appendix g4: visual impact assessment report · 2018-12-12 · addendum to visual impact assessment...

APPENDIX G4:

VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT

ADDENDUM TO VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT PROPOSED SUB DIVISION OF ERF 177476, ST JAMES, CAPE TOWN, W CAPE VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT. DEA+DP REF NR: 1 6/3/3/6/7/1 /A6/82/21 12/1 7

The Visual Impact Assessment dated August 2018 refers; assessed was a proposed sub division in respect of four additional portions with one dwelling unit on each portion. A new layout plan has been issued for the proposed subdivision with 2 portions, see below. This addendum assesses the visual implications of the change and its degree of significance

The layouts above show the assessed scheme layout, (4 dwelling portions), and the currently proposed scheme layout, (2 dwelling portions). The changes to visual significance derive from the reduction in built form, and the 10m wide buffer to the watercourse with a culvert only on the lower portion of the overall erf. The Visual assessment noted that the character of the local landscape is low density residential which would be replicated in this proposal. The visual impact of the whole site is limited, locally, due to terrain, to some adjacent houses, to Boyes Drive as a Scenic Drive, and to the TMNP.

Postnet Suite 15, P Bag 15, Somerset West 7129, Tel/fax 021 855 2997, cell 0728 408 900

email [email protected] [email protected] www.visual-la.co.za

mailto:[email protected]

Sensitive receptors were identified as occupiers of several local residential buildings, for whom the focus of their view would still be a clear view of the bay. Other receptors would experience impacts of low significance. It is determined by the assessment of this current proposed scheme layout that the reduction in the number of proposed dwellings correlates positively with a reduction in the significance of the visual impact, previously assessed as moderate, now assessed as low. This conclusion takes into account that the visual impacts of the proposed scheme layout will be managed by the mitigation measures described in the original assessment.

Addendum dated 27 November 2018 and prepared for: SLR Consulting South Africa (Pty) Ltd 39 Roeland Square Cape Town 8001

Postnet Suite 15, P Bag 15, Somerset West 7129, Tel/fax 021 855 2997, cell 0728 408 900

email [email protected] [email protected] www.visual-la.co.za

mailto:[email protected]

DEA+DP REF NR: 1 6/3/3/6/7/1 /A6/82/21 12/1 7

VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT: DRAFT

February 2018

For

SLR Consulting (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd

Unit 39, Roeland Square, Cape Town 8001 T: 021 461 1118. E: [email protected]

On behalf of the Luna Trust

Postnet Suite 15, P Bag 15, Somerset West 7129, Tel/Fax: 021 855 2997,

email: [email protected] cell 0728 408 900, www.visual-la.co.za

PROPOSED SUB DIVISION OF ERF 177476:

ST JAMES, CAPE TOWN, WESTERN CAPE

Erf 177476

St James

K Hansen Landscape Architect, Somerset West ii St James, Erf 177476, VIA: February 2018

Revision nr 01

Visual Impact Assessment for

PROPOSED SUB DIVISION OF ERF 177476

ST JAMES, CAPE TOWN

CONTENTS:

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY vi

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 General 1

1.2 Brief 1

1.3 Personnel 1

1.4 Declaration of Interest 2

2.0 STUDY TERMS OF REFERENCE AND METHODOLOGY

2.1 Specialist Report Content and Terms of Reference 3

2.2 Methodology 4

2.2.1 The sequence of work employed in this Study 4

2.2.2 Written and Drawn Material was made available 4

2.2.3 Receiving Site 4

2.2.4 Determination of the Theoretical Viewshed 4

2.3 Key Issues 5

2.4 Rating Criteria 5

2.5 Assumptions and Limitations 5

2.6 Alternatives 5

3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION and SETTING

3.1 General 7

3.2 The Site 7

3.3 Proposed Access 7

3.4 Site Boundaries 6

3.5 The Visual Qualities of the Site 7

3.6 Sense of Place 7

4.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

4.1 The Project 8

4.2 Proposed Project: Sub division of the Erf 8

4.3 Access 10

4.4 The Proposed Works to the Stream 10

4.5 Services 11

4.6 No Go Alternative 11

5.0 NATURE OF THE RECEIVING ENVIRONMNT

5.1 General 12

K Hansen Landscape Architect, Somerset West iii St James, Erf 177476, VIA: February 2018

Revision nr 01

5.2 The Setting 12

5.3 Transport Network 12

5.4 Topography and Watercourses 12

5.5 Protected Landscapes 13

5.6 Vegetation 13

5.7 Local Land Uses 13

5.8 Landscape Value 13

5.9 Landscape Character 13

5.10 Visual significance of the Area 14

6.0 VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

6.1. Viewshed Envelope definition 15

6.1.1 Significant Issues affecting visibility 15

6.2 Significant Receptors likely to be affected 15

6.3 View Catchment Areas 15

6.3.1 Defining a Correct Viewing Distance 15

6.3.2 The Visual Envelope 15

6.4 Visibility of the Proposed Development 16

6.4.1 Factors Affecting Visibility 16

6.4.2 Localities from which the development would be seen 17

6.4.3 No Go Alternative 17

6.4.4 Lighting 17

6.4.5 Construction Period 17

6.5 Extent of the Visual Impact 17

6.5.1 Extent of Impact of Proposed Project 17

6.5.2 Extent of Impact of the Construction Period 17

6.5.3 Extent of Impact of No Go Alternative 17

6.6 Visual Exposure 18

6.7 Zones of Visual Influence 19

6.7.1 Local Residential Receptors 19

6.7.2 Receptors along Boyes Drive, Main Rd, Railway, Recreational beach areas 21

6.7.3 Users of the TMNP 21

6.7.4 Summary 22

6.8 Visual Absorption Capacity 22

6.8.1 Proposed Project 22


6.9 Compatibility with Surrounding Landscape 22

6.9.1 Proposed Project 23


6.10 Intensity or Magnitude of the Visual Impact 23

6.10.1 Site Landscape: Proposed Project 23

6.10.2 Beyond the Site 24

6.10.3 Site Landscape and Beyond: Alternative Layout 24


6.10.4 Construction Period 24

6.10.5 Conclusion 24

6.11 Duration of the Visual Impact 24

6.12 Significance of the Visual Impact 24

6.13 Impact on Irreplaceable Resources 24

6.14 Potential Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Impacts 25

6.14.1 Direct impacts during construction and operational periods 25

6.14.2 Indirect impacts 25

6.14.3 Cumulative impacts 25

6.15 Visual Sensitivity Assessment 25

K Hansen Landscape Architect, Somerset West iv St James, Erf 177476, VIA: February 2018

Revision nr 01

6.15.1 General 25

6.16.2 Areas and Users of high sensitivity 26

6.15.3 Conclusion 26

6.16 Viewpoints and Images. 26

7.0 HERITAGE AND CULTURE IMPACTS

7.1 Heritage 28

7.2 Intangible Heritage 28

7.3 Anticipated Impacts on Heritage Resources 28

8.0 MITIGATION MEASURES

8.1 Environmental Management Plan 29

8.2 Project Elements to be addressed in the Design Period 29

8.2.1 Built Form 29

8.2.2 Vehicle Access 29

8.2.3 Planting 30

8.2.4 Lighting 30

8.3 Construction Period 30

8.3.1 Duration 30

8.3.2 Site Control 30

8.3.3 Programme 30

8.4 Operational Period 30

8.5 Conclusion 31

8.6 Management and monitoring programmes 31

8.6.1 Measures for the Environmental Management Programme 31

8.6.2 Performance Indicators and Monitoring 31

8.7 Visual Impact Tables 32

9.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

9.1 Visual Statement 35

9.2 Visual Sensitivity 35

9.3 Visual Impact Rating 35

9.4 An Alternative Layout 35

9.5 Mitigation 36

9.6 Conclusion 36

9.7 Recommendations 36

FIGURES

Cover image is a view from the beach of the famous huts, and the development site

Figure 1.1 location of St James, (red circle), on the False Bay side of the peninsula, and in

relation to Cape Town, about 27km away. Source: Google maps/ Hansen 1

Figure 1.2, the location of St James, on the east coast of the peninsula. Source: Garmin

maps/Hansen 2

Figure 3.1 site location, approximately indicated by a yellow outline, and the extent of St

James is shown between the two red lines. The built-up area is residential, and becomes Kalk

Bay to the south where there is commercial development along Main Road.

Source Google Earth/Hansen 7

K Hansen Landscape Architect, Somerset West v St James, Erf 177476, VIA: February 2018

Revision nr 01

Figure 4.1 this image is an extract from the BID prepared by SLR Consulting and shows the

proposed project, (north upward), with the existing erf, (portion 5), as an approved house and

access road off Boyes Drive, and the alignment of an additional road to serve portions 3 and

4; portions 1 and 2 would also be accessed from Boyes Drive during Construction, and

thereafter, using the servitude to Main Road. Source SLR Consulting 8

Figure 4.2, this image is an extract from the BID prepared by SLR Consulting, and is included as

it explains the nature of the proposed development; i.e. the approved residential portion, and

the four proposed portions, which are the subject of this assessment. Source SLR Consulting 9

Figure 4.3, the well vegetated ravine; fenced site boundary for construction of approved

house evident. Source Hansen 11

Figure 4.4, the proposed vehicle access to serve portions 1 and 2 from Main Road. Source

Hansen 12

Figure 5.1. a view of the development site from Main Road. Source Hansen 14

Figure 5.2 from the bay side of Main Road and looking up ‘Heytor Road’ showing the local

residential development density and residential character. Source Hansen

Figure 6.1 the extent of the visual envelope indicating the properties and land areas likely to

be impacted upon by this development. The visual envelope around the development site

itself would be rated with greater significance than the envelope encompassing Main Road,

etc. Source CFM/Hansen 16

Figure 6.2 illustrating the residential buildings closest to the development site; image 86 and

07 close to the north-east boundary, image 14 and 91 close to the south-west boundary.

