titelaktes. Die beoogde woning aan die noordekant sal nie kan voortgaan indien die voorgestelde kraglyn opgerig word nie.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div> The details will need to be reviewed on site.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="82" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="219" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="82" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="219" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 66 WIDTH="29"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="66" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="29" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="112"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="66" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="112" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="250"><div> 10.3 Eiendomme in die Oude Tol ongewing het `n leefstyl waarde wat reeds betekenisvol nadelig beinvloed is deur die voorgestelde kraglyn.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div> As above.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="66" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="219" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="66" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="219" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 147 WIDTH="29"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="147" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="29" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="112"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="147" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="112" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="250"><div> 10.4 Die voorgestelde roete loop al langs die middle van enigste bewaarde oorsponklike fynbos strook op die plaas.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div> As above.</div> <bR> <div> The site specific aspects were to be assessed during detailed design when tower placements are planned. Local variations of the alignment of the line can take place at this stage, within the corridor recommended in the draft EIR.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="147" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="219" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="147" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="219" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 66 WIDTH="29"><div>  11</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="112"><div> Josua Joubert Du Toit</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="250"><div> 11.1 Daar is reeds 'n 132kV lyn oor die eiendom wat met groot skade aan die infrastrukuur en die omgewing gebou is en instandgehou word.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 148 WIDTH="29"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="148" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="29" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="112"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="250"><div> 11.2 Die eiendom word intensief benut vir die produksie  van vrugte vir uitvoer markte, die impak van die lyn op die produksie proses sowel as die reaksie van die markplek is nie in aanmerking geneem nie.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  Most landuses, including deciduous fruit, are expected to continue under the new line. Harvesting and production processes should not be affected to any significant degree. This will be reviewed by the Eskom negotiator when they come to site to look at individual placement of the pylons.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 33 WIDTH="29"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="112"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="250"><div> 11.3 As die lyn aanvaarbare afstand van die kwesbare infratruktuur verby loop. </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  There should be opportunity to shift the alignment within the local area.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 99 WIDTH="29"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="112"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="250"><div> 11.4 Die eiendom is deel van die kapse fynbos bewarringsgebied. Enige ontwikkelingsaktiwiteite of vreemde strukture het 'n groot negatiewe en skadelike impak.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  The location of fybos within the servitude will need to be assessed by the negotiator and the specialist ecologist during detailed design. Site specific measures will be drawn up as a result.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 49 WIDTH="29"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="112"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="250"><div> 11.5 Die omgewingskonsultant of die department het nie met die eienaar of ondernemer geskakel nie.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP><NOBR><div>  See Chapter 5 of the draft EIR.</div> </NOBR></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 148 WIDTH="29"><div>  12</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP><NOBR><div> Gail Friendlander</div> </NOBR></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="250"><div> 12.1 There has not been one public meeting. No organisation or business has been privy to any Eskom's plans, It would seem that only the farming community has been informed and paid in some instances. Is the urban community that pays rates and taxes not important? We also pay for electricity, but not at the cost of destroying our environment.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  There was substantial consultation. See Chapter 5 of the draft EIR.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 214 WIDTH="29"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="214" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="29" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="112"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="250"><div> 12.2 How can an environmental study not have found out about certain flora and fauna unique to this area? How can an environmental study not have taken into consideration the heritage if the Tulbagh area and the 32 National Monuments in the town and then those of the farms? How can they not have any regard to the effect on the effect on all the poorer community of Tulbagh which is virtually in the path of these monsters. I suggest that the study needs to be redone if it indeed were ever done.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  It is apparent the Appellant has not read the draft EIR submitted for public review in March 2002.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 82 WIDTH="29"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="112"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="250"><div> 12.3 We are not talking about site we are talking about a huge area. Look at the alternatives. Bury the lines Do not destroy another area. Eskom already has a power going over the area, follow that route.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 148 WIDTH="29"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="112"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="250"><div> 12.4 There has been NO consultation with the public. Eskom has failed to advise anyone of their activities other than put unreadable plans on their web site. Please can we have copies of all the information published and available to the public. Read the papers avidly and Eskom has failed to inform. No TV discussion No No radio information. In fact TOTAL SILENCE.