Mount Prospect Retirement Village (PTY) LTD

Transcription

1 Mount Prospect Retirement Village (PTY) LTD Draft Basic Assessment Report: Proposed Development of the Mount Prospect Retirement Village located on Erven 2641 and 2643 on the Corner of Pagasvlei Road and Olive Close, Constantia, Cape Town. September 2015 DEA&DP REFERENCE NUMBER: 16/3/3/6/7/1/A6/16/2268/15 SEC REFERENCE NUMBER PO Box 30134, Tokai, 7966 Telephone: , Fax:

2 - 2 - BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT (AUGUST 2010) Basic Assessment Report in terms of the NEMA Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 2010 Kindly note that: AUGUST This Basic Assessment Report is the standard report required by DEA&DP in terms of the EIA Regulations, 2010 and must be completed for all Basic Assessment applications. 2. This report must be used in all instances for Basic Assessment applications for an environmental authorisation in terms of the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998) (NEMA), as amended, and the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 2010, and/or a waste management licence in terms of the National Environmental Management: Waste Act, 2008 (Act 59 of 2008) (NEM: WA), and/or an atmospheric emission licence in terms of the National Environmental Management: Air Quality Act, 2004 (Act No. 39 of 2004) (NEM: AQA). 3. This report is current as of 2 August It is the responsibility of the Applicant / EAP to ascertain whether subsequent versions of the report have been published or produced by the competent authority. 4. The required information must be typed within the spaces provided in the report. The sizes of the spaces provided are not necessarily indicative of the amount of information to be provided. It is in the form of a table that will expand as each space is filled with typing. 5. Incomplete reports will be rejected. A rejected report may be amended and resubmitted. 6. The use of not applicable in the report must be done with circumspection. Where it is used in respect of material information that is required by the Department for assessing the application, this may result in the rejection of the report as provided for in the regulations. 7. While the different sections of the report only provide space for provision of information related to one alternative, if more than one feasible and reasonable alternative is considered, the relevant section must be copied and completed for each alternative. 8. Unless protected by law all information contained in, and attached to this report, will become public information on receipt by the competent authority. If information is not submitted with this report due to such information being protected by law, the applicant and/or EAP must declare such non-disclosure and provide the reasons for the belief that the information is protected. 9. This report must be submitted to the Department at the postal address given below or by delivery thereof to the Registry Office of the Department. No faxed or ed reports will be accepted. Please note that for waste management licence applications, this report must be submitted for the attention of the Department s Waste Management Directorate (tel: and fax: ) at the same postal address as the Cape Town Office Region A. 10. Unless indicated otherwise, two electronic copies (CD/DVD) and three hard copies of this report must be submitted to the Department. DEPARTMENTAL DETAILS CAPE TOWN OFFICE REGION A (Cape Winelands, City of Cape Town: Tygerberg and Oostenberg Administrations) Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning Attention: Directorate: Integrated Environmental Management (Region A2) Private Bag X 9086 Cape Town, 8000 Registry Office 1 st Floor Utilitas Building 1 Dorp Street, Cape Town Queries should be directed to the Directorate: Integrated Environmental Management (Region A2) at: Tel: (021) Fax: (021) CAPE TOWN OFFICE REGION B (West Coast, Overberg, City of Cape Town: Helderberg, South Peninsula, Cape Town and Blaauwberg Administrations Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning Attention: Directorate: Integrated Environmental Management (Region B) Private Bag X 9086 Cape Town, 8000 Registry Office 1 st Floor Utilitas Building 1 Dorp Street, Cape Town Queries should be directed to the Directorate: Integrated Environmental Management (Region B) at: Tel: (021) Fax: (021) GEORGE OFFICE (Eden and Central Karoo) Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning Attention: Directorate: Integrated Environmental Management (Region A1) Private Bag X 6509 George, 6530 Registry Office 4 th Floor, York Park Building 93 York Street George Queries should be directed to the Directorate: Integrated Environmental Management (Region A1) at: Tel: (044) Fax: (044) View the Department s website at for the latest version of this document. 2

3 - 3 - DEPARTMENTAL REFERENCE NUMBER(S) File reference number (EIA): 16/3/3/6/7/1/A6/16/2268/15 File reference number (Waste): N/A File reference number (Other): N/A PROJECT TITLE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF THE MOUNT PROSPECT RETIREMENT VILLAGE LOCATED ON ERVEN 2641 AND 2643 ON THE CORNER OF PAGASVLEI ROAD AND OLIVE CLOSE, CONSTANTIA, CAPE TOWN. DETAILS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PRACTITIONER (EAP) Environmental Assessment Sillito Environmental Consulting Practitioner (EAP): Contact person: Colleen McCreadie Postal address: PO Box Tokai Postal code: 7966 Telephone: Cell: info@environmentalconsultants.co.za colleen@environmentalconsultants.co.za Fax: Adrian Sillito B.Sc. Honours Geology MSc Engineering Geology EAP Qualifications EAP Registrations/Associations Kirsty Robinson B. Soc. Sci Environmental and Geographical Science and Politics (2010) B. Soc. Sci (Honours) Environmental and Geographical Science (2011) MPhil in Climate Change and Sustainable Development (2012) Adrian Sillito Certified Environmental Assessment Practitioner Pri. Sci. Nat Member of the International Institute Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA) Associate Member of the Institute for Waste Management of Southern Africa (IWMSA) DETAILS OF THE EAP S EXPERTISE TO CARRY OUT BASIC ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES SEC has extensive experience in environmental assessment procedures and has completed several thousand environmental projects in most provinces of South Africa since This impact assessment report is also guided by cradle-to-grave knowledge of related activities from EIA through to construction phase, Environmental Control Officer experience and site decommissioning. This report was authored by Kirsty Robinson and Colleen McCreadie and edited by Adrian Sillito of SEC. Adrian has an MSc in Engineering Geology, is a certified environmental assessment practitioner (CEAPSA), Professional Natural Scientist (Pr.Sci.Nat.) and a member of the South African branch of the International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIASA). Kirsty has an MPhil in Climate Change and Sustainable Development. Colleen McCreadie has a BComm Hons in Economics and is a member of IAIAsa. 3

4 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS...4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE CONTENT OF THE BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT:...6 SECTION A: ACTIVITY INFORMATION Project Description: Listed Activities assessed during the Basic Assessment Process: Details of all components of the proposed project: Physical size of the activity: Site access: Description of the property on which the activity is to be undertaken and the location of the activity on the property: Site photographs: SECTION B: DESCRIPTION OF RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT Gradient of the Site: Location in Landscape: Groundwater, Soil and Geological Stability of the Site: Surface Water: Biodiversity: Land Use of the Site: Land Use Character of the Surrounding Area: Socio-Economic Aspects: Visual Aspects: Historical and Cultural Aspects: Applicable Legislation, Policies and/or Guidelines: SECTION C: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Method of Notification to all potential Interested and Affected Parties: List of all the State Departments that were consulted: Summary of the Public Participation process followed: SECTION D: NEED AND DESIRABILITY Need and Desirability Assessment: SECTION E: ALTERNATIVES Introduction Property and Location/Site Alternatives: Activity Alternatives: Design or Layout Alternatives: Technology Alternatives: Operational Alternatives: Other/ Additional Alternatives: No-Go Alternative:

5 Summary of Alternatives Investigated and Outcome of Investigation:... SECTION F: IMPACT ASSESSMENT, MANAGEMENT, MITIGATION AND MONITORING MEASURES IMPACT ASSESSMENT ON THE FOLLOWING ASPECTS: (a) Geographical and physical aspects: (b) Biological aspects: (c) Socio-Economic aspects: (d) Cultural and historic aspects: WASTE AND EMISSIONS WATER USE POWER SUPPLY ENERGY EFFICIENCY DESCRIPTION AND ASSESSMENT OF THE SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS prior to and after MITIGATION SPECIALIST INPUTS/STUDIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS IMPACT SUMMARY OTHER MANAGEMENT, MITIGATION AND MONITORING MEASURES SECTION G: ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGIES AND CRITERIA, GAPS IN KNOWLEDGE, UNDERLYING ASSUMPTIONS AND UNCERTAINTIES Assessment Methodology & Criteria: Identified Gaps in Knowledge, Underlying Assumptions & Uncertainties: SECTION H: RECOMMENDATION OF THE EAP EAP s Conclusions & Recommendations: SECTION I: APPENDICES DECLARATIONS