Source Hansen 18

Figure 6.3 because the visual impact primarily affects individual houses on individual erven,

this provides the location reference graphic for affected properties. Source CFM/Hansen 19

Figure 6.4 a view of the development site from Boyes Drive and where the approved dwelling

house and access road would be. Source Hansen 20

Figure 6.5 views of the development site from the recreational areas, the beach, and the

green open space further away. Source Hansen 21

Figure 6.6 a view of the TMNP, on the opposite side of Boyes Drive to the site, and the density

of the vegetation. Source Hansen 22

Figure 6.7 showing the extent of the visual impact from the north part of the site and looking

towards the bay. Source Hansen 23

Figure 6.8 showing the location of the images illustrating the report. Source CFM/Hansen 27

TABLES

Table 6.1 Impact on Local Affected Properties 20

Table 8.1 Construction Phase: Proposed Project, Impacts 32

Table 8.2 Construction Phase: Proposed Project: Mitigation 32

Table 8.3 Operational Phase: Proposed Project, Impacts 33

Table 8.4 Operational Phase: Proposed Project: Mitigation 33

ADDENDUM 1

Assessment Ratings and Definitions: DEA+DP 37

ADDENDUM 2

Assessment Ratings and Definitions: KHLA 38

ADDENDUM 3

Bibliography

ADDENDUM 4

Declaration of Independence

ADDENDUM 5

CV: K Hansen 41

K Hansen Landscape Architect, Somerset West vi St James, Erf 177476, VIA: February 2018

Revision nr 01

Abbreviations used in the Report:

Asl: above sea level.

m: metres

DEA+DP: Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning

L.I.UK: Landscape Institute, United Kingdom

GLVIA: Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment

CFM: Cape Farm Mapper, Elsenburg

TMNP: Table Mountain National Park

K Hansen Landscape Architect, Somerset West vii St James, Erf 177476, VIA: February 2018

Revision nr 01

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This Visual Impact Assessment supports a Basic Assessment process being

undertaken for the proposed subdivision of a property located on Boyes Drive in St.

James – erf 177476. The proponent has obtained approval from the City of Cape

Town to construct a single dwelling and access road. It is proposed that the

remainder of the erf be subdivided into four additional portions.

St James is within the Cape Town Metro between Muizenberg and Kalk Bay, and

north of Fishhoek on the False Bay Coast. The current site zoning is residential, and

the site lies within the designated urban edge. The application to develop is made in

terms of the National Environmental Management Act (Act 107 of 1998) and the

National Heritage Resources Act (Act 25 of 1999).

Karen Hansen, Landscape Architect and an independent Visual Impact Assessment

practitioner, has been appointed to provide a Visual Impact Assessment Report for

this development; her detailed CV and Experience is set out in Addendum 4.

The Site and the Layout Alternatives

The site is approximately 0.8 ha in extent with a steep gradient, land cover that is

partly indigenous vegetation and partly disturbed by building operations for an

approved house and access road (both of which are currently under construction). It

is proposed that the erf would be subdivided into 5 portions, with the approved

house located on one of the subdivisions and so that the remaining four subdivided

portions would allow single residential, two storey houses be established on each

portion. Two of those subdivisions would derive operational period access from

Boyes Drive, and the lower two from Main Road.

An unnamed seasonal stream flows in a ravine along the north-east boundary,

dividing as the ravine flattens out as it approaches Main Road. Diversion works are

proposed for the stream to control this flow in the south part of the erf.

Due to the steep site the internal access roads would require long sinuous driveways

supported by retaining walls.

The visual impact of the whole site is limited, locally, due to terrain, to adjacent

houses, Boyes Drive as a Scenic Drive, and to the Table Mountain National Park

(TMNP).

The proposed project was presented for assessment as well as the No-Go Alternative.

During the course of the assessment concerns were identified about the visual

impact of the access onto Main Road, and an alternative access using a local,

established street put forward as an alternative.

Visual Sensitivity

K Hansen Landscape Architect, Somerset West viii St James, Erf 177476, VIA: February 2018

Revision nr 01

The character of the local landscape is low density residential with some challenges

for vehicle access, which would be replicated in this development proposal. Certain

local adjacent dwellings would be impacted upon to a significance rating of high,

despite their main views being towards the bay, as all have side windows and private

outside spaces facing towards the site.

The hikers using the TMNP would have an intermittent view through the fynbos, but

due to foreshortening and the bay view, the impact was rated low. Receptors looking

up from Main Road and the beach recreation areas would experience an impact

rated low. Vehicle users of Boyes Drive Scenic Route would not have a clear view of

the proposals, but their view of the bay would remain unimpeded; pedestrians would

be more visually aware of the approved development.

Visual Statement

Sensitive receptors were identified as occupiers of several local residential buildings,

for whom the focus of their view would still be a clear view of the bay. Other

receptors would experience impacts of low significance.

Visual Impact Rating

The potential assessed visual impact of the site and the development proposals can

be managed by mitigation measures, which would mainly relate to the architecture

of the proposed built form, and the capacity of the site to offer sites for replanting.

However, access through the site may have substantial implications for visual impact.

The proposed project would have a visual impact assessed as moderate-high before

mitigation and moderate after mitigation.

Conclusion

The proposed development would be in accord with the landscape and townscape

character of the immediate locality.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the Proposed Project and design be visually acceptable and

permissible to proceed, granted that the prescribed mitigation measures are

undertaken.

K Hansen Landscape Architect, Somerset West 1 St James, Erf 177476, VIA: February 2018

Revision nr 01

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 General

This Visual Impact Assessment concerns a proposed sub division of a residential erf in St James,

on the False Bay side of the Cape Peninsula.

A Basic Assessment process is being undertaken for the proposed subdivision of a property

located on Boyes Drive in St. James – erf 177476. The client has obtained approval from the

City of Cape Town to construct a single dwelling and access road on the property. It is now

proposed that the erf be subdivided into five separate portions (i.e. four additional portions).

St James is located within the Cape Town Metro between Muizenberg and Kalk Bay, and north

of Fishhoek. The development site is located in a residential suburb, the current site zoning is

residential, and the site lies within the designated urban edge. In order to facilitate the

proposed subdivision, authorisations in terms of the National Environmental Management Act

(Act 107 of 1998) and the National Heritage Resources Act (Act 25 of 1999) are required.

1.2 Brief

To undertake a level III Visual Impact Assessment of a site in St James, for the proposed

subdivision of Erf 177476.

1.3 Personnel

The Basic Assessment process, is being undertaken by SLR Consulting (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd.

Karen Hansen, Landscape Architect and an independent Visual Impact Assessment

practitioner, has been appointed to provide a Visual Impact Assessment Report for this

development; K Hansen’s detailed CV and Experience is set out in Addendum 5.

ST JAMES Fish hoek

Simons Town

Figure 1.1 location of St James,

(red circle), on the False Bay

side of the peninsula, and in

relation to Cape Town, about

27km away. Source: Google

maps/ Hansen


Revision nr 01

2.0 STUDY TERMS OF REFERENCE AND METHODOLOGY

2.1 Specialist Report Content and Terms of Reference for this VIA

The specialist will consider baseline data and identify and assess impacts according to

predefined rating scales. The specialist will also suggest optional or essential ways in which to

mitigate negative impacts, enhance positive impacts and consider cumulative effects.

• Provide details of

o the specialist who prepared the report

o the expertise of that specialist to compile a specialist report including a

curriculum vita

• A declaration that the specialist is independent

• An indication of the scope of, and the purpose for which, the report was prepared

• The date and season of the site investigation and the relevance of the season to the

outcome of the assessment

• A reasoned opinion:

o as to whether the proposed activity or portions thereof should be authorised

o if the opinion is that the proposed activity or portions thereof should be

authorised, any avoidance, management and mitigation measures and where

applicable, the closure plan

• A description of any consultation process that was undertaken during the course of

preparing the specialist report

• Identify issues raised relating to visual, aesthetic and scenic resources through any

existing reports, and site visits. The study takes into account the expected community

response

• Describe the receiving environment and the proposed project in terms of landscape

and townscape types, and character and also land use patterns

• Describe the sense of place and contributing factors (spatial and non-spatial)

• Establish the view catchment area, view corridors, viewpoints and receptors

• Determine the relative visibility or visual intrusion of the proposed project

• Determine the relative compatibility or conflict of the project with the surrounding

landscape and land uses in terms of visibility

• Determine significant/sensitive receptors

• Indicate potential visual impacts using established criteria and including:

o Potential lighting impacts at night

o Consideration of impacts at the construction phase

o Consideration of cumulative impacts potentially arising from other possible

development projects locally

• Describe alternatives, including the no-go, mitigation measures and monitoring

programs; provide expert opinion on any issue in their field of expertise that they

deem necessary in order to avoid potential detrimental impacts

• Highlight the constraints and opportunities of the project in terms of its potential visual

impacts, in so doing accounting also for constraints and opportunities of the

development alternative and the ‘no development’ alternative; and prepare a constraints

plan associated with each option


Revision nr 01

• Reference all sources of information and literature consulted

• Use mapping and photos as appropriate

• Include an executive summary to the report

2.2 Methodology

2.2.1 The sequence of work employed in this Study

A desktop survey using 1:50 000 topographical survey maps to assess the site setting, to

identify landform, landscape, townscape and habitation patterns and assess the possible

viewshed. Aerial photography, Google Earth, and Google Mapping were used to assist in this

part of the study. Global Mapper, a GIS data processing application and spatial management

tool, was used to start the visual envelope definition process.

Following the desktop information gathering process, site visits were undertaken to test the

conclusions of the terrain analysis, to identify sensitive receptors, to appraise the local

landscape and townscape.

2.2.2 Written and Drawn Material was made available:

• Background Information Document. Basic Assessment for the Proposed Sub-Division of

Erf 177476, St James, Cape Town, 2017-07-11_Bayette BID_Final.pdf, prepared by SLR

Consulting

• Staatskoerant, 29 Augustus 2014, excerpt, no. 37951 73. EIA Regs 2014 Appendix

6.png

• The Pedestrians View from the Boyes Drive Pavement/Walkway – no Impediment to

the View of the Sea. Line of Sight.png

• Outline Layout Google Earth, showing the proposed layout as an overlay and

presented by SLR Consulting.docx

• Planners Report – ERF 177476 St James part 3 of 4 (Kellerman Hendrikse).pdf

• S38 NID RESPONSE #17090415AS0914E from Heritage Western Cape, 05 October

2017.pdf

And information received in emails.

