MINUTES OF THE PRE-APPLICATION MEETING IN RESPECT OF THE APPLICATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AUTHORISATION OF THE PROPOSED BEACHWOOD RESORT AND ESTATE DEVELOPEMENT MEETING HELD AT THE EDTEA OFFICES (ethekwini) ON 03 July 2018 AT 10h00 Present EDTEA Triplo4 Sustainable Solutions Ms Yugeshni Govender (YG) Ms. Naadira Nadasen (NN) Mrs Chen read (CR) and Mrs Tejal Singh (TS) Apologies None. ITEM 1 PURPOSE OF THE MEETING 1.1 The meeting was requested by Triplo4 Sustainable Solutions, the Environmental Assessment Practitioner (EAP) appointed by Beachwood Investments (Pty) Ltd in terms of Regulation 8 of the EIA Regulations, 2014 (as amended) to obtain guidance and instructions from the competent authority, the KwaZulu-Natal Department of Economic Development, Tourism and Environmental Affairs (EDTEA) of the nature and extent of any of the processes that may or must be followed, or decision support tools that must be used, in order to comply with the National Environmental Management Act and the Regulations, and of any matter that may prejudice the success of the application. It should be noted that this meeting was held prior to an application for environmental authorisation having been submitted. 2. PROJECT BACKGROUND NN presented the project background, proposed conceptual layout and environmental process adopted by Triplo4. NN indicated that the client is undertaking a rezoning process. 2.1 NN noted that the development of 43 hectares (project footprint) represents 26.5% of the project site which will include residential units and a 7 star hotel development. NN mentioned that there is an existing RoD for a portion of the site and YG noted that she is aware of the RoD. NN noted that there was an informal residents meeting (20 June 2018) held by the client (out of the BA process), and had discussed the concerns raised. NN also noted that there is a proposed public meeting for 18 July 2018. NN provided YG with both the wetland and vegetation sensitivities with associated buffers on the site. NN further indicated that there was a GCS Report (2013) previously conducted and that Triplo4 has further conducted an updated Wetland Assessment, Wetland Rehabilitation Report and Ecological Assessment (2018) by Parisara Consulting T/A Aeon Nexus. 1
3. PROJECT AND ALTERNATIVES NN provided the following description of the proposed project with the aid of a layout plan: 3.1 - The approximate size of the development footprint is 43 Hectares which represents 26.5% of the project site (harden surface footprint only). - The proposed Beachwood Resort and Estate development is situated in Virginia within the Beachwood golf course and immediately adjacent to the Beachwood Mangrove site, owned by EKZN. - The client proposes a trim track and a promenade. - Buffers and areas of high sensitivity were discussed and it was noted that an introduction meeting was held with EKZN representatives regarding the protected area on site to gather EKZN support or any concerns to consider. The proposed alternatives being considered are: Alternative A1 (preferred) Developing outside the wetlands sensitive areas. Beachwood Investments (Pty) Ltd envisions a residential estate together with a Resort Hotel Development (Radisson Group of Resort Hotels). The preferred preliminary layout had considered specialist inputs and has positioned the development out of the 100 meter high water mark and has avoided the destruction of the wetlands This layout proposes a mixed combination of double storey unit, 3&6 storey units and apartments so that less of the footprint is used, thereby achieving more green area and a less dense development. 3.2 Alternative A2 Not Supported: Developing only the northern portion of the project site. Alternative 2 consists of approximately 28 individual free-standing single storey units, 15 double/triple storey units, a clubhouse as well as a hotel and a 9 th hole golf course. There are many negative environmental impacts associated with the maintenance of a golf course, such as ground water pollution caused by fertilizers and pesticides, loss of natural habitats through the increase of alien invasive plant species, excessive volume of water resources required for maintenance purposes and the negative socio-economic aspect related equity and access. Given that the increased negative impacts, decreased profitability of the development and the negative impact of maintaining the 9 th hole golf course, this alternative is not supported by Triplo4 and the project developer. Alternative A3 - (Not supported) Developing within the mangrove swamp buffer and coastal dune forest. Alternative 3 consists of a development area of approximately 100 sqm 1500 sqm and of 138 individual high end plots with the 30 000sqm hotel reserved in the centre. This layout alternative does not consider all of the limitations of the wetland buffers as there is a road proposed through the wetland (HGM 5) and the degraded forest. The alternative proposes that approximately 14 units occur within the mangrove swamp buffer area. It also proposed that trim tracks be situated within the mangrove swamp buffer and on the coastal dune forest. Approximately three water features were proposed to be located within the coastal dune forest. Further to the above, the footprint of the hotel extended into the coastal dune forest. It is the opinion of Triplo4 that this alternative has an increased negative impact on the sensitive areas therefore it is not supported. 