6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF ASSESSMENT REPORT: THE CONTENT OF THE BASIC PROJECT PROPOSAL Mount Prospect Retirement Village (PTY) LTD, hereafter known as the applicant is making an application for Environmental Authorisation in terms of the National Environmental Management Act, Act No. 107 of 1998, as amended ( NEMA ). The application is for the proposed development of a retirement village located on Erven 2641 and 2643 on the corner of Pagasvlei Road and Olive Close, Constantia, Cape Town. The proposed development will entail the development of some 58 homes on Erven 2641 and The development will include ancillary facilities such as an administration / entertainment centre, assisted living / medical centre and gym / coffee shop. There will also be internal roadways, bulk engineering services infrastructure, and private and communal gardens, including protected stands of mature trees with heritage value. The development proposal also includes a buffer area around a wetland, which has been identified on the site as the source area of the Pagasvlei Stream. The wetland and buffer have been incorporated into the design and layout of the development as private open space areas. A vegetated buffer will also be established along the development s northern boundary with the historic Groot Constantia wine estate; and the design scheme of the development will be informed by the visual sensitivity of the Constantia area. The proposed development site is currently used on a low- intensity basis as a horse livery. There remains a homestead building on the property, two barns as well as several outbuildings. Some of the buildings on the property have been identified as having heritage value and will therefore be conserved in the design and layout of the development proposal. Please refer to the site and locality maps as contained in Appendix A, the site plans as contained in Appendix B and the specialist reports which have informed the proposed development as attached in Appendix G. NEED & DESIRABILITY: Analysis of the statistics of the local area undertaken by the project town planners, Planning Partners, indicate that Constantia has an ageing population; and a lack of choice in terms of dwelling types and limited housing which can accommodate the needs of the elderly: 1 in 3 people in the study area is aged 55 or older; 16% of the population is 65 or older; 88% of housing within Constantia are single houses on single plots; and 6% of housing in Constantia are townhouses or cluster houses in complexes. Waiting lists for the already established retirement villages such as Alphenvale are extensive. Therefore due to the lack of available facilities within Constantia, the elderly are required to look further afield in Cape Town to retire resulting in disconnection with their current community and established lifestyle. The Constantia- Tokai Local Area Growth Management Development Plan and the Southern District Plan both indicate that there is a need for more retirement housing in Constantia. The City of Cape Town Densification policy aims include the promotion of higher densities within the urban edge to ensure optimal and efficient use of infrastructure, services, facilities and land. The development of a retirement type development would therefore fall in line with and be strongly consistent with the current planning policies for the area: Please refer to Section D of this report for further detail regarding the need and desirability of the proposed development; as well as to the Planning Status Report compiled by the project town planners, Planning Partners, which is contained in Appendix G. LEGISLATIVE CONTEXT Environmental: The application for Environmental Authorisation is being made to the Competent Authority, namely the Provincial Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning ( DEA&DP ), and is required as the proposed development triggers an activity which is listed in terms of the National Environmental Management Act ( NEMA ) Environmental Impact Assessment ( EIA ) Regulations, The activity which is triggered, relates to works within a wetland, and is triggered since the development proposal includes the infilling of a wetland identified on the site as being of low Ecological Importance and Sensitivity. In terms of the NEMA EIA Regulations (2014), a Basic Assessment ( BA ) process must be followed in order to apply for Environmental Authorisation, which includes the compilation of this Basic Assessment Report ( BAR ). Land Use Planning: The proposed site is currently zoned Single Residential Zone 1 (SR1). The proposed development will not be permissible with the current zoning and in order to accommodate the retirement village proposal, it would be necessary to rezone the two 6

7 properties accordingly The project town planners, Planning Partners, are in the process of undertaking a composite planning application in terms of the Land Use Planning Act ( LUPA ) (Act 3 of 2014) and the provisions of the City of Cape Town Municipal Planning By- Law (2015). The application is for the rezoning of erven 2641 and 2643, as well as other associated approvals and departures to allow for such a group housing development of the density proposed. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND SURROUNDS Erven 2641 and 2643 are each currently zoned Single Residential Zone 1 and are located within the urban edge within the Constantia Valley. The site is situated adjacent to the Groot Constantia farmstead to the north, and is bounded in all other directions by low density, upmarket Constantia residences, including a public open space greenbelt area running along the Pagasvlei Stream. Figure A: Site Locality Map. Image courtesy of Planning Partners dated Novermber The site is currently used on a low-intensity basis as a horse livery. A Victorian homestead building, two 18 th Century barns and several mature trees (all with heritage status) as well as several outbuildings are currently located on the site. According to the Freshwater Basic Assessment undertaken at the site, there are also two wetlands located on the site, hereafter known as Wetland A and Wetland B. Wetland A is the larger of the two and is the most ecologically important of the two wetlands on site having a High Ecological Importance and Sensitivity. Wetland A has been identified as the source area for the Pagasvlei Stream. Wetland B is classified as having a low Ecological Importance and Sensitivity. The freshwater specialist has advised that due to the low sensitivity of Wetland B, the wetland could conditionally be infilled to accommodate the proposed development. Wetland A however should be retained, rehabilitated and maintained. According to the City of Cape Town Biodiversity Network Map, the site is not located in any Critical Biodiversity Areas ( CBA s ), Ecological Support Areas ( ESA s ) or in any areas classified as Protected or Conservation. Please refer to the specialist reports as contained in Appendix G of this report as well as the City of Cape Town s Biodiversity Network Map as contained in Appendix D of this report. 7

8 - 8 - PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS A public participation process is required in order to fulfil the requirements of a Basic Assessment process. The public participation process needs to be undertaken in accordance with Chapter 6 the NEMA EIA Regulations 2014 (GN. No. R982). Section C provides a summary of all public participation activities undertaken to date, as well as an indication of public participation that will take place going forward. In addition, a Comments and Responses Report has been compiled and includes all issues raised at this stage as well as the project team s response to these issues. Please refer to Appendix F for proof of public participation activities undertaken to date; the database of registered Interested and Affected parties (I&APs), as well as the Comments and Responses Report. KEY ISSUES IDENTIFIED Based on identified environmental sensitivities at the site and surrounds, as well as based on concerns and issues raised by stakeholders, key issues identified that have been addressed in this report, include: 1) There are aspects of the site which are of architectural, aesthetic and historic significance: these include the homestead building, its formal garden two associated 18th century barns, associated mature trees (Oak trees) and the werf. There are also heritage resources located in the immediate context of the site. These include Groot Constantia (directly adjacent to the site to the west), Nova Constantia, Constantia Main Road and Pagasvlei Stream Green Belt. The design scheme and layout included in the development proposal account for these sensitive heritage aspects. 2) Due to the heritage sensitivity of the site, as well as the established high income, low density residential nature of the surrounds, the potential visual impacts of the development have been identified as a key issue that needs to be factored into the development design. Visual specialist input has been obtained, which has informed the design scheme of the development. Aspects of the design addressed include building elevations and platforms; materials and colours to be used; view corridors from the adjacent Pagasvlei Road and greenbelt; as well as the layout of the development, including consideration of the existing heritage buildings and an identified sensitive wetland on the site. 3) A wetland of high Ecological Importance and Sensitivity, which has been identified as the source area for the Pagasvlei Stream, is situated on the site. The layout of the development proposal has included freshwater specialist recommendations for a protective buffer around the wetland, and for the rehabilitation, extension and maintenance of the wetland. 4) The possibility that traffic generated by the development proposal will lead to unacceptable traffic conditions on the surrounding road network congestion and worsening of road safety has been raised by some residents in the area. A traffic engineer has designed the proposed development access via an access servitude off Pagasvlei Road. The proposed development access considered the background traffic conditions on the road network; as well as the traffic likely to be generated by the development. It was found that there will be no significant traffic impact on the surrounding road network with the development access proposed. 5) The density of the development, and in particular of the portion of the development to be situated on Erf 2643 in Olive Close, has been raised as a serious concern by some neighbours of the site. The concerns centre on impacts on people s privacy; their security; their visual amenity; the sense of place of the area; the natural systems (wetland, plant and birdlife) currently present on the site; and overall on their current lifestyle. These concerns have been addressed as far as reasonably possible as follows: Access to the development via Olive Close will only take place during the construction phase. The established development will gain access via an access servitude off Pagasvlei Road to the west of the site. The level of Erf 2643 has been dropped and smaller units are being proposed for Erf 2643 to ensure less density and promote the view corridors of the Olive Close residents. The visual and heritage sensitivity of the site and surrounds has been addressed in the design and layout of the development proposal through intensive input from heritage and visual specialists several iterations of the development design have been discarded in favour of a design with minimal impact on these resources. The natural aspects of the site, which have been identified as being sensitive a wetland on the site, and associated riparian vegetation and fauna (assumed to include Western Leopard Toads) have been protected in the layout of the development; and by the inclusion of all freshwater specialist recommendations for rehabilitation, extension and maintenance of the wetland in the Environmental Management Programme which will govern the development. With regards to whether the site is an appropriate location for a development of the density proposed: a detailed 8