2.2.3 Receiving Site

The receiving site was assessed by walking the site and surrounding areas, and also areas of

the locality from where the site appeared to be likely to be visible, notably built-up areas, local

roads, adjacent lands and undeveloped areas.

This study was conducted during the month of November 2017 (the 23rd

and the 25th

). The

weather on the days of the site visits was open and clear. An effective VIA is not limited to any

particular season, but must be undertaken in good, open weather with open visibility.

A photographic survey of the site and parts of the surrounding areas was carried out; this

determined the extent of the visibility of the proposed development.

The visual impacts were evaluated using standard criteria such as geographic view-sheds and

viewing distances as well as qualitative criteria such as compatibility with the existing landscape

and townscape character and settlement pattern; referring to:

Guidelines for Involving Visual and Aesthetic Specialists in EIA Processes, Provincial Government

of the Western Cape, Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning Edition 1

June 2005.


Revision nr 01

Potentially sensitive areas were assessed. Mitigation measures were evaluated.

2.2.4 Determination of the Theoretical Viewshed

The theoretical viewshed has been determined in two ways for this study. Firstly, the site and

surrounding area has been thoroughly explored in publicly accessible areas and photographed

from places where the view of the site appeared to be significant; the conclusions are

addressed in Section 6.

Secondly, Global Mapper software was used to generate view-sheds by inputting building

height; (a view-shed is the potential area visually impacted upon by an object in the landscape

and is determined by inputting data such as heights of viewer and object, distance apart, and

the terrain). This terrain analysis software provides detailed information on the terrain,

transportation routes and centres of habitation, but not on lesser elements in the landscape

that can delineate a view, such as houses, trees and buildings. The resulting analysis was

useful, especially for topographical analysis, but has been ground truthed; the results and

conclusions are described in Section 6.

2.3 Key Issues

The following possible issues relating to visual concerns arising from the assessment of the site

and the proposed subdivision have been identified:

• The potential visibility of future residences located on the subdivided portions

• The ability of the landscape and townscape to absorb the future residences

• The local landscape and townscape character

• The potential negative visual impact during the construction phase

• The consideration of alternatives

• Cumulative Impacts and Possible

• Mitigation measures to reduce impacts

2.4 Rating Criteria

Assessment Methodologies which will be followed in this study are those stated in the

Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning (DEA+DP), Guidelines and set

out in Addendum 1, and those in use by the specialist in Addendum 2.

2.5 Assumptions and Limitations

The information and deductions in this report are based on information received from the

clients’ representatives, as well as research and fieldwork by the specialist.

2.6 Alternatives

There is no site location alternative, apart from the study site.

There are two activity alternatives, the proposed subdivision, and the No-Go Alternative.

There is one site layout alternative, the Proposed Project; and any additional alternative which

might emerge during the assessment.


Revision nr 01

3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION and SETTING

3.1 General

The development site is located within an established residential area of St James, which lies

between the coast road, ‘Main Road’, (M4) and the upper level road, ‘Boyes Drive’, (M35).

St James was established as a residential centre in the late 19th century, along with the railway

line, and adjacent settlements. The strip of land along the coast that it occupies faces south

east, is about 1 km long and averages 220 m in width between the two roads.

St James would once have been a settlement separate from Muizenberg and Kalk Bay, but

today this part of the False Bay Coast is almost continuously built up, with pockets of

commercial and institutional land uses along the coastal Main Road, and residential up the

steep hillside. Between Main Road and the sea, runs the passenger railway line connecting

Cape Town with Simons Town further south.

3.2 The Site

The extent of the site is about 0.8 ha and extends from Boyes Drive at its highest point down

to the erf boundary with a neighbouring house facing onto Main Road. The site is steeply

sloping, and parts remain well vegetated while other parts are disturbed due to the

commencement of construction of the approved house on the proposed subdivided portion 5,

positioned close to Boyes Drive. A seasonal watercourse runs down the north-east boundary

in a well vegetated ravine, from ‘Nellies Pool’ within the National Park. The site boundaries

are fenced.

3.3 Proposed Access

The proposed access would be from the approved access road from Boyes Drive; there is a

secondary access for portions 1 and 2 from Main Road.

3.4 Site boundaries

The interfaces between the erf and its immediate surrounds are:

• North-west boundary denoted by a mortared natural stone retaining wall, 0.9 m high

on the Boyes Drive Side but varies up to 2 or 3 m on the site side

• North-east boundary is marked by a ravine containing a stream, partly within the site,

and beyond a steep incline in the adjacent erf up to a neighbouring house currently

under construction; there is a second house further down the erf that also shares the

boundary

• South-east boundary is edged by screening planting in the garden of the adjacent

dwelling


Revision nr 01

• South-west boundary, where there is an existing dwelling that shares the same access

off Boyes Drive, and then a thickly vegetated strip of land about 60 m by 15 m wide,

which ends in another dwelling with garden.

3.5 Visual Qualities of the site

The local character is low density residential on steep terrain, with well treed gardens and long

south-easterly views to the bay; the lateral views are short due to garden trees and the

predominance of large houses.

3.6 Sense of Place

The surrounding established residential area provides a sense of place. Houses vary in height,

extent, numbers of storeys and architectural styles because the locality has been developed

over time. The sense of place is also identified by the consistent steep terrain, the mountain

backdrop, and the views of the coast. Allowing for the steepness of the slope, St James is quite

densely built up. To the north-east the slopes are steeper; the TMNP boundary is along Boyes

Drive.

Figure 3.2 site location, approximately indicated by a yellow outline, and the extent of St James is shown

between the two red lines. The built-up area is residential and becomes Kalk Bay to the south where

there is commercial development along Main Road. On the coast side of Main Road is the rail line.

Source Google Earth/Hansen

TMNP


Revision nr 01

4.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

4.1 The Project

The Applicant has recently obtained approval from the City of Cape Town to construct a single

house and access road on the property. Construction of the approved house and access road

(positioned closest to Boyes Drive) has recently commenced. The Applicant is now proposing

to subdivide Erf 177476 into five separate portions (i.e. four additional portions). The purpose

is to sell the other four subdivided portions to third-parties for residential use.

4.2 Proposed Project: Sub division of the Erf

Figure 4.1 this image is an extract from the BID prepared by SLR Consulting and shows the layout of the

approved house and access road currently under construction, (north upward), with the existing erf,

(portion 5), as an approved house and access road off Boyes Drive, and the alignment of an additional


Revision nr 01

road to serve portions 3 and 4. The red dashed line of the building set back is also shown. The site lies in

a treed residential townscape. Source SLR Consulting

Figure 4.2, this image is an extract from the BID prepared by SLR Consulting, and is included as it

explains the nature of the proposed project; i.e. the proposed subdivision of the erf into five portions,

which are the subject of this assessment.

Also shown is the proposed 10m set back line affecting portions 2 and 3. Source SLR Consulting

Proposed extents of the sub divided erf and building lines:

Portion 1: 1 125 m2

the most southerly portion, access from Main Road

Portion 2: 1 015 m2 directly adjacent portion 1, access from Main Road

Portion 3: 942 m2, centre of the erf, access from Boyes Drive

Portion 4: 734 m2, centre of the erf, access from Boyes Drive

Portion 5: 4 270 m2 the approved portion accessed from and adjacent to Boyes Drive


Revision nr 01

Portions 1 to 4 would be subject to the standard common building line restriction of 3 m; (the

remainder portion, (5), has both street and common building lines of 6 m

4.3 Access

All Portions would be accessed from Boyes Drive during the construction period. During the

operational period, portions 3, 4 and 5 would be accessed from Boyes Drive, portions 1 and 2

from Main Road.

4.4 The Proposed Works to the Stream

The stream is seasonal and flows in a steep sided and well vegetated ravine, partly within

Erf 177476, and along its north-east boundary, but the ravine flattens out as it proceeds

towards the bay. The steam discharges into a closed culvert within proposed Portion 1,

closest to Main Road. The ravine is fenced off and would not be disturbed during either the

construction period nor the operational period.

In order to minimise the impact on the stream, it is proposed to include a development

setback of 10 m from the existing north-eastern boundary for the proposed Portions 2 and

3. This would provide a green open space between future portions and the neighbours

adjacent to this boundary.

To provide a building platform for the proposed Portions 1 and 2, changes would have to be

made to the stream course on the southern section of the property.

On proposed Portion 2, the south-western branch of the stream would be diverted to link

to the stream portion on the south-east. All post-development stormwater would be

collected at the lower end of each portion and channelled to the south-west (south-east in

the case of Portion 4) and into the stormwater pipe mentioned above.

Other services, including water and sewerage, would follow the same alignment as that of

the stormwater pipeline and culverts.

Source SLR Consulting, Background Information Document

The ravine from the site The ravine from Boyes Drive


Revision nr 01

Figure 4.3, the well vegetated ravine the fenced site boundary for construction of the approved

house is evident. Source Hansen

4.5 Services

Services would be obtained from the local municipality. The site would not require firebreaks.

4. 6 No Go Alternative

This is where the development does not proceed, and the ground remains in its present

condition with some fynbos. Existing land uses would continue. The ground might be

developed, in all or in part, in the future. The level of risk attached to the no-go alternative is

defined as:

• Trespass by vagrants, fire risk

• Lower areas being eroded by flooding

Figure 4.4, the proposed vehicle access to serve portions 1 and 2 from Main Road. Source Hansen


Revision nr 01

5.0 NATURE OF THE RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT

5.1 General

Landscape and Townscape Character is defined as the distinct and recognisable pattern of

elements that occur consistently in landscape and townscape types, and how this pattern is

perceived. It reflects discrete combinations of geology, landform, soils, vegetation, river

systems, land use and the story of human settlement. It defines the identifiable ‘sense of

place’.

