The proposed development of a lifestyle estate on Erf RE/4833, Voëlklip, Hermanus.
Comments on Basic Assessment Report 1.
Prepared by Hermanus Ratepayers Association (registered as an IAP).
Tobie Louw, on behalf of Hermanus Ratepayers Association
PREAMBLE
The Hermanus Ratepayers Association (HRA) undertook to provide comments on sections of the Basic Assessment Report 1 for the proposed Lifestyle Estate development on erf RE/4833 Voëlklip Hermanus.
As a point of departure, the HRA contends that, to achieve the ever-growing demand for urban development into the future, our town can benefit from limited, well-designed development projects. However, it is essential that such development must serve the needs of Hermanus, be strictly undertaken with appropriate environmental sensitivity and not overburden the town resources and infrastructure.
It should be noted that the HRA did not undertake an assessment on the environmental, botanical and freshwater impacts as these were to be covered by our colleagues at the Hermanus Botanical Society. Accordingly, the HRA assessment was primarily focused on the form of development, traffic, services and bulk infrastructure impacts.
We reviewed the relevant documents and wish to provide the following comments:
1. FORM OF DEVELOPMENT
The property design elements and layout respond well to residential development needs for Hermanus. It is similar in configuration to the Chanteclair Onrus Manor development above the R43, Onrus.
Interestingly, when Onrus Manor was developed, the bulk earthworks were designed to yield surplus cut material, which in turn was used to form a berm along the R43. This berm was appropriately landscaped and currently serves as a good noise and visual screen.
2. TRAFFIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Hermanus experienced exceptionally high occupation levels over recent summer peak seasons. Similar, there has also been a noticeable growth in traffic over recent years.
The October/November traffic counts are therefore not deemed optimal, and it would be advisable to do an additional set of traffic counts during the next peak period, e.g. the Easter Weekend 2025. This would assist to ensure that the 17th/R43 interchange will still function at acceptable levels in the longer term.
3. WATER SUPPLY
Network Upgrades
The water supply requirements and network modelling results were provided in the 2022 GLS report. The report stipulates some bulk and link service upgrade proposals.
These will be required to accommodate the additional water demand for this new proposed development. However, the Hermanus residential profile has been changing over the past few years. Many existing houses are being upgraded and now allow for more people per unit. This, inter alia, resulted in water shortages during peak summer demand periods for higher lying residential areas. It is proposed that GLS should critically review the design parameters for the future and preferably rerun the model before finalising the scope for the required upgrades.
Fire Fighting
This development will form a buffer against the adjacent natural environment. It would be wise to provide some fire hydrants in the surrounding buffer area. The repositioned Telkom tower access road can also be used to provide access to these outside fire hydrants.
In recent years it has become evident globally how devastating the impact of fire can be for residential areas that are situated along the urban fringes.
4. WASTEWATER DISPOSAL
As for the water design norms, it is important to ensure that the wastewater calculations are adequately adapted to allow for peak flows that can be expected in the future. It’s also important to ensure that the Scout Camp pumpstation be equipped with the best emergency measures to prevent any overflows.
5. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
The series of stormwater detention ponds is a good approach, apart from flood attenuation these facilities assist to reduce road runoff pollution.
6. ELECTRICAL SUPPLY
We did not pick up any reference to sustainable energy sources, e.g. solar energy systems. One assumes this will be the choice of the individual homeowners. Apart from that, we have no further comments.
7. IMPROVEMENT TO EXISTING BULK AND LINK SERVICES
It is understood that the developer’s team will be responsible to design and construct these necessary upgrades. It will obviously be carried out under the auspices and with the approval of the Overstrand Municipality.
8. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
The development will require a substantial Refuse Yard that needs to be properly designed to incorporate the necessary odour and pest control measures.
9. NOISE AND DUST IMPACTS
These impacts largely apply to the development phase, which can run over quite a period. It’s important that proper mitigation measures are designed and adhered to.
The current BAR 1 EMPR does not include any mitigation proposals.
There is reference in the EMPr to a R1 000 fine, per event, for transgressions in terms of Noise and Dust control. We feel these fines are too low and should be raised to further discourage non-compliance.
10. BABOON FENCE
Just for clarity, will the developer install the entire fence at his own cost, or will it be limited to a R3.5m capital contribution? Not clear in the EMPr.
11. IMPACTS ON THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
Assessment relating to items such as the botanical and freshwater impacts will be well covered by our colleagues at the Hermanus Botanical Society. HRA will therefore not provide comments on these items.
We have subsequently reviewed the comments from the Hermanus Botanical Society and note its concerns about the under valuation of the environmental aspects in the BAR 1.
This must be properly addressed.
Development proposals require broad views and inputs.
Optimal developments can only be achieved when the developers, the local authority and the environmentalists all work together from the get-go in creating a sustainable long-term project.