3.3 NN requested whether the development area is considered urban or rural. YG noted that the area is considered urban but portions situated seaward could potentially be considered rural. YG will further discuss internally and provide a formal confirmation. YG mentioned that there are too many unknowns related to the project and requested that a defined plan be submitted. 2
3.4 CR and NN noted that there is an existing access point to the project site and public access to the beach will be maintained by the client. YG noted that access is a concern and should be dealt with in detail in the Basic Assessment Report (BAR). 4. LISTED ACTIVITIES: EIA REGULATIONS 2014, (as amended) 4.1 NN indicated that Activity 9 of Listing Notice 1 was considered and CR noted that the client is most likely not going to have an extensive pipe in place for the bulk transportation of water or storm water. YG noted that the size of the pipe must be provided in order to determine the potential trigger. CR noted that the client does not have an appointed engineer presently. It was further noted that this activity will not be applicable should the project area be confirmed as urban. It was decided that when this information is available a second pre application meeting will be held. 4.2 4.3 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 NN discussed the applicability of LN1, Activity 10. It was again noted by CR that the client is probably not going to have an extensive pipe in place and it will be confirmed upon the appointment of a project engineer. The exclusion under urban definition is applicable to this activity as well. NN indicated applicability of Listing Notice 1, Activity 12 and Activity 17 also requires clarity on the definition of urban and rural. It was then noted by NN that Activity 19 of Listing Notice 1 is a potential trigger as it is anticipated that the construction of the proposed development will result in more than 10 cubic meters of material will be infilled or deposited from a watercourse. CR noted that the client is staying away from the wetlands sensitive areas. CR indicated that the client is staying out of the natural wetlands etc. Potential impact could be on one of the existing artificial dams. NN discussed the applicability of Activity 19A of Listing Notice 1. A discussion regarding the promenade and 2 units located near the high water mark would be a potential trigger. CR discussed the applicability of Activity 28 of Listing Notice 1 and YG indicated that this activity will not be triggered as the development is not situated on land that was used for agriculture, game farming, equestrian purposes or afforestation. YG noted that activity 27 of Listing Notice 1 should also be considered regarding the clearance of more than 1 hectare of indigenous vegetation. YG to confirm on the cumulative aspect as portions of the fragmented forest may be impacted. CR further noted that the existing grass used for the golf course is most likely of mixed grass and therefore will not be considered indigenous. 4.7 The applicability of Activity 6 of Listing Notice 3 was discussed and it was noted by YG that a planner is required to determine the extent of the Private and Public Open Space. YG also noted that proof is required stating that the area is private open space and the activity will no longer be applicable. CR indicated that in the BAR an evidence will be provided that the development area is currently zoned as private open space (not public). 4.8 4.9 Activity 12 of Listing Notice 3 was discussed and it was indicated by NN that the development may require the clearance of 300 square metres or more of indigenous vegetation. YG noted that this activity is potentially triggered. NN explained that applicability of Activity 14 of Listing Notice 3 and CR noted that point (aa) & (cc) could be potential triggers. 3