This section defines the character of the environment that would receive the development.

5.2 The Setting

The local area, from Kalk Bay to Muizenberg is low density residential, with thick garden

planting on steep slopes between the mountains and the sea; (see para.5.9).

5.3 Transport network

Boyes Drive, marking the north-west site boundary, runs between Kalk Bay in the south to

Muizenberg in the north. It increases in elevation as it proceeds northwards from between 50

to 80 m when it passes the site and thence to between 90 m and 100 m, after which it reduces

in elevation again as it approaches Muizenberg. It’s a popular road for its scenic qualities (it is a

designated Scenic Route) as well as commuting.

Main Road follows the coast and has an average elevation of 10 m above sea level (asl) with

some variations. The road has been recently upgraded with underground utilities provision,

resurfacing, new footpaths and car parking.

The residential areas of St James are also characterised by narrow roads accessed from both of

the above-mentioned roads and are, of necessity, short and steep, with parking being provided

where feasible. Several roads end in long flights of steps, and many residents must park their

cars and use steps for access. This is part of the character of the locality.

A passenger railway line runs between Main Road and the sea, with a regular service between

Cape Town and Simons Town and a railway station at St James.

5.4 Topography and Watercourses

St James has been established on a steep slope between two roads. Close to the site the

average gradient is 1:2.75 to 1:2.6, towards Kalk Bay it is less steep, averaging 1:3.4 to 1:3.7,

and towards Muizenberg the slope becomes steeper (approximately 1:1.8). The slope

becomes less steep at Muizenberg.


Revision nr 01

The site lies at about 78 m to 90 m asl, at Boyes Drive, and at the lower end of the erf is at

about 25 m to 28 m asl. This indicates an average slope of between 1:2.75 to 1:2.6, and the

ground is uneven.

The high ground of the TMNP behind the site rises steeply to 450 to 500m asl.

There are a number of seasonal watercourses coming down off the mountain that find their

way to the sea. A seasonal stream is located on the site itself, flowing in a ravine along the

north-east site boundary.

5.5 Protected Landscapes

Above Boyes Drive all the land lies within Cape Peninsula National Park, Table Mountain

National Park, and the Silvermine Nature Reserve. There are no Critical Biodiversity Areas nor

Ecological Support Areas close to the site. The undeveloped slopes on the Muizenberg side of

St James are identified as ‘Other Protected Areas’, (Source Cape Farm Mapper/Elsenburg), and

that is where the slope is too steep to develop and remains vegetated, much of it indigenous.

5.6 Vegetation

The site is located within the South West Fynbos bio-region within the Fynbos biome and the

undisturbed, south-eastern, part of the erf is well vegetated with mainly indigenous species,

and some garden escapes. Construction of the approved house and access road is currently

underway on the north-western part of the erf. The ravine is also well vegetated. There are

many large and small rocks on the site.

5.7 Local Land Uses

Local land uses are residential; in the adjacent TMNP there are recreational uses, such as

hiking trails, and there is coastal recreation by the sea.

5.8 Landscape Value

A landscape may be valued for many reasons, which may include landscape quality, scenic

quality, tranquillity, wilderness value, consensus about its importance either nationally or

locally, and other conservation interests and cultural associations.

This site is perceived to be valued visually for its open, and well vegetated appearance in a

residential area with a mountain backdrop.

5.9 Landscape Character

The landscape character of the development site is somewhat cluttered by vegetation and

variations in terrain. The landscape character of the immediate locality is low density

residential, with gardens big enough to support trees, on a steeply sloping hillside with good

views to the sea. There is a great deal of visual clutter from the built form as the majority of


Revision nr 01

the houses are different, and there are also many necessary retaining walls, roads, footpaths

and steps. The mountain backdrop has no visual clutter, it is a simple and quiet landscape.

5.10 Visual Significance of the area

The site is not clearly seen from many locations because the view is foreshortened from both

Main Road and Boyes Drive due to the steep slope, in addition to many shielding objects

breaking up the view. However, at present the site does provide an approximately 70 m wide

undeveloped and vegetated strip surrounded by houses, and this provides a limited ‘visual

signpost’. The site is only visually exposed to its immediate neighbours, and lateral views are

short. Views towards the sea to the south-east, are long.

The significance of the site is measured by its relationship with the adjacent housing and roads.

Figure 5.1. a view of the development site from Main Road. Source Hansen

Figure 5.2 from the bay side of Main Road and looking up ‘Heytor Road’ showing the local residential

development density and residential character. Source Hansen


Revision nr 01

6.0 VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

6.1. Viewshed Envelope definition

This refers to the theoretical outer-most extent of the area from which an object, (in

this case the whole development site), may be seen. Visibility can be obscured in part or

in whole by objects within the viewshed such as existing buildings, trees, or landform.

Objects can also appear to be obscured by distance, where an object can seem to blend

into its background by virtue of the distance between it and the viewer.

6.1.1 Significant Issues affecting visibility:

• The nature of the site location: visually exposed to the south and south-east

• The proposed uses, the scale, density, and the finishes of the proposed built form

6.2 Significant Receptors likely to be affected

Significant potential receptors are likely to be:

• Residential receptors within 100 m of the site

• Users of Boyes Drive, Main Road, Railway and recreational beach areas

• Users of the TMNP

All potential receptor locations were assessed on site.

6.3 View Catchment Areas

6.3.1 Defining a correct viewing distance

In order to determine the approximate distance from which future houses located on the

proposed sub-divided portions would be visible, given local conditions, the visibility of the site

was assessed from adjacent houses, roadways and the site itself.

From the site, it was evident that existing, adjacent dwellings would be visually impacted upon.

The site is not clearly seen from Boyes Drive because of the steepness of the slope and the

existing wall but is visible from parts of Main Road. Due to the density of dwellings in the

locality and also shielding planting, it was estimated that the visual envelope would extend

laterally for up to 100m from the development boundary but open out towards the coast.


Revision nr 01

6.3.2 The visual envelope

Figure 6.1 the extent of the visual envelope indicating the properties and land areas likely to be

impacted upon by this site. The visual envelope around the site itself would be rated with greater

significance than the envelope encompassing Main Road. Source CFM/Hansen

6.4 Visibility of the Proposed Development

6.4.1 Factors affecting Visibility

The visibility of the proposed development would be constrained by terrain, some tree cover

and built form. The degree to which the site would be visible is determined by its extent and

location, and is moderated by:

• distances over which this development would be seen

• weather and season conditions

• surrounding land uses and land cover in the local landscape

Other key issues are:

Visual effects: The site has some visual clutter from vegetation; the proposed

development would provide additional visual clutter


Revision nr 01

Visual order: The proposed development would not offer visual order from beyond the

site, as it is set out in the landscape as a response to access, terrain, and other issues,

not with the objective of creating a visible pattern.

Visual composition: The proposed development has potential to offer composition

opportunities in creating linkages with adjacent uses.

6.4.2 The localities from which the development layouts would be seen:

• Local Residential receptors

• Receptors along Boyes Drive, Main Road, Railway and Recreational beach areas

• Users of the TMNP

6.4.3 No-Go Alternative

As the visual envelope is defined by the edge of the development site, the visibility of the

Proposed Project and the No-Go Alternative, are deemed to be similar.

6.4.4 Lighting

Visible lighting within the development and from security lighting at night could be expected to

influence visibility.

6.4.5 Construction Period

The construction access would be off Boyes Drive and its extension into the site, which would

be within the defined visual envelope. The construction period could also be expected to

affect local roads and beyond, with increased traffic delivering materials etc., to the site and

which could be beyond the defined visual envelope. There may also be lay-down area(s)

within the development site, visible within 200 m.

6.5 Extent of the Visual Impact

Rates the impact in terms of the geographical area that will be influenced by the visual impact:

- no impact: no visual impact

- site specific: visual impact is small, generally confined to the site

- local: the site and the immediate surrounding area, (2 km)

- regional: affects more than 2 km radius

6.5.1 Extent of Impact of Proposed Project

The extent of the impact would be local. The extent to which the proposed development

would be considered visible is mainly taken to be less than 200 m. This has been assessed

theoretically with terrain analysis software and ground truthed.

6.5.2 Extent of Impact of the Construction Period

The extent of the impact upon roads around the site would be local; beyond 2 km the impact

would be regional, as there could be some increase in traffic volumes.

6.5.3 Extent of Impact of the No-Go Alternative

The extent of the impact would be local.


Revision nr 01

6.6 Visual Exposure

Visual Exposure is based on the distance from the project to selected viewpoints. Exposure or

Visual Impact tends to diminish exponentially with distance

- high exposure: dominant or clearly noticeable, the focus of the view

- moderate exposure: recognisable to the viewer

- low exposure: not particularly noticeable to the viewer

• The adjacent residential dwellings sharing a property boundary with the subject erf,

would experience a visual exposure rated high, due to proximity to the subdivided

portions

• Other local residential dwellings, within 100 m, may experience some exposure, which

is rated as moderate

• Users of Boyes Drive, Main Road, coastal recreational areas, and users of the TMNP

could experience a low visual experience as the future development of the proposed

subdivided portions would not be particularly noticeable

Though all neighbouring houses are designed for their main view to look out to the sea, and

not to the site, some residences have side windows and external areas which have views facing

towards the site. The one exception would be house illustrated in image nr 91 in figure 6.2

whose bay view includes the site, albeit in the periphery of the main view out to the sea.

86 07

14 91

Figure 6.2 illustrating the residential buildings closest to the development site; image 86 and 07 close to

the north-east boundary, image 14 and 91 close to the south-west boundary. Source Hansen


Revision nr 01

6.7 Zones of Visual Influence

Describes the areas visually influenced by the proposed development, and assesses the amount

of influence

- non-existent: the site cannot be seen from surrounding areas

- low: the development is largely shielded from view by topography, planting,

distance or buildings

- moderate: the development is partially shielded

- high: the development influences the view strongly and acts as a visual focus

6.7.1 Local residential receptors

The assessment of the impact on individual residential buildings which could be clearly seen

from the development site and referring to Figure 6.2.