9 - 9 - analysis of the need and desirability of the development has been undertaken by the project town planners, Planning Partners. The investigation has demonstrated, on planning principles including reference to the spatial planning frameworks, policies and plans that are applicable to the Constantia area that the development would not be inappropriate in this location. These key issues have informed the development planning process, and guided the assessment of the impacts that are likely to be associated with the development. ALTERNATIVES: The iterative development planning process included the investigation of activity and layout alternatives. Activity alternatives: The activity alternative of establishing a residential development and the alternative of developing retirement housing were investigated as activity alternatives. It was found, due to the regional planning imperatives for the area and due to other factors such as a lack of retirement-type accommodation in the Constantia area, that retirement housing is the preferred activity alternative. Layout alternatives: Five layout alternatives were investigated during the early planning stages of the development. Three of these (Layout Alternatives 1, 2 and 3) related to residential development that aligned with the Single Residential zoning of the site. These layouts were discarded as not being appropriate since they did not satisfy the identified need for retirement housing in the area. Layout Alternative 4 captured the applicant s initial approach once a retirement village was found to be the preferred activity alternative. Layout Alternative 4 utilised all available space on the property, with a proposed 63 units to be developed. However, environmental sensitivities were identified at the site and surrounds: the wellbeing of neighbours; the sense of place / visual character of the area; the buildings, werf and trees of heritage significance identified on the site; and Wetland A which has high Ecological Importance and Sensitivity, was identified on the site. As such, the layout was adapted with input from independent specialists, and also considering input from neighbours. As opposed to any impingement on environmental sensitivities, these aspects have been protected as far as possible and to the satisfaction of the specialists, e.g. a wetland buffer is in place; measures have been implemented on the northern site boundary to facilitate Western Leopard Toad movement to terrestrial habitat; and the heritage buildings on the site have been incorporated into the design scheme. In addition and in response to neighbours concerns, the level of Erf 2643 has been dropped and smaller units are being proposed for Erf 2643 to ensure less density and promote the view corridors of the Olive Close residents. Retirement Village Layout Alternative 5 is thus the preferred alternative for this application and will be assessed against the No- Go Alternative in Section F. A full description of alternatives investigated is provided in Section E, and Appendix B contains layout diagrams of each alternative. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SUMMARY: The environmental impact summary is based on a detailed investigation and assessment of impacts undertaken in Section F of this report. Development proposal: Retirement Village Layout Alternative 5 Design and construction phase Description of impact Impact significance pre-mitigation Impact significance post-mitigation Freshwater impacts: loss of Wetland B The design and layout for Alternative 5 includes infilling of Wetland B. This loss needs to be compensated for to ensure that overall impacts on freshwater resources remain low. Low According to the freshwater specialist, rehabilitation, expansion and maintenance of Wetland A will entirely offset this impact. 9

10 Freshwater impact: loss of habitat quality and fragmentation of corridors for use by Western Leopard Toads Negative impact on endangered Western Leopard Toads due to destruction of habitat and movement corridors due to poor design of the development. Medium to High Low Freshwater impact: disturbance to Wetland A as a result of development proximity Negative impact on ecological functioning of Wetland A due to adjacent development, e.g. degradation of water quality from concentrated runoff (storm water and swimming pool outlets); encroachment of adjacent landowners and / or garden plants onto the buffer area; and erosion. Low to Medium Low Freshwater impact: potential for pollution of Wetland A due to sewerage system layout The alignment of the sewer beneath the storm water channel in its passage through the wetland and its buffer is considered a constructive approach, as this will locate the channel closest to the road and culvert. However, the alignment of the sewer beneath the channel outside of the wetland and its buffer is viewed with concern: the sewer manholes would be located in the storm water channel, and their overflow would be routed directly into the wetlands, causing eutrophication and general contamination. Freshwater impact: disturbance of Wetland A due to construction activities Degradation of Wetland A due to general construction activities (e.g. runoff of sediment rich or polluted water; and loss of habitat quality and diversity during alien clearing). Freshwater impact: disturbance and degradation of Wetland A due to installation of storm water and sewerage infrastructure Installation of the sewer line and the overlying storm water channel would entail excavation through the lower reaches of Wetland A, resulting in disturbance of the wetland, possible erosion and sedimentation, and could impinge on Western Leopard Toad breeding success if undertaken during toad breeding season. Employment (benefit) Construction activities associated with Medium to High Medium to High Medium to High Low (positive) Low Low Low N/A 10

11 the development will result in temporary jobs during the construction phase Construction related traffic impacts (e.g. tip trucks and excavators etc.) Low Very Low Road safety and pedestrian safety. Congestion. Noise. Exhaust emissions. Negative impacts on lifestyle of residents from all of the above Potential visual impacts: According to the VIA, the following visual impacts are anticipated during the construction phase: Visibility of construction machinery on and entering/leaving the site; Visibility of the site camp; Excessive signage, lighting and temporary services; Litter blown on and off site; and Erosion, dust and lack of groundcover vegetation Construction related dust impacts Construction activities such as land clearing, excavating, materials and fill stockpiling, and vehicles traversing sandy surfaces of the site, generate dust. Waste related impacts Solid Waste; hazardous waste (asbestos, chemicals such as sealants, etc.) and wastewater (such as excess cement mixing water) need to be adequately managed to prevent negative impacts on soil and freshwater resources and on the municipal storm water and waste management systems. Construction related noise impacts Noise associated with the operation of heavy vehicles and equipment. Medium Low Low Low Low Very Low Very Low Very Low Operational phase Description of impact Impact significance pre-mitigation Impact significance post-mitigation Freshwater impact: disturbance and degradation of Wetland A Medium Low to Very Low Long-term negative impacts on the wetland and its buffer area could occur due to alien encroachment; inadequate maintenance of the ecological integrity of the wetland and its buffers through neglect; through reduced efficiency of storm water treatment over time, with a resultant increase in pollutants into the wetland; and erosion or bank collapse due to, for example, storm events. Freshwater impact: degradation of Wetland A due to infrequent overflows of sewage Medium Low 11