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  No further comment.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 16 WIDTH="29"><div> 13 </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP><NOBR><div> Marthinus Pieters</div> </NOBR></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP><NOBR><div> 13.1 It was inadequately informed.</div> </NOBR></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP ROWSPAN=4 WIDTH="219"><div> Further detail should be requested from this applicant to be able to address his concerns more fully.</div> <bR> <bR> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 33 WIDTH="29"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="33" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="29" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="112"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="250"><div> 13.2 It would be bad for valleys environment and business wise.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 33 WIDTH="29"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="112"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="250"><div> 13.3 Environmental reasons it not be suitable.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 33 WIDTH="29"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="112"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="250"><div> 13.4 From a visual point of view it is not suitable.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 66 WIDTH="29"><div>  14</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="112"><div> Mr. Vilaus Schindler </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="250"><div> 14.1 I have not receive any notification of the intended project and have not been consulted as to how this project will affect by property or personal well being.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  Chapter 5 of the draft EIR sets out the public consultation process followed during the EIA.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 66 WIDTH="29"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="66" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="29" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="112"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="250"><div> 14.2 I believe the development would seriously damage the future of the entire Tulbagh valley by preventing any job creation development in the future.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  From the studies undertaken, it is not anticipated that the development will prevent or even limit job creation in the Tulbagh valley. See Chapter 10.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 49 WIDTH="29"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="112"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="250"><div> 14.3 A power line of the scale Eskom is proposing is so large I would consider it damaging to the valley however placed.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 114 WIDTH="29"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="112"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="250"><div> 14.4 I am not opposed to development in the area that provide job creation -the power lines will not provide local job creation, they will prevent any further economic growth in the town and valley.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  The power line in fact will offer some direct job creation, though this will be limited.</div> <bR> <div> Also, the economic benefit of electricity supply to the Western Cape as a whole will be significant.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 214 WIDTH="29"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="112"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="250"><div> 14.5 I object to the development, as I know that it would destroy our business, our wine estate and guest house was featured on German Television six times in the last five years. Every year hundreds of German tourist come to Tulbagh because they had seen us on TV now already they talk in Germany about the proposed power line. Very negative for tourists in the Western Cape. We are investors from Germany.  For us it is shocking how little the South African Government cares about environmental aspects as well as job creation.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  The details raised here would need to be verified.</div> <bR> <div> References to job creation are addressed above.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 214 WIDTH="29"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="214" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="29" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="112"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="214" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="112" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="250"><div> 14.6 ..Reference to placing the power line underground.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div> The undergrounding of power lines is not common for lines above 22kV, either locally or internationally. Undergrounding of 400kV lines is very rare, and only over very short distances at considerable cost - typically 20 to 30 times the cost of overhead lines. This is not done without environmental damage, and even long term visual impact. Chapter 1 of the draft EIR provides a discussion on the consideration of this option in the EIA.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="214" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="219" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="214" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="219" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 99 WIDTH="29"><div> 15 </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP><NOBR><div>  Lori - Kay Stern</div> </NOBR></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="250"><div> 15.1  I am one of the farmers on whose land one/ two of these gigantic towers/powerlines are …. on. I was lied and almost bullied into …… agreement by one of Eskom's reps, telling me my neighbours had agreed! LIES!</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  The EIA consultant was not involved in the negotiation process in any way.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 66 WIDTH="29"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="66" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="29" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="112"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="66" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="112" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="250"><div> 15.2  Impact on the future and growth of this beautiful valley, Tulbagh. Hence less tourism, visitors, selling/buying of property, …..more people going hungry.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div> Chapter 10 of the draft EIR sets out the potential socio-economic impacts in the area. </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="66" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="219" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="66" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="219" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 99 WIDTH="29"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="99" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="29" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="112"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="99" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="112" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="250"><div> 15.3 ….