Figure 6.3 because the visual impact primarily affects individual houses on individual erven, this provides

the location reference graphic for affected properties. Source CFM/Hansen

11

2 3

4

5

6

7 8

9

10

SITE

1


Revision nr 01

Ref

nr

Erf nr Comment

*proposed sub-divided portion

Impact

Rating

1 88430 House under construction close to Boyes Drive, clear

view of development over ravine, esp. *p 5 and p 3

high

2 88430 Clear view across ravine of p 5, and p 3 high

3 146181 Limited view of p 3, shielded by house ref nr 2 moderate

4 175139 Open view of development site, p 1 to p 5 visible high

5 146181 Limited view, part shielded by house 5 moderate

6 88781/160176 View of p1, shielded from p 2 to p 5 moderate

7 177506 Limited view of p 1, shielded by garden planting moderate

8 88308 Limited view of p 1, shielded by garden planting moderate

9 88276 Limited view of development site, shielded by

intervening planting

low

10 88296 View of p 5, p 4, p 3, limited view of p 2 moderate

11 88288 House accessed directly from Boyes Drive and erf

177476, open view of development site, p 1 to p 5

visible

high

The zone of visual influence for the proposed project is assessed as moderate for most of the

properties impacted upon, (recognisable to the viewer but not necessarily the focus of the

view which is towards the bay).

For the houses with closest proximity, the impact would be high, (influences the view

strongly), because, although their primary view is to the bay, they have side windows and

external areas from which an open view of the development site would be obtained.

Figure 6.4 a view of the development site from Boyes Drive and where the approved dwelling house and

access road would be. Source Hansen


Revision nr 01

6.7.2 Receptors along Boyes Drive, Main Road, Railway and Recreational beach areas

Boyes Drive, (a Scenic Route): traffic in either direction would only be visually aware of the

approved house on portion 5 to a limited degree. This is due to the fact that: (i) the roof apex

of the approved house is lower than the road; (ii) this two-lane road is busy with frequent

changes of direction which require the attention of the driver; and (iii) the views of the sea are

of greater interest. Development on other portions would be less visible, apart from roofs.

Pedestrians would be aware of the house on the proposed portion 5, shielding parts of future

development on the subdivided portions located on the lower slopes.

Main Road: On completion of the construction of houses on the proposed subdivided portions,

vehicle traffic would have to look to the side and up the hill and to see them. These additional

houses would have the same townscape character as the surrounding residential area of St

James as there is a great deal of visual clutter and activity to absorb them when travelling

along the road. Pedestrians on the bay side of the street could look up at the mountain and

see an extension of the same townscape character below Boyes Drive and the undisturbed

slopes of the TMNP located above Boyes Drive.

Users of the passenger rail service, while travelling in either direction could look up towards

the mountain and see the additional houses as an extension of the same townscape character.

As for pedestrians walking on the bay side of Main Road, the main views would be looking out

to the bay or the undisturbed slopes of the TMNP located above Boyes Drive.

Recreational users of the coastal green spaces and beach, the huts, and the tidal pool would

look up towards the mountain and see the additional houses as an extension of the same

townscape character.

Figure 6.5 views of the development site from the recreational areas, the beach, and the green open

space further away. Source Hansen

The zone of visual influence for the proposed project is assessed as moderate

6.7.3 Users of TMNP

The hill to the immediate north of Boyes Drive has hiking routes which would offer

intermittent views through the fynbos of the site. The main views would be of the bay, while

the future houses established on the site would look in character with the existing

developments on either side.


Revision nr 01

Figure 6.6 a view of the TMNP, on the opposite side of Boyes Drive to the site, and the density of the

vegetation. Source Hansen

The zone of visual influence for the proposed project is assessed as low

6.7.4 Summary

Reference to the Visual Envelope shows that the extent of the potential visual influence of the

proposed works would have the highest impact locally to residential buildings. A secondary

area of visual impact, is Boyes Drive, Main Road, Railway and the recreational areas.

6.8 Visual Absorption Capacity

This refers to the ability of the surrounding area to visually absorb the development. In this

assessment, high is a positive and low is a negative.

- low: the area cannot visually absorb the development

- medium: the area can absorb the development to a degree, but it will look

somewhat out of place

- high: the area can easily visually absorb the development

6.8.1 Proposed Project

The proposed subdivision of the site (and the related future development of four additional

dwellings) would provide the same land uses and density as those directly adjacent to the site

and in the broader locality. The only elements that could appear somewhat out of place are

possible retaining walls and sinuous vehicle roads providing building platforms and access,

however these are commonly seen in St James. The visual absorption capacity is rated

medium.


The visual absorption capacity is rated high, there would be no change in the local landscape.

6.9 Compatibility with Surrounding Landscape/Visual Intrusion

This refers to the extent to which the proposed development and land usage is in line with the

surrounding development and land usage.

- appropriate: the development will fit in well with the surrounding landscape


Revision nr 01

- moderately appropriate: the development can blend in, but to a lesser degree

and only with care

- inappropriate: the development introduces new elements into the landscape

that do not fit in.

6.9.1 Proposed Project

The proposed development would offer the same land uses at a similar residential density,

with dwellings that would be 2 stories, as seen locally. However, the proposed retaining walls

and sinuous vehicle roads, could be a discordant visual feature which would result in the

development only ‘blending in’ with care.

There are visual and physical links between the surrounds and the proposed development and

it is assessed as moderately appropriate; it could blend in with care.


The land usage would continue to be appropriate, within the context of other rural land in the

locality.

P1

Figure 6.7 showing the extent of the visual impact from the north part of the site and looking towards the

bay. Source Hansen

6.10 Intensity/Magnitude of the Visual Impact

This refers to the degree to which the visual nature of the landscape will be altered, whether

the potential impact would be destructive or benign.

low: natural or social functions are negligibly altered, or unaltered

medium: natural or social functions are slightly altered

high: natural or social functions are severely or notably altered, and to the extent that

the impact intrudes noticeably into the landscape

6.10.1 Site Landscape; Proposed Project

Existing natural and social functions on the development site would be altered with the change

from vacant, vegetated land, to low density residential development. The intensity is assessed

as medium-high, as natural functions would be notably altered.


Revision nr 01

6.10.2 Beyond the Site

The nature of the landscape would be altered within the zone of visual influence of the

proposed development. However, it is noted that the development site is within an existing

residential area; the intensity is assessed as low.


The intensity of visual impact on the site and local landscape would be low.

6.10.4 Construction Period

The intensity would be medium due to the disturbance caused by construction vehicles,

materials storage, etc. And construction vehicles would be visible to and impact upon, greater

areas as materials are delivered and cleared. This would however take place over the short-

term. After completion of the construction period would be a time period of addressing the

landscape scarring, parts of which would be obscured by retaining walls

6.10.5 Conclusion

The Intensity is summarised as medium as natural functions would be notably altered.

6.11 Duration of the Visual Impact

The duration of the impact upon its surroundings

- short term: 18 months or less

- medium term: up to 3 years

- permanent: where the impact, either by natural processes or by human

intervention will be permanent

The duration of the development is intended to be as long term as any similar development

and to extend beyond 20 years; it will not be transient. The duration is judged to be

permanent.

6.12 Significance of the Visual Impact of the proposed development as a whole

The consequence of the visual impact is assessed as a combination of:

- the extent of the impact (paragraph. 6.5, local)

- the intensity/magnitude of the impact, (paragraph. 6.10, medium).

- The duration of the impact (paragraph 6.11, permanent)

Examining all these impacts allows an assessment of the significance to be made. Ratings range

from Very Low, Low, Medium, High, to Very high (see Addendum 2).

The overall significance of the layout of the proposed project is assessed as on the high side of

medium as there would be permanent change in the local landscape and this change would be

of medium intensity. This would be due to activities associated with the construction period as

well as the visual impact of the development being beyond the immediate confines of the site.


Revision nr 01

6.13 Impact on Irreplaceable Resources

The resources which can be considered irreplaceable due to their visual qualities are:

• The loss of ‘green space’ currently experienced by local residents, people in local

employment, people using local transport corridors

• The impact on the local flora and fauna

Responses to these issues are within Section 8 of this report, ‘Mitigation’.

6.14 Potential Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Visual Impacts

Direct Impacts: primary impacts

Indirect Impacts: occur later in time or at a different place

Cumulative impacts (incremental impacts of the activity and other past, present and future

activities on a common resource)

Negligible: (impact insignificant/no impact)

Low: there is still significant capacity of the environmental resources within the geographic

area to respond to change and withstand further stress

Medium: the capacity of the environmental resources within the geographic area to

respond to change and withstand further stress is reduced

High: the capacity of the environmental resources within the geographic area to respond to

change and withstand further stress has been or is close to being exceeded

6.14.1 Direct impacts during construction and operational periods

The identified potential direct impacts associated with the proposed project during the

construction and operational phases are:

• Some change in views from undeveloped land to low density residential development

• Disturbance during the construction period

• Small increase in future traffic movements locally

• Removal of fynbos vegetation, and the time taken for indigenous planting to mature.

6.14.2 Indirect impacts

• None noted at this time; there is sufficient utilities provision locally

6.14.3 Cumulative impacts

• The development could be visually experienced as additive, bringing more traffic in

this locality, but this would be a negligible visual impact

• The development could have a synergistic effect reducing a part of the natural

vegetation cover in this locality

This site is rated low: there is still significant capacity of the environmental resources within

the local geographic area to respond to change and withstand further stress.

6.15 Visual Sensitivity Assessment

6.15.1 General


Revision nr 01

Landscape and townscape character sensitivity, is defined as: “the sensitivity of the landscape

as a whole, in terms of its overall character, its quality and condition, the aesthetic aspects of

its character, and the sensitivity of individual elements contributing to the landscape’’.

Source: GLVIA, LI, UK, 2013.