12 Possible degradation of the wetland could occur associated with infrequent overflows from the sewerage pipeline where it traverses Wetland A and its buffer. Storm water impacts and erosion These potential impacts have been avoided due to registered professional engineering input into the design and layout of the development. Dust There are no activities associated with the established development which can reasonably be considered as significant contributors to dust in the area. Bulk engineering services related impacts Impact on bulk engineering infrastructure services offered by the local municipality (solid waste; sewerage and effluent; water supply; electricity supply) Need for retirement housing (benefit) According to the investigation undertaken into the need and desirability of the development, there is a need for additional retirement housing in the Constantia area Employment and rates income for municipality (benefit) The established development represents employment opportunities: some 10 skilled employees (nurses and facilities managers); some 45 unskilled staff (cleaners, groundsmen / gardeners and caretakers); and up to 58 part-time or full time opportunities for domestic workers at the residential units. The City will also earn rates income from the established development. Impact of traffic on surrounding road network Traffic generated by the development has the potential to cause traffic congestion on the adjacent road network and intersections; and to impact negatively on road safety, e.g. if the development access is not designed with adequate sight distance in mind. Potential heritage impacts: Impacts on heritage aspects of developing the site could include: Alteration or destruction of the buildings identified as having heritage significance N/A N/A Medium Medium (positive) Medium (positive) Very Low Very High (negative) N/A N/A Very Low N/A this is a benefit N/A this is a benefit Negligible. Medium (positive) 12

13 Impingement on the werf space intrusion by buildings or landscaping Intrusion onto the open space that creates a view corridor connecting the greenbelt to the south, across the Pagasvlei streetscape and northwards to the homestead complex on the site. Loss of mature trees. Intrusion onto / loss of the riverine precinct comprising wetland A A loss of the rural character of the site (this is the only impact that cannot be avoided or mitigated through careful design. This impact is offset by the retention of an open area from Wetland A off Pagasvlei Road northwards along the centre of the site) Potential visual impacts: Visual impacts of the established development could include visual intrusion on local residents; visual intrusion on important vistas along scenic routes and corridors; visual intrusion on heritage resources; visual intrusion of lighting at night; and loss of sense of place within the Constantia valley. Noise impacts Low Visual intrusion on local residents, on heritage resources at the site, and of lighting at night: Medium Visual intrusion on important scenic routes and corridors and the impact on loss of sense of place within the Constantia Valley: Low Visual intrusion on scenic vistas from the Groot Constantia complex and other prominent historic farmsteads in the area: Negligible Visual intrusion on local residents, on heritage resources at the site, and of lighting at night: Low Visual intrusion on important scenic routes and corridors and the impact on loss of sense of place within the Constantia Valley: Very Low Visual intrusion on scenic vistas from the Groot Constantia complex and other prominent historic farmsteads in the area: Negligible (It should be noted that the site is not visible from these areas due to topography and existing vegetation. The impact is therefore considered negligible and was not rated before and after mitigation). Very Low There will be noise impacts associated with the established development. These will be the standard noise impacts associated with any occupied residential development, such as vehicle noise. The impact is considered to be in keeping with the developed residential surrounds. Decommissioning phase: as for construction phase No-Go Alternative (maintenance of the status quo at the site) The No-Go Alternative entails the maintenance of the status quo at the site, i.e. continuing to utilise the site as a low-intensity horse livery, with a single homestead situated on the property. The following benefits have been identified associated with the No-Go Alternative: None of the nuisance impacts associated with the construction phase of the development proposal will occur (noise; dust; heavy vehicle traffic) 13

14 This option has some benefit to immediate neighbours as expressed by these neighbours during public participation: the rural and undeveloped nature of the site provides an amenity in terms of character or sense of place for the neighbours. There are no further benefits associated with the No-Go Alternative: it has been expressed by some Constantia residents during public participation that the proposed density is not suitable for the area, and that retaining the site in its current state would be preferable. However, in the absence of sound planning principles to suggest that the proposed rezoning of the site for Group Housing purposes is not appropriate, the assertion that the current zoning and land use is preferable to the development proposal remains a matter of opinion. The following negative impacts have been identified associated with the No-Go Alternative: The homestead buildings and two barns on the site, which have been identified as being of heritage value, enjoy no guarantee that they will be refurbished in consultation with Heritage Western Cape. These buildings are currently becoming derelict and may continue to do so. The site in its current form provides very limited employment opportunities and rates income for the City. It has been suggested during public participation that the site in its current, open and undeveloped state, poses a security risk to adjacent neighbours by allowing easy access to these properties by criminals. There is, however, no evidence to support this assertion. CONCLUSION AND EAP RECOMMENDATIONS: The design scheme and layout of the proposed development, which incorporates the preferred layout alternative, Retirement Village Layout Alternative 5, has been informed by and based on the recommendations of the independent freshwater, heritage and visual specialists; by traffic, electrical and civils engineering input; as well as the identified need from a planning perspective for retirement housing in the Constantia area. The development proposal also makes an effort to address the concerns of the adjacent residents in terms of height and density on Erf 2643 in Olive Close. Thus the development is considered to account adequately for the identified environmental sensitivities on and around the site. The advantages associated with Alternative 5 included in the development proposal were found to significantly outweigh the disadvantages. The assessment of the impacts (contained in Section F of this report) relating to Alternative 5 found that the negative impacts associated with the preferred alternative, can all be mitigated to an acceptable level; and that there are identified benefits from a planning perspective associated with the development. As such, the EAP is of the opinion that the development proposal, which includes Alternative 5, should be authorised. Please refer to Section E for a comprehensive investigation of alternatives as well as Section F for a full assessment of the impacts associated with the proposed development. 14

15 SECTION A: ACTIVITY INFORMATION 1. Project Description: (a) Is the project a new development? YES NO (b) Provide a detailed description of the development project and associated infrastructure. PROJECT PROPOSAL Mount Prospect Retirement Village (Pty) Ltd, the applicant, is making application for Environmental Authorisation in terms of the National Environmental Management Act, Act No. 107 of 1998, as amended ( NEMA ). The application is for the proposed development of a retirement village located on Erven 2641 and 2643 on the corner of Pagasvlei Road and Olive Close, Constantia, Cape Town. The proposed development will entail the development of some 58 single-storey, detached homes. The design scheme incorporates three buildings situated on Erf a homestead and two barns which have been identified as being of heritage value. These buildings will house facilities which are necessary for a retirement development: an entertainment centre (sitting room, dining room, library, kitchen, etc.) and administration offices; an assisted living centre; and a gymnasium and coffee shop. These facilities are all for the use of residents and their visitors and are not for commercial purposes. There will also be internal roadways, as well as private open space greenbelt areas. These areas will include stands of mature trees which have been identified as having heritage significance. The green areas will also include a vegetated buffer area around a wetland, which has been identified on the site as the source area of the Pagasvlei Stream. A vegetated buffer will also be established along the development s northern boundary with the historic Groot Constantia wine estate. The design scheme for the development has been informed by visual, planning and heritage specialist input. According to the development architects, MLB Architects, the residential units are designed as single storey, luxury buildings sensitive to the surrounding natural, heritage and built environment. The architectural language makes reference to Cape vernacular the main roofs are pitched with the secondary roof forms articulated as lean-to roofs or screened by parapet walls. Pergola elements, careful window proportions, and details such as mouldings, shutters, low werf walls and exposed brickwork elements, have been incorporated to ensure consistency with the sense of place of the surrounds. The development will include the construction of bulk engineering services infrastructure (water and sewerage, stormwater and electricity), which will connect to the surrounding municipal network The development will gain access via an existing servitude off Pagasvlei Road, which runs along the western boundary of Erf There will be no access to the development directly off Pagasvlei Road, or from Olive Close. This is due to limited sight distances and / or impingement on a significant wetland identified on the southern Pagasvlei Road boundary of Erf Erf 2641 is currently used on a low- intensity basis as a horse livery. Erf 2643 is a vacant, grass-covered erf. The character of the immediate surrounds is low density residential (high income properties on erven around one acre), with the historic Groot Constantia vineyards situated just north of the site; and a Public Open Space greenbelt situated to the south. 15