[difficult to read] .. concerns about health were raised.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div> Chapter 2, Appendix 1 sets out the considerations on the potential effects due to EMFs. Eskom follows the precautionary approach, avoiding long-term exposure by preventing development within the servitude.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="99" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="219" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="99" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="219" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 33 WIDTH="29"><div> 16</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP><NOBR><div> Dr D.C Tiegaardt</div> </NOBR></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="250"><div> 16.1  Inadequate public notification _____ with public & ____ health.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  Previous comments apply</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 33 WIDTH="29"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="33" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="29" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="112"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="250"><div> 16.2 Impact on future growth of Tulbagh tourism & development.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  Previous comments apply</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 49 WIDTH="29"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="112"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="250"><div> 16.3 The environmental impacts are too great & will have a negative impact on the development of Tulbagh.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  Previous comments apply</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 33 WIDTH="29"><div>  17</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP><NOBR><div> Twohil Co (pty) Ltd</div> </NOBR></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="250"><div> 17.1 The broader community was not adequately consulted.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  Previous comments apply</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 66 WIDTH="29"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="66" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="29" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="112"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="250"><div> 17.2 Eskom used underhanded tactics to cohere farm owners to sign, saying that we had no choice, or that our neighbours has already sign.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  Eskom to respond.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 49 WIDTH="29"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="112"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="250"><div> 17.3 The Tulbagh valley is too small to accommodate these structures.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  The visual impact assessment (Chapter 12) places the size of the towers in context.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 49 WIDTH="29"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="112"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="250"><div> 17.4 This power line will cross my farm not 200m from my house and the houses of my employees and our health will be at risk.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  This distance is not considered a risk to human or animal health. See Chapter 2, Appendix 1.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 82 WIDTH="29"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="112"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="250"><div> 17.5 We stay in this beautiful valley and it's history and have rebuilt everything as it was before the 1969 earthquake. It will become another South African ghost town. I feel that there are definitely other ways and routes. </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  See Chapters 2 and 10 regarding the potential socio-economic impacts.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 82 WIDTH="29"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="112"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="250"><div> 17.6 We know that we need the extra power but where is the second Koeberg as was planned? We also feel that if government get rid of all expertise, things like this will happen in the future.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  See Chapter 1 for comment on alternative power generation.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 66 WIDTH="29"><div>  18</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="112"><div> Witzenberg Belangegroep</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="250"><div> 18.1 Line can be built along a route which will not permanently harm the farming community of Ceres, Prince Alfred Hamlet & the Witzenberg valley.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  A range of alternative routes were considered. See Chapter 1 of the draft EIR.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 115 WIDTH="29"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="115" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="29" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="112"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="250"><div> 18.2 Any development through Ceres valley, already existing power line is causing harm further power line will damage area permanently and negative impact on export fruit farming will be irreparable.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  Ceres currently has two 400kV lines. The proposed line will divert to the north of Ceres, avoiding the developed areas. The impact on fruit farming is expected to be small as most fruit farming activities may continue under the line.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 82 WIDTH="29"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="112"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="250"><div> 18.3 EIA process fatally defective in that the assessment was only done for a 30km wide area along existing 265kV line.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  A much wider area was covered in the EIA, but attention was focussed on the route of the existing 400kV lines. The motivation for this is given in Chapters 1 & 6.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 16 WIDTH="29"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="112"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="250"><div> 18.4 See 3.1 to 3.6 11</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 132 WIDTH="29"><div>  19</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="112"><div> The Witzenberg Tourism Committee</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="250"><div> 19.1 None of the alternatives proposed by the public and tourism officers of the Tulbagh, Wolseley & Ceres regions were taken into account. We were presented with Eskom alternatives from which we had to pick one. The effect on tourism, one of the main income generators of the region, was not taken into consideration.