GAMMA - OMEGA APPEALS

APPENDIX B - ISSUES RAISED BY INDIVIDUAL APPELLANTS WITHIN THE NICHOLAS SMITH GROUP

Appellant No.	Name of Appellant	Issues Raised	Response of Consultant	Reply of Appellants	Comments of DEAT

3	BDB Farming (Pty) Ltd	3.1 See common list at the end of Appendix B
14	RIJKS Country Hotel	14.1 See common list at the end of Appendix B
15	RIJK'S Private Cellar	15.1 See common list at the end of Appendix B
17	The Tulbagh 4 Star Hotel	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.	See draft EIR Chapter 5 and Appendices 2A to 2I for the full description of the public consultation process.
		17.2 Where is the evidence of a full Impact study having been undertaken? How was it communicated to the wider community?	The draft EIR sets out the extent of the EIA study undertaken. As described in Chapter 5 and Appendices 2a to 2I the public consultation process was extensive. It included: Advertisement in national, regional and local newspapers (including Witzenberg Herald) Copies of reports left at Tulbagh municipal offices, farmer's co-op and Tulbagh library Meetings with the Tulbagh Farmers Assoc and Tulbagh Agric. Union A public open day at Tulbagh Town Hall.
		17.3 Progress must be made but not at any price -Eskom must show regards for the nature of this area.	The draft EIR sets out the aspects considered in the EIA.
20	Tulbagh Landbou Vereniging	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	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.
		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.	The historical significance was noted in the EIA. See Chapters 2 and 9.
		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	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)
28	Nadine Aikman	28.1 In terms of the Section 38(8) of the National Heritage Resources act (15 of 1999) due process has not been followed.	See responses to points raised by Nicholas Smith & Assoc.
		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	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).
		28.3 The Powerline could be placed underground/ along the west coast.	Alternative routes were considered (Chapter 1 & 2), as well as the option of undergrounding (Chapter 1)
29	Henry Aikman	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.	See responses to points raised by Nicholas Smith & Assoc.
		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	See response to Nadine Aikman
30	CA Algar	30.1 See common list at the end of Appendix B
31	Mrs SML Algar	31.1 See common list at the end of Appendix B
32	Michael Damer Ashley -Cooper	32.1 See common list at the end of Appendix B
33	Meryl Ashley- Cooper	33.1 See common list at the end of Appendix B
34	Kenton Bagshaw	34.1The Broader community was not adequately consulted. Underhand. New Role Players not involved.	An extensive public consultation campaign was carried out. See Chapter 5 and Appendices 2a to 2I. It included: Advertisement in national, regional and local newspapers (including Witzenberg Herald) Copies of reports left at Tulbagh municipal offices, farmer's co-op and Tulbagh library Meetings with the Tulbagh Farmers Assoc and Tulbagh Agric. Union A public open day at Tulbagh Town Hall.
		34.2 Sterilisation of the area & Heritage site of major tourism interest.	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).
35	Tony & Christine Bond	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.	See above for references to heritage and tourism. Eskom is aware of the earthquake risk in the area. However the pylons can be designed to withstand earth tremors.
		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.	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).
		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.	The status of Tulbagh as a tourist destination is recognised in the draft EIR (Ch 2, Ch10, & Ch12). Wine production is not expected to be affected by the line. 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.
36	Mina N Bugan	36.1 Eskom kan nie bewyse gee dat my en my pasiente se gesondheid nie nadelig daar deur beinvloed sal word nie. Sien aangeheg.	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.
		36.2 Plaas dit net ondergronds. (Dit) gaan die pragtige natuur skoon affekteer and wat van die voels?	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.
		36.3 See common list at the end of Appendix B
37	Anne Christensen	37.1 I was not aware at all that Eskom wants to put pylons through the valley.	An extensive public consultation campaign was undertaken. See Chapter 5 and Appendices 2A to 2I in the draft EIR.
		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.	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. The potential impact on tourism is highlighted in the draft EIR as a concern.
		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.	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. 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).
38	Daniel Wynand De Jager	38.1 The process was supposed to be transparent. Eskom did not consult with the broad public, and just forced their way through.	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.
		38.2 No consultation with the residents & property owners in the affected area	See the meetings held in the area and distribution of reports to the Tulbagh area.
		38.3 We the property owners & residents are the affected parties, not only the farmers.	The public participation process was open to all potentially affected and interested parties.
		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.	See Chapter 12 for the assessment of visual impact on this area.
		38.5 See common list at the end of Appendix B
39	Joe De Villiers	39.1 See common list at the end of Appendix B
40	A N Dorrington	40.1 See common list at the end of Appendix B
41	H du Plessis	41.1 See common list at the end of Appendix B
42	R. J du Plessis	42.1 See common list at the end of Appendix B
43	C I O du Toit	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.	An extensive public participation process was undertaken that was open to all potentially affected and interested parties. See Chapter 5 and Appendices 2A to 2I of the draft EIR.
		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.	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.