16 Figure 1: Site development plan. Image courtesy of MLB Architects, September

17 Existing buildings on site with heritage status Wetland B Wetland A Figure 2: Site Map indicting the site (delineated in red) where the development of the retirement village is proposed to take place. Image courtesy of Planning Partners dated Novermber For further information, please refer to the site and locality maps contained in Appendix A; and the site plans contained in Appendix B 2. Listed Activities assessed during the Basic Assessment Process: (a) Please list all activities assessed during the Basic Assessment process: GN No. R. 983 Activity No(s): Describe the relevant Basic Assessment Activity(ies) in writing as per Listing Notice 1 (GN No. R. 983) 19 The infilling or depositing of any material of more than 5 cubic metres into, or the dredging, excavation, removal or moving of soil, sand, shells, shell grit, pebbles or rock of more than 5 cubic metres from: (i) (ii) (iii) A watercourse; The seashore; or The littoral active zone, an estuary or a distance of 100 metres inland of the highwater mark of the sea or an estuary, whichever distance is greater- Describe the portion of the development as per the project description that relates to the applicable listed activity. The proposed activity entails the infilling of a small wetland classified as having Low Ecological Importance and Sensitivity. The freshwater specialist has advised that due to the low sensitivity of the wetland ( Wetland B ), it could be infilled to accommodate the proposed development. Please refer to the Freshwater Assessment dated April 2015 as contained in Appendix G of this report. But excluding where such infilling, depositing, dredging, excavation, removal or moving- (a) Will occur behind a development setback; (b) Is for maintenance purposes undertaken in accordance with a maintenance management plan; or (c) Falls within the ambit of Activity 21 of this 17

18 Notice, in which case that activity applies. GN No. R. 985 Activity No(s): N/A Describe the relevant Basic Assessment Activity(ies) in writing as per Listing Notice 3 (GN No. R. 985) Describe the portion of the development as per the project description that relates to the applicable listed activity. If the application is also for activities as per Listing Notice 2 and permission was granted to subject the application to Basic Assessment, also indicate the applicable Listing Notice 2 activities: GN No. R. 984 Activity No(s): N/A If permission was granted in terms of Regulation 20, describe the relevant Scoping and EIA Activity(ies) in writing as per Listing Notice 2 (GN No. R. 984) Describe the portion of the development as per the project description that relates to the applicable listed activity. Waste management activities in terms of the NEM: WA (Government Gazette No ): GN No Category A Describe the relevant Category A waste management activity in writing. Activity No(s): N/A Please note: If any waste management activities are applicable, the Listed Waste Management Activities Additional Information Annexure must be completed and attached to this Basic Assessment Report as Appendix I. If the application is also for waste management activities as per Category B and permission was granted to subject the application to Basic Assessment, also indicate the applicable Category B activities: GN No. 718 Category B Activity No(s): N/A Describe the relevant Category B waste management activity in writing. Atmospheric emission activities in terms of the NEM: AQA (Government Gazette No ): GN No. 248 Activity No(s): N/A Describe the relevant atmospheric emission activity in writing. 3. Details of all components of the proposed project: (d) Please provide details of all components of the proposed project and attach diagrams (e.g. architectural drawings or perspectives, engineering drawings, process flow charts etc.): Buildings YES NO Provide brief description: According to the heritage specialist, Bridget O Donoghue, a Victorian homestead building, two 18 th Century barns and several mature trees, (all with heritage status), as well as several outbuildings are currently located on the site.. The proposed development will entail the construction of some 58 homes on Erven 2641 and 2643 in a cluster-housing-type scheme of detached homes. The existing historical buildings on the site as outlined above will be restored and incorporated into the proposed development. The existing manor house will be refurbished to accommodate the proposed administrative / entertainment centre and will become a central design feature of the retirement village. The proposed administrative / entertainment centre is easily accessible to residents and will become a focal point for community life. The two existing barns will also be refurbished to accommodate an assisted living / medical centre and a gym / coffee shop, respectively. In consultation with the heritage specialist, the retention of these buildings will be further emphasised by the retention of the werf space framed by the historic manor house and two barn buildings. A communal pool and associated garden is proposed for this space. The properties will be single storey, and the design of the buildings and the overall scheme has been informed by a Visual Impact Assessment undertaken by Gibbs Saint-Pol. This is to ensure as far as possible that the sense of place of the surrounding Constantia residential area is not contradicted by the development proposal, and that the views of residents are not impacted upon in an unacceptable manner. ( Please refer to the site layout plans as contained in Appendix B of this report as well as the Heritage Impact Assessment and 18

19 Visual Impact Assessment contained in Appendix G Infrastructure (e.g. roads, power and water supply/ storage) YES NO The development will require bulk engineering services infrastructure: connection to the municipal sewerage reticulation system and stormwater management system; as well as to the municipal electricity and water supply systems. Please refer to the electrical engineering report and to the engineering services report contained in Appendix G for full details of the proposed infrastructure. In summary (information obtained from the engineering reports): Electricity supply: It is estimated that the development will require a maximum of some 400kVA. There is currently capacity on the existing municipal infrastructure, which shall be provided by looping a new miniature substation between the Pagasvlei Road Pagasvlei Lane secondary 11kV feeder. The City of Cape Town has confirmed that the required 400kVA is available. Please refer to the letter attached in Appendix E. Water supply: There is an existing water main to the south of the site along Pagasvlei Road. This line has sufficient capacity, in terms of flow rate and pressure, to supply the proposed water demand for the development of some 3.80l/s. Sewerage reticulation: There is an existing sewer main in Pagasvlei Road, with relative spare capacity. There is however insufficient capacity in the bulk sewer main just upstream of the Raapkraal Pump station. There are proposed Master Plan Projects to upgrade two pump stations and the outfall bulk sewer main, but the timing and budgeting for the upgrades will have to be agreed with the City. It is expected that the additional 1.87 l/s expected from the development will not have a major additional negative impact in the interim. The City has no objection in principle to the proposal for connection to the municipal sewerage and water supply systems. Please refer to the letter attached in Appendix E. Stormwater management: The stormwater management for the site will comprise a system of open bio retention areas, and is aligned with the City s Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems Policy (SUDS). The Stormwater Management Plan has been included in Appendix F. Impact of bulk engineering services on sensitive aspects identified on the site: Additional detail on the sewerage system layout and the stormwater management system and layout are provided here. This is in order to demonstrate that the layout of this infrastructure has accounted for the wetland on site, Wetland A, which has been identified as being of high Ecological Importance and Sensitivity. The descriptions below have been sourced from the Freshwater Basic Assessment Report compiled by the Freshwater Consulting Group (September 2015), and contained in Appendix G: Stormwater design [According to the project engineers] the treatment of stormwater has been designed so as to comply with the City of Cape Town s policy for the treatment of stormwater from new developments, with regard to both stormwater volume and quantity... Four catchment areas have been identified in the stormwater management report, runoff from all of which passes ultimately through the culvert at Pagasvlei Road, immediately downstream of Wetland A. Runoff from all but the most easterly would pass into open bio retention areas / swales, each comprising between 10 and 20 smaller bio retention areas as described in [the Stormwater Management Plan see Appendix H]. These swales would, in the area abutting Wetland A, pass within the wetland buffer but would discharge into the wetland only in its lower reaches, in an area demarcated in collaboration with the wetland specialist [Freshwater Consulting Group] as being least sensitive to disturbance, and presenting an opportunity for re-landscaping as attenuation ponds. Runoff from the eastern catchment would be piped to the Pagasvlei Road boundary, and passed within a swale / wetland attenuation area to the downstream end of Wetland A. This swale would be lined with grass blocks, and would be in the order of 2.8m wide, from top of bank to top of bank... Cut and fill would be extensive in the eastern catchment, and it is assumed that the stormwater system would be designed to collect any groundwater daylighted prematurely as a result of changes in effective ground level. [Note that this is particularly likely to be the case in the vicinity of Wetland B, where there is sufficient near-surface water at present to support Wetland B]. Please refer to the conceptual layout diagram of the stormwater system, prepared by Sutherland Engineers, and contained in Appendix B. Sewer alignment 19