Assessment of the overall sensitivity of the local townscape and landscape character to this

development is based on the relative ability of the locality to respond to and, where

appropriate, accommodate, change of a particular type; in this case, a residential

development.

6.15.2 Areas and Users of high sensitivity

The locally sensitive sites in need of protection are Local residents referred to in para 6.7.1.

6.15.3 Conclusion

The local site character would change from unused, vegetated land to a residential

development; it would also change from a site with some natural visual clutter to one with

greater visual clutter from built form. The proposed land use is considered to have low

sensitivity as there are few properties which would be impacted locally and directly.

Existing residential and TMNP ‘neighbours’ are sensitive receptors and these concerns will be

addressed in the Section 8 of this report, ‘Mitigation’. Local visual sensitivity is assessed as

low.

6.16 Viewpoints and Images.

The images were created on site and within the surrounding landscape during the morning and

afternoon in November 2017 and from locations where the development site would be

deemed to be visible. The weather was clear and open, and deemed to be typical. The camera

was set at a focal length deemed to be as close to natural eye experience as possible. No

filters were used. Panoramic images have been overlapped and stitched.


Revision nr 01

Figure 6.8 showing the location of the images illustrating the report, (different font colours are only

used for clarity). Source CFM/Hansen


Revision nr 01

7.0 HERITAGE AND CULTURE IMPACTS

7.1 Heritage

A Heritage Impact Assessment for this proposed development has been compiled by others,

and their report will refer to arguments presented in this report; and this report will

incorporate arguments and conclusions presented in their report.

St James has a long history of residential development, from the arrival of the ‘Randlords’

towards the end of the 19th

Century. There were many notable individuals, including Cecil

Rhodes, whose local cottage is a museum. Therefore, there are many buildings and other

artefacts over 60 years old and this may apply to one or more of the properties discussed in

para 6.7.1.

There does not appear to be any traces of visible built form on the site, but there is a mature

conifer which may be more than 60 years old. The site supports dense vegetation, mainly

fynbos in the areas undisturbed by building operations, and appears unused.

7.2 Intangible Heritage

The ‘sense of place’ of this locality, and the local place names, contribute to the sense that the

area has been inhabited over a long period.

7.3 Anticipated Impacts on Heritage Resources

This study has not identified any impacts on heritage resources, and while there are cultural

references locally, associated with the landscape and the National Park, it is acknowledged

that these matters will be addressed fully by the Heritage Specialist.


Revision nr 01

8.0 MITIGATION MEASURES

8.1 Environmental Management Plan

An environmental management plan should be drawn up to set out principles for the

implementation of the visual mitigation measures. The proponent is required to demonstrate

that these measures are included in the design and construction phase. The responsibilities of

an Environmental Control Officer on this site are noted in para. 8.6.2.

8.2 Project elements to be addressed in the Design period

8.2.1 Built form

The visual impact of the proposed project would be moderated by good design and layout,

effectively landscaped open spaces and the use of tree planting and buffers to manage the

interfaces with adjacent residential dwellings and the ravine.

The portions of the subdivided erf would become more visible with increasing elevation; it is

noted that proposed buildings would not exceed 11 m to roof apex.

It has been stated by the Project Architects that the cladding materials for all the proposed

retaining walls and parts of proposed buildings, would be natural local stone, the same as used

for the retaining wall at Boyes Drive. Where external walls are plastered and painted, a

natural palette of mid earth tones would be used, not light earth tones.

Due to the steep slope, roofs would be very evident, therefore only dark neutral colours

should be used; if profile roof sheeting is used it must be finished in a dark, matte colour.

The 6m building line around the site perimeter is appropriate, and note is taken of the

proposed 10m building set back on northeast boundary, affecting portions 2 and 3. These

buffers should be used for shielding planting.

The ravine should receive a continuous 3 m minimum up to 10m wide strip of planting from

the head of the slope into the development site. This measure would reduce visual impact of

the development on the adjacent dwellings.

8.2.2 Vehicle Access

During the construction period, vehicle access for all portions would be off Boyes Drive, from

where the access roads, and their retaining walls to serve the proposed new portions would be

established. During the operational period, portions 3, 4 and 5 would continue to be accessed

off Boyes Drive.

The vehicle access to serve portions 1 and 2 is proposed to be off an existing driveway from

Main Road, between nos 36 and 38. The width is noted in Figure 3.2 as 3.13 m and the length,

45 m.


Revision nr 01

The vehicle accesses through the site give some concern, as the steepness of the site, (more

than 1:4), would necessitate long stretches of curving roads supported by retaining walls, all of

which could be visually intrusive. However, it is noted that the proposed retaining walls would

shield a good deal of the works and also that these walls would be faced in natural stone.

There would be extensive cut and fill operations and supporting works to create building

platforms. Unvegetated land could have a noticeable visual impact until appropriate land cover

could be established.

8.2.3 Planting

The effectiveness of the shielding function of the existing vegetation would be lost if the site

would be developed.

It is critical that this vegetation is replaced by planting with endemic species, as soon as

practicable with the objective of shielding the new development from existing residential

buildings to as great an extent as feasible. Trees are uncommon in this biome, but larger

shrubs should be planted; the advice of a flora specialist should be sought to clarify the

effectiveness of this mitigation measure.

This treatment would also soften the hard edges of the site boundaries and built form. Two

portions would have a 10 m set back and planting in advance of the construction works should

be considered. Space should be designed into the layout to allow planting to create buffers

around and through the proposed layout. These measures would mitigate visual impact.

Hydroseeding of raw embankments should be considered.

8.2.4 Lighting

Floodlighting is to be avoided, and no lighting should be shining towards neighbouring

dwellings, or upwards. The use of lower output lamps is preferred, and the shielding of light

sources from neighbours. Security lighting should be designed to respond only to public and

private safety. These measures are to reduce the visual impact of lighting at night. Timber

screens such as pergolas are required over extensive areas of fenestration, to reduce sun-

flashing off glazed surfaces as much as possible in the early mornings.

8.2.5 Fencing

Where fencing is to be erected, consideration should be given to black Clear Vu shadow wall

fencing, or equal, from Clear Vu. This is because apart from its good security credentials, it is

one of the least visible fence types in the landscape.

8.3 Construction Period

8.3.1 Duration

The construction period should be kept to a minimum, and with due care to local residents and

road users. There should be no out-of-normal-hours working due to the proximity of houses.

The site vehicle entrance should have adequate traffic control measures, signage, and dust

control measures. These measures are to reduce visual impact.

8.3.2 Site Control

Controls on the location of materials storage, etc, should be enforced to ensure that they are

contained within the actual development area boundaries. Piles of construction materials

should be stored at lower elevations. In addition, no fires to be allowed, no litter and no


Revision nr 01

contaminants to be allowed to enter the environment. Excess materials and all waste to be

removed from the construction areas.

The ravine should be fenced off along its whole length, no building operations (apart from

those required fro the proposed stream diversion) , including those to provide access, should

breach the head of the slope. No contaminants to enter the stream along any part of its

length. These measures are to reduce visual impact.

8.3.3 Programme

No information is to hand at the time of writing about the anticipated programme from

commencement to completion. Finite dates should be imposed with penalties to ensure that

the timeframe is not so open-ended that the visual impact of construction extends

unreasonably.

8.4 Operational Period

The visual impact of the completed development during the operational period should be

mitigated by: maintenance of the built form, boundary treatments, and planting.

8.5 Conclusion

If all identified mitigation measures listed above are implemented the residual impact would

be of infill housing in a residential area. The proposed development would have carefully

resolved edge treatments which would create a successful interface with adjacent properties

and the ravine.

The extent of the visual impact would not reduce or expand, but the absorption capacity and

the compatibility ratings would increase.

8.6 Management and monitoring programmes

8.6.1 Measures for the Environmental Management Programme

Project component/s: List of project components affecting the objective:

• Extent of the project and access to it

• Quantity, height and specification of built form

• Proximity and nature of sensitive receptors

Potential Impact: potential environmental impact if objective is not met:

• Detrimental change of local landscape character

• Negative impacts from proximity of the development to adjacent houses and other

residential users

• Cumulative impacts

Activities: which could impact on achieving the objective of a visually acceptable installation:

• Implementation of an Environmental Management Plan;

• Site management to Construction Industry Guidelines;

• Road access with adequate sightlines and traffic control measures as required;


Revision nr 01

• Use of quality design in the built form; and

• Undertaking of all agreed mitigation measures.

Mitigation: Target/Objective

• Incorporation of recommendations in the Mitigation measures

• Sensitive siting of the built form to reduce visual impact, careful management of

interfaces with surrounding landscape

8.6.2 Performance Indicators and Monitoring

Performance Indicator: The key indicators would be the qualities of the receiving environment

and the definition of the impacts predicted. Reference to the VIA indicates the nature of the

anticipated impacts and the ability of the landscape to absorb the development.

Monitoring

• Baseline Monitoring: all plans to be reviewed timeously by bodies responsible for

aesthetics

• Construction Phase Monitoring: Environmental Control Officer to monitor the

specified visual management actions

• Operational Phase Monitoring: continued assessment of the aesthetic aspects, such as

building colours/cladding, lighting, project expansion

A monitoring program should be drawn up to ensure monitoring compliance; it should have

clear objectives, be practicable and measurable.