		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.	Loss of property value was considered in the draft EIR (See Chapter 10, Section 6) 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.
		43.4 See common list at the end of Appendix B
44	John Haddad	44.1 See common list at the end of Appendix B
45	Gustav Dietrich Haumann	45.1 See common list at the end of Appendix B
46	Berindiena Horing	46.1 Eskom has not notified me at all. Before I lived on Steinthal. We where also not notified while living on Steinthal.	Dominie Dreyer of Steinthal was a regular participant in public meetings on the project.
		46.2 I live on a farm where pylons will be very close.	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.
		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.	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.
		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.	Eskom will keep the new line away from houses to avoid any possible health impacts. The potential impacts on tourism in Tulbagh has been addressed in the draft EIR. (See Chapters 2 and 10)
48	Friedrich Ferdinand Jesch	48.1 We believe that the broader community was not adequately consulted.	Please see Chapter 5 and Appendices 2A to 2I in the draft EIR.
		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.	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: Newspaper advertisements Public open days Meetings and presentations Distribution of reports.
		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.	The significance of the potential visual impact has been acknowledged and clearly stated in the draft EIR (see Chapters 2 and 12).
		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.	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.
		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.	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.
49	Jean Kotze	49.1 See common list at the end of Appendix B
50	Dawie Kotze	50.1 For basic reason that my farming/tourism ventures will directly be influenced and never been consulted in this regards.	Uncertain what ventures are referred to here. 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.
		50.2 The heritage of this valley will be in jeopardy because of the visual impact.	See previous comments.
		50.3 Within reasonable standards. RE: Any development must not be detrimental to the look of the valley we love.
		50.4 I was not asked for my opinion. Could my activities will be affected with the construction	The draft EIR sets out the anticipated construction process (Chapter 3, Table 10).
		50.5 See common list at the end of Appendix B
51	L.J Le Roux	51.1 See common list at the end of Appendix B
52	M Loubser	52.1 See common list at the end of Appendix B
53	Jesmien Marais	53.1 I have never been notified officially by Eskom	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.
		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.	The pylons should be placed outside the town area.
		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.	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.
		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.	Previous comments on tourism refer.
		53.5 I did not know about the pylons my employer just told me.	See previous comments on the public consultation process.
54	Brendon & Sue Mc Hugh	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.	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.
		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?	To our knowledge, the Heritage Council was established after June 2002. SAHRA was invited to comment on the draft EIR. The geometric tortoise habitat was a specific focus of the ecology studies (see Chapter 8 and Chapter 2, Appendix 1. Previous comments on EMFs refer.
		54.3 See common list at the end of Appendix B
		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.	The appellant is referred to the draft EIR in its entirety!
		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.	The EIR was submitted to DEAT.
		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.	No further comment
55	Tina Nel	55.1 The community has not been satisfactory informed about the impact of the project.	Previous comments on the public participation process refer.
		55.2 There is no way in which the project will not serve to seriously damage the area visually and environmentally.	The visual impacts (Chapter 12) and environmental (~ecology) impacts (Chapter 8) were addressed in the draft EIR.
		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?	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.
		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.
		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?	The consultant is not aware of the circumstances of the golf course application.
56	J.A Olde-Olthof	56.1 See common list at the end of Appendix B
57	Roland Pierre Perold	57.1 See common list at the end of Appendix B
58	Elsabe Putter	58.1 Eskom was not transparent enough and the public was not suitably informed.	Previous comments on consultation refer.
		58.2 See common list at the end of Appendix B
		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.	Need further details on specific shortcomings of the studies in question.
59	Rhan Putter	59.1 See common list at the end of Appendix B
		59.2 The EIA was superficial and lacked specialist input on visual impacts.	Specialist input was provided in Chapter 12 of the draft EIR.
61	Mr Bothman Smartryk	61.1 See common list at the end of Appendix B
62	Henreagan Danwill Steyn	62.1 See common list at the end of Appendix B
63	Francois Swanelpoel	63.1 See common list at the end of Appendix B
		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.	Alternative routes and generation was presented in Chapter 1 of the draft EIR.
		63.3 I do not approve of more power lines being erected across our valley.
64	Schoonderzicht Farm/ C.R van Kooy	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.	Eskom to comment here.
		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.	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)
		64.3 We are only against developments that impact our life, health and well being. And the value of our property.
		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.	Previous comments on health risks from EMFs refer.
		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.	Eskom to comment.