4.10 As detailed information was missing (e.g. define layout, engineering report), YG could not confirm the applicability of the listed activities to be applied for. It was decided that when this information is available a second pre application meeting must be held with EDTEA, prior to lodging the application for authorisation. 5. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS (PPP) NN explained that prior to lodging of the application, the following will be completed: 5.1 An advert will be placed in the Northglen Newspaper on 10 July 2018. YG indicated that only one advert is required and this will be acceptable. YG indicated that the Listed Activities do not need to be disclosed. Site Notices will be strategically placed at the project site. YG indicated that when the application is logged that site notices must be present. YG indicated that the Listed Activities do not need to be disclosed. NOA / BID will be distributed to residents within 100m of the project site. Written notice in the form of a BID and comment form will given to I&APs, including the municipal ward councillor, the ratepayers association, the respective municipalities and organs of state providing a 14 day comment period to register for the application or raise any comments or concerns. One Public meeting will be held on 18/07/2018 and one informal resident meeting was held on 20/06/2018 by Beachwood Investments (Pty) Ltd. Prior to lodging of the application, a draft BAR will be distributed to the relevant authorities, including the competent authority, and to the public for review, for a 30 day comment period (30/07/2018-30/08/2018). NN noted that once the application is lodged, the following will be completed: The draft BAR will be updated and submitted to the relevant authorities, including the competent authority and to I&APs for review, for a further 30 day comment period. No additional site notices will be placed (given that the previous notices are still in place) at the site or advertised be placed in the newspaper. YG agreed with the proposed PPP. YG further noted that the site notice must be in place at the boundary of the site and Listing Notices are not required to be indicated on this document. YG also noted that Triplo4 must be clear on the reason that the advert was only placed in one language in the newspaper. 6. SPECIALIST STUDIES NN provided feedback to YG on the specialist studies conducted which included: 6.1 Ecological Assessment Wetland Delineation & Functionality Assessment Geotechnical Assessment Engineering Reports & Stormwater Reports Heritage Assessment and Paleontological Assessment Wetland Rehabilitation Plan Coastal Assessment Nosie Assessment YG mentioned that should the client opt for closing off the road a traffic impact assessment will be required. YG noted that the traffic assessment must consider how the environment will be affected with the increase in vehicle gas (fuel) from the potential increase in traffic. YG noted that there was an appeal raised regarding the impact of noise on the residents. It was suggested that the report be as detailed as possible. 4
YG also noted that wetland specialist should address the flow of water in the Southern Area which residents have complained about flooding. Subsequently the specialist can advise on the best design of the storm water system. 7. STATE DEPARTMENTS AND OTHER ORGANS OF STATE 7.1 NN provided feedback to YG on the state departments and other organs of state that will be consulted: EDTEA Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife Amafa Dept of Water & Sanitation Dept. of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries KZN Dept of Transport ethekwini Municipality Coastal division of EDTEA (YG indicated to include) Rate payers associations Ward councillors Adjacent landowners Coastal watch 8. PREVIOUS I&AP CONCERNS 8.1 NN and CR discussed concerns raised in the previous application and at the informal residents meeting held by Beachwood Investments (Pty) Ltd, including views of the beach, value of houses, timeframe for completion of construction, issues with artificial light, flooding in the Southern Area, D MOSS and sensitive areas. YG indicated that with regard to the previous RoD that the Noise was an issue. 9 DEPARTMENTS CONSIDERATIONS / REQUIREMENTS & WAY FORWARD The following points served to summarise and conclude the discussions: 9.1 YG to provide clarity on the Listing Notice Activities discussed to include prior to the release of the public participation material. YG noted that clarity will be provided regarding whether the location of the project site is to be considered in an urban area prior to the release of the public participation material. YG and NN agreed that the second pre-application meeting should include the coastal division of EDTEA (Mr Omar) YG noted that EPCPD with Omar must discuss regarding the promenade Triplo4 to provide a definite layout to EDTEA in the next pre-application meeting Triplo4 to provide clarity on the promanande and the trim-track (i.e. length, material, design, layout etc.) 10 CLOSURE 10.1 NN thanked everyone for attending the meeting. 5