20 Sewage from the development would be passed as two pipeline routes, one west of and one east of Wetland A / Pagasvlei Stream, which would join on the western side of the stream and pass under the road in an existing mains. This means that the eastern sewer line would need to cross the Pagasvlei Stream. A conceptual design for this crossing has been provided by the project engineer [please refer to the sewerage system layout diagrams contained in Appendix B], which shows that the sewer would be routed beneath the river immediately upstream of the Pagasvlei Road culvert, and at least in the area of Wetland A and its buffer, would be routed beneath the swale conveying runoff from the eastern catchment. Processing activities (e.g. manufacturing, storage, distribution) YES NO Provide brief description: N/A Storage facilities for raw materials and products (e.g. volume and substances to be stored) Provide brief description YES NO N/A Storage and treatment facilities for solid waste and effluent generated by the project YES NO Provide brief description N/A Other activities (e.g. water abstraction activities, crop planting activities) YES NO Provide brief description N/A 4. Physical size of the activity: (a) Indicate the size of the property (cadastral unit) on which the activity is to be undertaken. Size of the property: ha (b) Indicate the size of the facility (development area) on which the activity is to be undertaken. (c) Indicate the physical size (footprint) of the activity together with its associated infrastructure: (d) Indicate the physical size (footprint) of the activity: (e) Indicate the physical size (footprint) of the associated infrastructure: Size of the facility: ha Size of the activity: ha ha ha and, for linear activities: (f) Indicate the length of the activity: Length of the activity: N/A 5. Site access: (a) Is there an existing access road? YES NO (b) If no, what is the distance over which a new access road will be built? N/A The site can currently be accessed via an access servitude off Pagasvlei Road. m (c) Describe the type of access road planned: The proposed site is located on Erf 2641 and Erf 2643 on the corner of Pagasvlei Road and Olive Close. Access to the site is proposed off Pagasvlei Road via an existing access servitude, which runs along the western boundary of Erf The servitude currently provides access to Erf 2641, as well to a few properties situated immediately west of the site. A new traffic circle has been proposed for the intersection of Pagasvlei Road and the access servitude, not only to allow for safe and easy access to the development, but in order to improve road safety conditions along Pagasvlei Road in general. The Landscape Master Plan for the development includes lining the access servitude with trees to ensure that the character of the access aligns with many historic homesteads in Constantia. 20

21 Access will be controlled at the entrance to the retirement village. Erf 2643 is currently accessed from Olive Close. This access to the site will be closed after the construction phase in an effort to reduce vehicle disturbance to residents of Olive Close. A Traffic Impact Assessment has been undertaken by Trafficon (June 2015) to inform the proposed access to the site as well as traffic calming and safety measures. The City of Cape Town s Transport department has provided preliminary feedback to the effect that they do not object to the proposed site access. Please refer to the site layout plans in Appendix B; the Traffic Impact Statement contained in Appendix G; as well as the City of Cape Town s no objection letter contained in Appendix E. Please Note: indicate the position of the proposed access road on the site plan. 6. Description of the property on which the activity is to be undertaken and the location of the activity on the property: (e) Provide a description of the property on which the activity is to be undertaken and the location of the activity on the property: Erven 2641 and 2643 are each zoned Single Residential Zone 1 and are located within the urban edge within the Constantia Valley. The site is currently used on a low-intensity basis as a horse livery. A Victorian homestead building, two 18 th Century barns and several mature trees, (all with heritage status), as well as several outbuildings, are currently located on the site. According to the Planning Status Report, dated July 2015, the existing homestead building is in a derelict state and is not occupied, whilst the majority of the space in the existing barns is used for stables and storage, despite deteriorating condition. According to the Freshwater Assessment dated April 2015, also located on the site are two wetlands, hereafter known as Wetland A and Wetland B. Wetland A is the larger of the two and is the most ecologically important of the two wetlands on site having a High Ecological Importance and Sensitivity Status. Wetland B is classified as having a Low Ecological Importance and Sensitivity Status. The freshwater specialist has advised that due to the low sensitivity of Wetland B, the wetland could be infilled to accommodate the proposed development. Wetland A however should be retained, rehabilitated and maintained. According to the City of Cape Town Biodiversity Network Map, the site is not located in any Critical Biodiversity Areas ( CBA s), Ecological Support Areas ( ESA s ) or in any areas classified as Protected or Conservation. The proposed development entails the development of some 58 homes on Erven 2641 and The development will retain the majority of the protected stands of mature trees with heritage value, will restore and incorporate all the existing heritage buildings into the development, will involve the rehabilitation of Wetland A, include a buffer area around Wetland A and also include a vegetated buffer along the development s northern boundary with the historic Groot Constantia wine estate. Please refer to the specialist reports as contained in Appendix G of this report as well as the City of Cape Town s Biodiversity Network Map as contained in Appendix D of this report. (f) Please provide a location map (see below) as Appendix A to this report which shows the location of the property and the location of the activity on the property; as well as a site map (see below) as Appendix B to this report; and if applicable all alternative properties and locations. Locality map: The scale of the locality map must be at least 1: For linear activities of more than 25 kilometres, a smaller scale e.g. 1: can be used. The scale must be indicated on the map. The map must indicate the following: an accurate indication of the project site position as well as the positions of the alternative sites, if any; road names or numbers of all the major roads as well as the roads that provide access to the site(s) a north arrow; a legend; the prevailing wind direction (during November to April and during May to October); and GPS co-ordinates (Indicate the position of the activity using the latitude and longitude of the centre point of the site for each alternative site. The co-ordinates should be in degrees and decimal minutes. The minutes should have at least three decimals to ensure adequate accuracy. The projection that must be used in all cases is the WGS84 spheroid in a national or local projection). Please refer to the site, locality and topographic maps as contained in Appendix A of this report. Site Plan: Detailed site plan(s) must be prepared for each alternative site or alternative activity. The site plan must contain or conform to the following: 21

22 The detailed site plan must be at a scale preferably at a scale of 1:500 or at an appropriate scale. The scale must be indicated on the plan. The property boundaries and numbers of all the properties within 50m of the site must be indicated on the site plan. The current land use (not zoning) as well as the land use zoning of each of the adjoining properties must be indicated on the site plan. The position of each element of the application as well as any other structures on the site must be indicated on the site plan. Services, including electricity supply cables (indicate above or underground), water supply pipelines, boreholes, sewage pipelines, storm water infrastructure and access roads that will form part of the development must be indicated on the site plan. Servitudes indicating the purpose of the servitude must be indicated on the site plan. Sensitive environmental elements within 100m of the site must be included on the site plan, including (but not limited to): o Rivers. o Flood lines (i.e. 1:10, 1:50, year and 32 meter set back line from the banks of a river/stream). o Ridges. o Cultural and historical features. o Areas with indigenous vegetation (even if it is degraded or infested with alien species). Whenever the slope of the site exceeds 1:10, then a contour map of the site must be submitted. Please refer to the site layout plan as contained in Appendix B of this report. (g) For a linear activity, please also provide a description of the route. N/A Indicate the position of the activity using the latitude and longitude of the centre point of the site. The co-ordinates must be in degrees, minutes and seconds. The minutes should be given to at least three decimals to ensure adequate accuracy. The projection that must be used in all cases is the WGS84 spheroid in a national or local projection. Latitude (S): Longitude (E): 34 o o (h) or: For linear activities: N/A Latitude (S): Longitude (E): Starting point of the activity o o Middle point of the activity o o End point of the activity o o Please Note: For linear activities that are longer than 500 m, please provide and addendum with co-ordinates taken every 100 meters along the route. 7. Site photographs: Colour photographs of the site and its surroundings (taken of the site and from the site) with a description of each photograph. The vantage points from which the photographs were taken must be indicated on the site plan, or locality plan as applicable. If available, please also provide a recent aerial photograph. Photographs must be attached as Appendix C to this report. It should be supplemented with additional photographs of relevant features on the site. Date of photographs must be included. Please note that the above requirements must be duplicated for all alternative sites. Please refer to photographs of the site as contained in Appendix C of this report. 22