APPENDIX B - LIST OF COMMON ISSUES RAISED BY STAKEHOLDERS REPRESENTED BY NICHOLAS SMITH & associates.

Common List	Response of Consultant	Reply of Appellants	Comments of DEAT
1. We believe that the broader community was not adequately consulted.	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.
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'.	Both visual impact and sense of place were addressed in the study (see Chapter 2, Appendix 1 and Chapter 12). The issues around the cultural landscape were raised in detail by Nicholas Smith & Assoc. and responses given there will apply here.
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.	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. The size of the tower structures are set out in the draft EIR (see Chapter 1).
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.	The Appellants need to be more specific. 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: Tourism is an important element of the local economy but only contributed around 10% of the local economies. 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.) 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. 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.
5.The disastrous effect that this project will have on a picturesque [sic] steeped in history and heritage has not been addressed.	Disastrous impacts were not identified. The history and scenic qualities of the area were taken into consideration. (Chapters 2, 9, 10, 12)
6.Eskom did not adequately provide for alternatives in it's submission, such as alternative routes, alternative sources of energy generation etc.	This is addressed in Chapter 1.
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.	The EIA was informed by the IDPs and Interim IDPs that were available at the time. Chapter 10 specifically reports on compatability with the IDPs.
8.Eskom used underhanded tactics to coerce farm owners to sign (saying things like your neighbour has signed etc.)	Eskom to comment.
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.	Eskom to comment
10. Possible negative health issues were not adequately addressed.	See response to same issues raised by Nicholas Smith & Assoc. on behalf of the Appellants.
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.	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.
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.	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.
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.	A section of the line cannot be seen in isolation but as part of the overall project. Alternative alignments were considered in the EIA.
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.	To our knowledge, this organisation was established after June 2002. SAHRA was kept fully informed of the study and received the draft EIR.
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.	It is understood that the golf course plans were at a very preliminary stage during the EIA study.
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!	Previous comments on the public consultation process refer.
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.	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.
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.	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.
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.	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.
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.	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.
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.	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.
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.	The availability of the RoD was advertised and all registered stakeholders were sent a notice.
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.	DEAT to comment.

GAMMA - OMEGA APPEALS

APPENDIX A - ISSUES RAISED BY NICHOLAS SMITH & ASSOCIATES

Issues Raised by Nicholas Smith & Assoc.

Response of Consultant

Reply of Appellants

Comments of DEAT

5 Non Compliance with ECA

Eskom as a juristic person

5.1 Section 22 of the ECA states that "no person 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.	No comment from the consultant. (Eskom/DEAT to comment)
5.2 The RoD describes the applicant in casu 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.	No comment from the consultant. (Eskom/DEAT to comment)
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 ultra vires her power of the ECA.	No comment from the consultant. (Eskom/DEAT to comment)
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.	No comment from the consultant. (Eskom/DEAT to comment)

6 Gaps in the EIA process
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.

Inadequate public consultation
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.