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  Eskom to respond. This is understood to have taken place after the submission of the EIR to DEAT in June 2002.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 148 WIDTH="29"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="148" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="29" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="112"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="250"><div> 19.2 The Department has been extremely harsh on developers in this area as far as the visual impact of their developments on the prestige beauty of this part of South Africa is concerned. The approvals are non-consistent and that developers could use this precedent to ignore (or fight in a court of law) any further request for visual impact studies.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  No comment</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 66 WIDTH="29"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="112"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="250"><div> 19.3 [Will agree to the activity] Only if the lines are moved to un-populated areas to by-pass our towns.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  The route seeks to avoid developed areas, but also to avoid pristine environments as is found to the north. See Chapters 1 and 2.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 115 WIDTH="29"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="112"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="250"><div> 19.4 There are already two very unsightly power lines going through our valley. The proposed routes will make the new transmission lines visible to virtually all citizens in the Ceres, Prince Alfred's Hamlet, Witzenberg Valley,Tulbagh & Gouda.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  The visual impact of the line through these valleys is set out in Chapter 12 of the draft EIR. </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 82 WIDTH="29"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="112"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="250"><div> 19.5 We are aware of the need for extra power and power lines. However, the government's request of Eskom to supply the cheapest power in Africa is not always compatible with realities on the ground. </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  No comment</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 131 WIDTH="29"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="112"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="250"><div> 19.6 Tourism is one of he biggest earners of revenue in our area. Foreign tourists shy away from power lines and refuse to be accommodated close to them.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  The proposed route avoids the main locations where accommodation is found. </div> <bR> <div> Additionally, tourism was reported as contributing around 10% of the economies of the towns in this area (see Chapter 10).</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 99 WIDTH="29"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="112"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="250"><div> 19.7 We also foresee a great number of citizens leaving our area because of the lines, because of the negative impact they will have on any future growth and developments. This will contribute to the depopulation of our towns.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  The existing two 400kV lines are much closer to Ceres than the proposed 765kV line. It is not apparent that they had any noticeable impact on the economy.  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 66 WIDTH="29"><div>  20</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="112"><div> Christopher Denys Wright</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="250"><div> 20.1 There has been totally inadequate public participation. I only got to know about it from our local grocer two days before submissions.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  Please see Chapter 5 and Appendices 2A-2I of the draft EIR for details of the public consultation campaign.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 115 WIDTH="29"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="115" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="29" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="112"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="250"><div> 20.2 The new power line would have a hugely detrimental effect on the Riebeek Valley. The area has been highlighted for development as a tourist destination. Tourism creates jobs- but it is unlikely that they will be attracted to a Valley dominated by giant power lines.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  Chapter 10 sets out the assessment of socio-economic impacts in this area.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 82 WIDTH="29"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="112"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="250"><div> 203 The proposed development will have a severely detrimental effect on the environment in which I live. It is likely to reduce the value of my and other properties in the area.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  The draft EIR sets out the anticipated impacts on the environment as a whole.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 115 WIDTH="29"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="112"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="250"><div> 20.4 This is and area of outstanding natural beauty which is visited by folk from all over the world. No visitors will mean less economic activity, more deprivation and more poverty. It is our duty to preserve this environment for this generation and generations to come.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  See Chapters 10 and 12 for the visual and social assessments. </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 66 WIDTH="29"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="112"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="250"><div> 20.5 Since there has been little or no consultation I am not aware of what was contained in the appeal, so I cannot comment.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  No further comment</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 16 WIDTH="29"><div>  21</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="112"><div> STA Zeerman</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP><NOBR><div> 21.1 Het nie genoeg kennig gekry nie.</div> </NOBR></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  Comments above refer.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 49 WIDTH="29"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="49" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="29" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="112"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP><NOBR><div> 21.2 Lyn sal inmeng met boerdery.</div> </NOBR></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  Most agricultural activities are expected to b able to continue around and under the new line.</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="219"><div>  </div> </tD> </tR> </TABLE></div> <bR> <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>