23 SECTION B: DESCRIPTION OF RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT 1. Gradient of the Site: Indicate the general gradient of the sites (highlight the appropriate box). Flat Flatter than 1:10 1:10 1:4 Steeper than 1:4 2. Location in Landscape: (a) Indicate the landform(s) that best describes the site (highlight the appropriate box(es). Ridgeline Plateau Side slope of hill/mountain Closed valley Open valley Plain Undulating plain/low hills Dune Sea-front 23

24 (b) Please provide a description of the location in the landscape. DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE LOCATION IN THE LANDSCAPE: Erven 2641 and 2643 are each zoned Single Residential Zone 1 and are located within the urban edge within the Constantia Valley at the foot of the Constantiaberg Mountains. The vineyards of the Groot Constantia farmstead lie immediately adjacent to the northern boundary of the site. Pagasvlei Road runs immediately adjacent to the southern edge of the site whilst Olive Close runs immediately to the east of the site. High income, low density residential areas are located beyond the Pagasvlei Road and Olive Close to the east, west and south of the site. In addition, a Public Open Space greenbelt lies beyond Pagasvlei Road to the south. The Pagasvlei Stream has its source area on Erf 2641, and runs via a culvert beneath Pagasvlei Road to the green belt. Please refer to the site and locality maps as contained in Appendix A as well as the Planning Status Report as contained in Appendix G of this report. Figure 3: Locality Map indicating the site (delineated in red) in relation to the surrounding areas. Image courtesy of Planning Partners, November Groundwater, Soil and Geological Stability of the Site: (a) Is the site(s) located on or near any of the following (highlight the appropriate boxes)? Shallow water table (less than 1.5m deep) YES NO UNSURE Seasonally wet soils (often close to water bodies) YES NO UNSURE Unstable rocky slopes or steep slopes with loose soil YES NO UNSURE Dispersive soils (soils that dissolve in water) YES NO UNSURE Soils with high clay content YES NO UNSURE Any other unstable soil or geological feature YES NO UNSURE An area sensitive to erosion YES NO UNSURE An area adjacent to or above an aquifer. YES NO UNSURE An area within 100 m of the source of surface water YES NO UNSURE 24

25 (b) If any of the answers to the above are YES or unsure, specialist input may be requested by the Department. (Information in respect of the above will often be available at the planning sections of local authorities. Where it exists, the 1: scale Regional Geotechnical Maps prepared by Geological Survey may also be used). (c) Please indicate the type of geological formation underlying the site. Other Granite Shale Sandstone Quartzite Dolomite Dolorite (describe) Please provide a description. Geology: According to the available 1: scale Geological Map for the area (3418 Cape Town AB&AD), the site is underlain by sandy transported sediments of the Springfontyn Formation comprising of light-grey to pale-red sandy soil of the Quaternary age. The transported sediments are underlain by Cape Peninsular Granite suite pluton bedrock, comprising mainly porphyritic and biotitic granite with fine to medium-grained and hybridic variants. Hydrogeology and Hydrology: According to the 1: scale hydrogeological map series (3317 Cape Town) and the 1: scale Aquifer Classification Map of South Africa compiled by the Department of Water Affairs the site is underlain predominantly by undifferentiated coastal deposits (unconsolidated to semi-consolidated sediments including sand, calcrete, aeolianite, marine gravel, clay, silcrete and limestone. 4. Surface Water: This section has been informed by a Freshwater Basic Assessment undertaken by the Freshwater Consulting Group in August 2015 (preliminary assessment first undertaken during April/May 2015) (a) Indicate the surface water present on and or adjacent to the site and alternative sites (highlight the appropriate boxes)? Perennial River YES NO UNSURE Non-Perennial River: Pagasvlei Stream YES NO UNSURE Permanent Wetland: Wetland A YES NO UNSURE Seasonal Wetland: Wetland B Seasonal Wetland located on the fringes of Wetland A YES NO UNSURE Artificial Wetland YES NO UNSURE Estuarine / Lagoonal wetland YES NO UNSURE (b) Please provide a description. BROADER CATCHMENT CONTEXT According to the Freshwater Basic Assessment, Mount Prospect is located in the Department of Water and Sanitation ( DWS ) s quaternary catchment G22. The site lies in the upper reaches of the Sand River catchment, which drains into False Bay via Zandvlei a coastal wetland and estuary. Mount Prospect lies within the Keysers River sub-catchment of the Sand River and the Pagasvlei Stream, which rises on the site, is one of the tributaries of the Spaanschemat River, which it joins immediately upstream of the M3 highway, along with the Grootboschkloof and Prinskasteel Rivers. Downstream of the M3, these rivers together are known as the Keysers River. The Keysers River enters Zandvlei north-east of the Westlake River confluence. Its reaches immediately upstream of the vlei closely abut important wetland saltmarsh habitat. DESCRIPTION OF THE IDENTIFIED FRESHWATER SYSTEMS LOCATED ON SITE According to the Freshwater Basic Assessment [t]the Mount Prospect site as a whole comprises a highly disturbed site, much of which has historically been used for agricultural and horse riding and stabling activities. The Geotechnical Report for the site (Yates, 2015) describes the site as having a slight to moderate fall to the south-east, and surface drainage thus follows a similar direction. The upslope part of the site, north of the driveway, was assessed in January 2015 and was found to be free of any wetland or other aquatic ecosystems, although Yates (2015) did note the presence of residual granites below 0.5 m, suggesting that in 25