8.7 Visual Impact Assessment Tables

Definitions not already included in the report, and described in Addendum 2 are:

Probability:

Improbable the consultant believes the impact would not occur

Probable <50% chance

Highly Probable 50% to 90% chance

Definite More than 90% certain that the impact would occur

Table 8.1 CONSTRUCTION PHASE: PROPOSED PROJECT, IMPACTS

Impact Criteria

Extent Duration Intensity Probability Significance

Visual intrusion of

construction vehicles and

activities on-site,

construction camp

Local

Short Term

Medium-

high

Definite

Medium

Visual intrusion of

construction vehicles and

activities on ‘feeder’

roads, such as M4, M35

Regional

Short term

Low

Highly

probable

Low

Level of disturbance to

adjacent residential

areas

Local Short term Medium-

high

Definite Medium-High

Length of contract time,

including all site works

Local

Short term

Medium

Definite

Low


Revision nr 01

Visual intrusion of site

lighting

Local

Short term Medium

Highly

probable

Low

Table 8.2 CONSTRUCTION PHASE: PROPOSED PROJECT, MITIGATION

Nature: Impact of initial site works, construction camps, site set up, laying services, ground

works

Without mitigation With mitigation

Extent Local Local

Duration Short -term Short-term

Magnitude Moderate Medium-Low

Probability Highly probable Highly probable

Significance Medium-High Medium

Status (positive or negative) Negative Negative

Reversibility High High

Irreplaceable loss of resources? Yes No

Can impacts be avoided, managed or mitigated? Yes

Mitigation: Establish screening structures to shield construction works from sensitive receptors;

good traffic and site management. Keeping construction period as short as reasonable.

Reinstate damaged fynbos areas

Cumulative impacts: None

Residual Impacts: Change of landscape character; removal of established fynbos; some limited but

permanent ground contamination could occur.

Table 8.3 OPERATIONAL PHASE: PROPOSED PROJECT, IMPACTS

Impact Criteria

Extent Duration Intensity Probability Significance

Effect on local

residential receptors of

the change in landscape

character to a residential

development

Local

Long Term

Medium

Highly

Probable

Medium

Visual impact on

receptors using local

roads, M4, M35

Local

Long Term Low Definite

Low

Visual impact on

receptors living and

working locally along

Main Road

Local

Long Term Low Probable

Low

Impact on Heritage and

Cultural Resources

Local

Long Term Low Definite

Very low

Impact of the colours,

finishes, heights of the

buildings

Local

Long Term Medium Definite

Medium-low

Impact of security and

other lighting

Local

Long Term Medium Definite

Medium


Revision nr 01

Table 8.4 OPERATIONAL PHASE: PROPOSED PROJECT, MITIGATION

Nature: Impact on receptors living and working locally of the change in site character to

residential

Without mitigation With mitigation

Extent Local Local

Duration Long -term Long-term

Magnitude Medium Medium-low

Probability Highly probable Highly probable

Significance Medium Medium-low

Status (positive or negative) Negative Neutral

Reversibility Low Low

Irreplaceable loss of resources? No No

Can impacts be avoided, managed or mitigated? Yes

Mitigation: colours, finishes of buildings, edge treatment, lighting, protection and restoration of

existing vegetation, tree and shrub planting.

Cumulative impacts: The development could be visually experienced as additive, bringing more,

similar, development and more traffic in this locality.

Residual Impacts: change of site and local landscape character; impacts on flora

Proposed Project: The rating scale for the proposed development, without mitigation indicates a

medium impact; reducing to medium-low with mitigation.


Revision nr 01

9.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

9.1 Visual Statement

The project would provide for a new residential development on an unused, vegetated site

visible over a moderate area. During the construction period, the site would be accessed off a

new road for which approvals are in place. During the operational period this access would

continue, and a secondary access off Main Road would also be used.

The proponent has received approval for one house and access road and wishes to subdivide

the remainder of the erf into 4 portions of extents typical in the locality for single residential.

Proposed houses would be 2 storey, (9 m to wall plate, 11 metres to roof apex) which is typical

in the locality. The other uses on the development site would be new site roads, retaining walls

and landscaped areas.

The visual envelope has been demonstrated to be limited locally due mainly to terrain, but

there are residential buildings close to the development site which would experience a visual

impact rated high, and the nature of the impact reduces with distance.

The impact of the development on receptors within the visual envelope has been rated as

moderate reducing to moderate-low with mitigation; this would be due to the location and the

nature of the proposed development.

9.2 Visual Sensitivity

The character of the landscape is deemed to be able to accommodate change as described in

the proposed project because the development under consideration would represent a

continuation of landscape and townscape character evident in the immediate area.

The locally sensitive sites are the adjacent residential areas and the TMNP; the local site

character would change; the probable proposed land use is considered to have low sensitivity

as there are similar land uses in the immediate locality.

While no heritage listed built form appears to be affected, there are cultural implications from

the history of the locality, the trees and the National Park which will be assessed by the

Heritage Specialist.

9.3 Visual Impact Rating

The proposed project would have a visual impact rating of moderate-low after mitigation.


Revision nr 01

9.4 An Alternative layout

Based on the foregoing, and the fact that only one layout was presented for assessment, the

project was considered for a more optimum solution in terms of its potential visual impact.

Portion 5 is already approved and the ‘L’ shaped remainder lends itself to additional portions,

as they could be developed at a density typical for the local area. This development would be

visually appropriate in those terms.

The vehicle access layout to serve portions 3 and 4 requires steep roads, retaining walls and

possibly also, embankments, all of which have a high visual impact. The direct access onto

Main Road for portions 1 and 2 is also proposed, however it is not clear how the sightlines can

be improved, nor how the relative narrowness could impact on emergency vehicles; and

queuing traffic could be an obstruction and have a negative visual impact. A road access off

Braemar should be attempted as a better layout solution.

Vehicle access through the site also poses concerns for the visual impact of the development

as do the building platforms. However, retaining walls would provide screening.

9.5 Mitigation

The main measures are the controls on cladding materials, roofing materials and colours. The

site presents opportunities for screening planting which should be undertaken to reduce the

visual impact for adjacent sensitive receptors.

9.6 Conclusion

The proposed project would appear in character with the surrounding residential areas and

would result in an initial visual impact rating of moderate, this could reduce to moderate-low

when planting begins to establish and, with habituation, the significance of the visual impact

for sensitive receptors would be expected to reduce.

9.7 Recommendations

It is recommended, that the Proposed Project and design would be visually acceptable and

could proceed, if mitigation measures would be undertaken. It is also recommended that

consideration should be given the alternative layout described in para. 9.4.


Revision nr 01

Addendum 1: DEA+DP Assessment Ratings and Definitions

Criteria Required by:

The Guidelines, Provincial Government of the Western Cape, DEA+DP, June 2005:

Visual Impact Assessments: Definitions and Ratings

Referred to are criteria specific to visual impact assessments referred to in the DEA&DP guideline

document and which are as follows:

Viewshed

The viewshed refers to the theoretical outer-most extent of the area from which an object may be seen.

Visibility can be obscured in part or in whole by objects within the viewshed such as existing buildings,

trees, or landform.

Rating – not rated, a description given

Visibility of the Site

A description of the actual places within the view shed from which the site can be seen; significant views

are discussed

Rating: not rated, a description given

The Extent of the Visual Impact

Rates the impact in terms of the geographical area that will be influenced by the visual impact

Ratings:

- no impact: no visual impact

- limited: visual impact is small, generally confined to the site

- local: the site and the immediate surrounding area, (1-5km)

- sub-regional: a greater area is influenced, (5-10km)

- regional: the influence extends to an entire region

- national: the influence has national importance and extends beyond boundaries

Visual exposure

Visual exposure refers to the visibility of the project site in terms of the capacity of the surrounding

landscape to offer screening. This is determined by the topography, tree cover, buildings, etc.

Ratings:

- no exposure: the site is hidden by topography, planting, etc

- low: the site is largely hidden

- medium: the site is partially hidden

- high: there is little in the surrounding landscape that can shield the development from

view

Zones of visual influence

Describes the areas visually influenced by the proposed development, and assesses the amount of

influence

Ratings:

- non-existent: the site cannot be seen from surrounding areas

- low: the development is largely shielded from view by topography, planting, etc

- moderate: the development is partially shielded

- high: the development strongly influences the view and acts as a visual focus


Revision nr 01

Visual Absorption Capacity

This refers to the ability of the surrounding area to visually absorb the development. In this assessment,

high is a positive and low is a negative

Ratings:

- low: the area cannot visually absorb the development

- medium: the area can absorb the development to a degree but it will look somewhat out of place

- high: the area can easily visually absorb the development

Compatibility with Surrounding Landscape

This refers to the extent to which the proposed development and land usage is in line with the surrounding

development and land usage.

Ratings:

- appropriate: the development will fit in well with the surrounding landscape

- moderately appropriate: the development can blend in, but to a lesser degree and only with care

- inappropriate: the development introduces new elements into the landscape that do not fit in.

Intensity or Magnitude, of Visual Impact

This refers to the degree to which the visual nature of the landscape will be altered.

Ratings:

- low: the impact is noticeable but does not act as a strong focus in the landscape

- moderate: the landscapes visual nature is altered in a way that is noticeable

- high: the visual impact of the development intrudes into the landscape in a noticeable way

Duration of visual Impact

The duration of the impact upon its surroundings

Ratings:

- temporary: one year or less

- short term: one to five years

- medium term: five to fifteen years

- long term: more than fifteen years

Significance of the Visual Impact

This rating combines the other ratings and looks at the overall impact

Ratings:

- very low: the visual impacts will be limited to the site itself

- low: the impacts will be local, and/or in the short term

- moderate: the impacts will be experienced locally and may lead to permanent change in the local

landscape

- high: these impacts will be experienced over a wide area, or sub regionally and will be irreversible

Potential Cumulative Visual Impacts

Looks at the accretion of similar developments over time

Ratings: not rated, a description given


Revision nr 01

Addendum 2: KHLA Assessment Ratings and Definitions

Criteria Rating Scales

Cumulative impacts (incremental

impacts of the activity and other

past, present and future activities

on a common resource)

• Negligible: (impact insignificant/no impact)

• Low: there is still significant capacity of the environmental

resources within the geographic area to respond to change

and withstand further stress

• Medium: the capacity of the environmental resources within

the geographic area to respond to change and withstand

further stress is reduced

• High: the capacity of the environmental resources within the

geographic area to respond to change and withstand

further stress has been or is close to being exceeded

Nature • Positive

• Negative

• Neutral

Extent (the spatial limit of the

impact)

• Local: extending only as far as the site and its immediate

surroundings, within 5km

• Regional: Western Cape

• National: South Africa

• International

Intensity (the severity of the

impact)

• Low: where the impact affects the environment in such a

way that natural, cultural and social functions and processes

are not affected

• Medium: where the affected environment is altered but

natural, cultural and social functions and processes continue

albeit in a modified way

• High: where natural, cultural or social functions and

processes are altered to the extent that the impact intrudes

noticeably into the landscape

Duration (the predicted lifetime of

the impact)

• Short-term: (0 to 5 years)

• Medium term: (5 to 15 years)

• Long term: (16 to 30 years) where the impact will cease after

the operational life of the activity either because of natural

processes or by human intervention.