26 the event that development platforms require cutting into the soil, perched groundwater might be exposed at or near the surface. From an aquatic ecosystem perspective, the upland reaches of the site are not considered of any direct ecological significance, other than in terms of their role in conveying perched groundwater to wetlands in lower-lying areas. Two distinct wetland areas were however identified in the downslope area of the site (please refer to Figure 4 below). Wetland A Description: The Freshwater Basic Assessment describes Wetland A as follows: Wetland A is the largest and most ecologically important of the two wetlands on the site, and comprises the source area of the Pagasvlei Stream. The wetland is assumed to form where shallow perched water from the upslope area and surrounding valley daylights, forming the wetland eye or spring. The surface colluvial soils in the wetland area are underlain by clayey and relatively impermeable residual granite soils, which during the wet season allow perching of the seasonal water table near to the surface (Yates 2015). The main wetland channel from the eye to the road comprises a steeply-sided channel, prone to under-cutting and erosion in places, and shaded by various (mainly alien) trees, including oaks, poplars and willows (Salix babylonica) and occasional indigenous specimens (e.g. Wild Pear Kiggelaria africana) Seeped water pools in the channel in summer, forming expanses of wide, shallowly inundated wetland. At the time of the freshwater specialist s site visit, the water was largely covered with Lemna gibba (duckweed) an invasive but widespread aquatic plant. Water quality was assumed to be relatively natural, although no water samples were taken for analysis in the freshwater study. The permanently saturated-to-inundated wetland eye and channel described above are edged by seasonal to temporary wetlands, so that together the seep forms a broad swathe through the lower section of the site. On the right hand side of the channel, deep shading from overgrowing (mainly alien) trees has resulted in sparse ground cover along the channel margins, particularly with distance downslope to the road, where understorey growth largely comprises etiolated weeds and grasses, and only occasional indigenous wetland species such as Juncus kraussii On the left hand side of the channel, the wetlands are less shaded as broader, and comprise wide stands of Juncus kraussii sedge and arum (Zantedeschia aethiopica) wetland, along with kikuyu grass The channel and associated wetland drain towards Pagasvlei Road, which crosses the watercourse by means of a culvert. Downstream of the road, wetland condition degrades rapidly, with the wetland being channelised into a narrow, alieninvaded channel, set within a broad area of grassed public open space. Alien willow trees (Salix babylonica) as well as alien invasive cannas (Canna indica) and Wild Ginger (Heydichium sp.) line the top of the channel at the road, with the two latter species continuing along the river channel downstream. Past disturbance on the site affecting wetland condition have included infilling of a portion of the wetland in This infill was however removed by April 2007, at the request of the City of Cape Town (Ms Joy Garman, City of Cape Town), and no evidence of it remained at the time of the freshwater specialist s site visit. Wetland Classification: According to the Freshwater Basic Assessment, Wetland A is classified as a Granite fynbos seep with a channelled outflow. Present Ecological State ( PES ): The Freshwater Basic Assessment describes Present Ecological State ( PES ) as a measure of a wetland s condition, compared to its natural or reference condition. Wetland A is impacted by the following issues and activities: Possible infilling / stabilization of its headwater area; Channelisation; Extensive loss of indigenous vegetation and its replacement by alien species (e.g. oaks, kikuyu grass); Shading (by oaks), which limits plant growth; Possible nutrient enrichment as a result of runoff from agricultural or equestrian areas (stables etc.); Fragmentation from its downstream reaches by the road; and Diversions of upstream surface flows and possible changes in wet season inflows. PES for Wetland A has been determined as moderately modified (Category C) Ecological Importance Sensitivity (EIS) 1 : According to the Freshwater Basic Assessment, Wetland A comprising the headwater wetlands of the Pagasvlei Stream, is considered of high EIS [Ecological Importance and Sensitivity]. This assessment is based on the likely use of the wetland pools as breeding habitat for endangered Western Leopard Toads, its position at the head of the Pagasvlei catchment and its role therefore in influencing stream flow. Wetland B Description: This hillslope seep wetland (approximately ha) is located immediately downslope of the driveway, and extends an 1 According to the Freshwater Basic Assessment: DWAF (1999) defines wetland ecological importance as an expression of its importance to the maintenance of ecological diversity and functioning on local and wider scales and sensitivity as the extent to which the biota is able to accommodate change in the major physic-chemical features of the system. 26

27 unknown area (estimated off map as approximately ha) into the adjoining erf to the south east Please refer to Figure 4 below. At the time of the January 2015 site visit, the wetland was vegetated almost entirely with bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum) [which typically occurs in seasonally saturated wetlands. However] Augering of soils showed no mottles or other signs of regular saturation of surface soils, and no impermeable layer was encountered in the top 60cm augered. Wetland Classification: According to the Freshwater Assessment, Wetland B is classified as a Granite fynbos seep with a channelled outflow. Present Ecological State ( PES ): Wetland B is a smaller wetland, and impacted by: Fragmentation from Wetland A by past agriculture and other activities; Alien vegetation; Possible grazing or other disturbances, leading to loss / change in indigenous plant communities and dominance by pioneer plant species; and Possible diversion of seepage flows into the wetland as a result of upstream development. PES has been determined as moderately to largely modified (Category C/D) Ecological Importance Sensitivity (EIS): Wetland B is considered an isolated wetland habitat, of low EIS [Ecological Importance and Sensitivity] and indicative of a high wet season water table, requiring management, rather than an important habitat type in its own right. Western Leopard Toads (WLT): From the Freshwater Basic Assessment: Although no faunal survey was included in the Freshwater Basic Assessment, discussions between the freshwater specialist and a representative member of the Western Leopard Toad (WLT) Conservation Committee in the Mount Prospect area confirmed that there are large populations of this endangered species Amietophrynus pantherinus in the area between Groot Constantia, Nova Constantia and Sillery. This area includes the Mount Prospect site. The deep permanent ponds that occur in the eye of the Pagasvlei stream, namely in Wetland A, are considered suitable breeding habitat for Western Leopard Toads, which utilise ponds and pools that retain deep water into early summer (up to December). During the non-breeding season, the frogs disperse away from the ponds, and occupy terrestrial areas, including suburban gardens and agricultural land. Birdlife associated with the wetlands on site During public participation, it was noted by neighbours that birdlife proliferates on the site. In this regard, the freshwater specialist was requested to provide a professional opinion, since Wetland A was the only conservation-worthy habitat identified on the site. The specialist advised as follows: the proposed landscape plan [for the development], with its indigenous planting of trees and shrubs in the buffer area, is likely to improve the overall habitat value of the wetland and its associated buffer area, by creating indigenous habitat likely to attract indigenous birds, insects, and other fauna. The specialist has gone on to state that corridors provided in the development layout to facilitate Western Leopard Toad movement across the site are assumed to also benefit other small wetland and wetland-associated fauna utilising the open spaces and riverine corridors. In addition, landscaping of the development will include fruit trees, which are assumed to be attractive to birdlife. Freshwater Specialist Recommendations: The freshwater specialist has advised that due to the low sensitivity of Wetland B as a result of historical disturbance, the wetland could be infilled to accommodate the proposed development. Wetland A however should be retained, rehabilitated, expanded and maintained. It is also the freshwater specialist s recommendation that the gradient of certain sections of the northern site boundary with Groot Constantia be designed to facilitate Western Leopard Toad movement. These recommendations have been factored into Layout Alternative 5 (preferred alternative) as contained in Appendix B of this report. Please also refer to Section E of this report for further detail regarding the proposed layout. 27

28 Wetland B Wetland A Pagasvlei Stream Figure 4: Image depicting Wetland A, Wetland B on site as well as the Pagasvlei Steam located in the green belt to the south of the site. Image courtesy of Freshwater Consulting Group, April Please refer to the Freshwater Basic Assessment contained in Appendix G of this report. 5. Biodiversity: Please note: The Department may request specialist input/studies depending on the nature of the biodiversity occurring on the site and potential impact(s) of the proposed activity/ies. To assist with the identification of the biodiversity occurring on site and the ecosystem status consult or BGIShelp@sanbi.org. Information is also available on compact disc (cd) from the Biodiversity-GIS Unit, Ph (021) This information may be updated from time to time and it is the applicant/ EAP s responsibility to ensure that the latest version is used. A map of the relevant biodiversity information (including an indication of the habitat conditions as per (b) below) and must be provided as an overlay map to the property/site plan as Appendix D to this report. (a) Highlight the applicable biodiversity planning categories of all areas on site and indicate the reason(s) provided in the biodiversity plan for the selection of the specific area as part of the specific category). Systematic Biodiversity Planning Category If CBA or ESA, indicate the reason(s) for its selection in biodiversity plan According to the City of Cape Town Biodiversity Network Map, the site is not located in any Critical Biodiversity Areas ( CBA s), Ecological Support Areas ( ESA s ) or in any areas classified as Protected or Conservation. Critical Biodiversity Area (CBA) Ecological Support Area (ESA) Other Natural Area (ONA) No Natural Area Remaining (NNR) Original natural vegetation on the site would have consisted of Peninsula Granite Fynbos. The site and surrounding areas have however been transformed due to historical agricultural activities (planting of vineyards and low intensity farming) and later the development of residential areas. As such none of the original natural vegetation remains on site. Please refer to the City of Cape Town s Biodiversity Network Map as contained in Appendix D of this report. (b) Highlight and describe the habitat condition on site. Percentage of habitat condition Habitat Condition class (adding up to 100%) Natural 0% Description and additional Comments and Observations (including additional insight into condition, e.g. poor land management practises, presence of quarries, grazing/harvesting regimes etc). Near Natural (includes areas with low % 28