• Permanent: where the mitigation either by natural processes

or by human intervention will not occur in such a way or in

such a time span that the impact can be considered

transient.

Probability (the likelihood of the

impact occurring)

• Improbable: where the possibility of the impact occurring is

very low

• Probable: where there is a good possibility (<50 % chance)

that the impact will occur

• Highly probable: where it is most likely (50-90 % chance)

that the impact will occur

• Definite: where the impact will occur regardless of any

prevention measures (>90 % chance of occurring)


Revision nr 01

Non-Reversibility (ability of the

impacted environment to return to

its pre-impacted state once the cause

of the impact has been

removed)

• Low: (impacted natural, cultural or social functions and

processes will return to their pre-impacted state within the

short-term) • Medium: (impacted natural, cultural or social functions and

processes will return to their pre-impacted state within the

medium to long term)

• High: (impacted natural, cultural or social functions and

processes will never return to their pre-impacted state)

Impact on irreplaceable resources

(is an irreplaceable resource

impacted upon?)

� Yes

� No

Confidence level (the specialist’s

degree of confidence in the

predictions and/or the information

on which it is based)

� High: greater than 70% sure of impact prediction

� Medium: between 35 and 70% sure of impact prediction

� Low: less than 35% sure of impact prediction

Table 2: Significance rating

Rating Intensity, Extent and Duration Rating

VERY HIGH of high intensity at a regional level and endure in the long term;

of high intensity at a national level in the medium term;

of medium intensity at a national level in the long term.

HIGH

of high intensity at a regional level and endure in the medium term;

of high intensity at a national level in the short term;

of medium intensity at a national level in the medium term;

of low intensity at a national level in the long term;

of high intensity at a local level in the long term;

of medium intensity at a regional level in the long term.

MEDIUM

of high intensity at a local level and endure in the medium term;

of medium intensity at a regional level in the medium term;

of high intensity at a regional level in the short term;

of medium intensity at a national level in the short term;

of medium intensity at a local level in the long term;

of low intensity at a national level in the medium term;

of low intensity at a regional level in the long term.

LOW

of low intensity at a regional level and endure in the medium term;

of low intensity at a national level in the short term]]7

of high intensity at a local level and endure in the short term;

of medium intensity at a regional level in the short term;

of low intensity at a local level in the long term;

of medium intensity at a local level and endure in the medium term.

VERY LOW of low intensity at a local level and endure in the medium term;

of low intensity at a regional level and endure in the short term;

of low to medium intensity at a local level and endure in the short term.

NOT APPLICABLE zero intensity with any combination of extent and duration

UNKNOWN in certain cases it may not be possible to determine the significance of an

impact.


Revision nr 01

Addendum 3: Bibliography

• Guidelines for Involving Visual and Aesthetic Specialists in EIA Processes, Provincial

Government of the Western Cape, Department of Environmental Affairs and

Development Planning Edition 1 June 2005.

• Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, (GLVIA). 3rd

Ed. LI UK 2013.

• Good Practice Guidance, Landscape and Visual Amenity. Scottish Natural Heritage 2007.

• Landscape Character Assessment Guidance L.I.UK. 2008.

• L.I.UK. advice note 01/2011 Use of Photography and Photomontage in Landscape and Visual

Assessment. Landscape Institute Technical Committee March 2011

• Draft Scenic Drive Management Plan Review, Phase 1, 2013 City of Cape Town.

• Heritage and Scenic Resources: Inventory and Policy Framework for the Western Cape,

2013, version 5.


Revision nr 01

Addendum 4: Declaration of Independence

The specialist appointed in terms of the Regulations

I, Karen Hansen, declare that

General declaration:

I act as the independent specialist in this application;

I will perform the work relating to the application in an objective manner, even if this results in views and findings that are not favourable to the applicant;

I declare that there are no circumstances that may compromise my objectivity in performing such work;

I have expertise in conducting the specialist report relevant to this application, including knowledge of the Act, Regulations and any guidelines that have relevance to the proposed activity;

I will comply with the Act, Regulations and all other applicable legislation;

I have no, and will not engage in, conflicting interests in the undertaking of the activity;

I undertake to disclose to the applicant and the competent authority all material information in my possession that reasonably has or may have the potential of influencing - any decision to be taken with respect to the application by the competent authority; and - the objectivity of any report, plan or document to be prepared by myself for submission to the competent authority;

all the particulars furnished by me in this form are true and correct; and

I realise that a false declaration is an offence in terms of regulation 48 and is punishable in terms of section 24F of the Act.

Signature of the specialist:

KHLA

Name of company (if applicable):

19 February 2018

Date:


Revision nr 01

Addendum 5: CV: K Hansen

Karen Hansen, CMLI Independent Consultant Landscape Architect

Qualifications

Chartered Membership of the Landscape Institute, UK, in 1982, registered nr. 11994.

Strathclyde University, Scotland, 1995, course in Environmental Impact Assessment covering the

legislative background to, and practice of, Environmental Impact Assessment, with particular

reference to Visual Impact Studies.

Experience in South Africa

2010 onward: Consultant Landscape Architect to Viridian Consulting (Pty) Ltd. and Independent

Consultant Landscape Architect specialising in, inter alia, Visual Assessments

2006 to 2010: Senior Landscape Architect with Viridian Consulting, (Pty) Ltd., Somerset West,

undertaking landscape design projects and environmental studies.

Experience in UK/Africa

2000 to 2006: Landscape Architect and Team Leader with Glasgow City Council. Master planning,

design, implementation of the Heritage Lottery funded urban parks and urban dual carriageways.

1992 to 2000: Partner with Kirklee Landscape Architects, Glasgow, Scotland, undertaking landscape

design projects and environmental studies.

1985 to 1992: Director of Landscape Architect practice based in Harare, Zimbabwe, undertaking

strategic projects for the Ministry of Defence and Infrastructure projects for the Ministry of Public

Housing and National Construction.

Environmental Studies: Visual Impact Assessments

Transport corridors

• The VIA informed the design and Implementation of landscape works for major new road,

‘Western Distributor Road’, Glenrothes, Fife, Scotland. (1996).

• East End Regeneration Route: visual impact assessment leading to strategy decisions for the

optimum routing of this new dual carriageway whose construction would act as a driver for

change in the East End of Glasgow. (2004).

Forestry/Greenbelt

• Study of landscape aspects of felling and restocking of several areas of existing coniferous

woodlands and change to native woodland species in catchment area for West of Scotland Water

at Loch Katrine, Strathclyde, Scotland. (1996).

• Environmental Study for Central Scotland Countryside Trust as part of the process to determine

future access and tree planting policy in the Greenbelt surrounding Falkirk, Scotland. (1997).

Residential

• Study for a proposed coastal Links Golf Residential Estate, close to the airport at Prestwick,

Scotland. (1998).

• A small residential development at L’ Avenir Winery, on an exposed and elevated site,

Stellenbosch, W Cape. (2007).

• A proposed residential development with open space over 3,460ha at St Helena Bay, W Cape, a

core project of the St Helena SDI, with Denis Moss Partnership and D J Environmental

Consultants. (2008).


Revision nr 01

• Phase 2 of De Zalze Residential Golf Estate, for Spier, Stellenbosch with Denis Moss Partnership

and D J Environmental Consultants. (2009).

• A proposed security estate in a long established residential suburb, Somerset West, W Cape with

Viridian Consulting. (2013).

• Second phase of middle income housing at Haasendal II, Kuilsriver, W Cape with Braaf

Environmental Practitioners. (2013).

• Weltevreden Hills, a proposed residential development directly adjacent to the Weltevreden

Historic Farm, Stellenbosch with Denis Moss Partnership, Stellenbosch. (2014).

• Farm 85, Patrys Valley, Stellenbosch, a proposed residential development close to Welgevonden

and to a building of heritage significance with Denis Moss Partnership, Stellenbosch. (2014).

• Strandfontein, W Cape with Macroplan. (2015)

• Residential Estate, Johannesdal, with Braaf Environmental (2016)

• Residential Development, Contract Nature Reserve, Paternostergroep, Kana Environmental

(2016)

• Visual Streetscape study for two dwellings and change to Guesthouse in Franschhoek. (2016)

• Visual Streetscape Study for four dwellings in Franschhoek (2016).

• Noordhoek, Evergreen Lifestyle Village with Planning Partners, Amdec Properties, (2017)

• Raithby Constraints Study and subsequent VIA for Residential Development, with Doug Jeffery

Environmental Consultants, (2017)

• Residential Development in Hout Bay with Cameron Consulting. (2017)

Mixed uses/Retail

• Mixed Use Development at Mandalay, Khayelitsha, Cape Town. Predominately housing, with

some commercial and institutional uses, opposite the railway station; with Braaf Environmental

Practitioners. (2009).

• Mixed Use Development, Crammix Brickworks, Cape Town. Change of use to predominately

housing, with some commercial and institutional uses, and integrated open space with Denis

Moss Partnership and D J Environmental Consultants. (2009).

• A new Retail Mall with car parking, Philippi, Cape Town on a green-field site and close to a major

traffic intersection with Power Construction and D J Environmental Consultants. (2011).

• Suider-Paarl Business Park, Paarl, W Cape. Located on the R101 just south of Paarl, and focussing

on motor car showrooms with Praktiplan, Paarl. (2013).

• Commercial Development on Farm Welgemoed, Atlantis, W Cape. At the junction of the R304

and Bloembosch Road, outside of the urban edge with Enviro Dinamik. (2013).

• Major new Retail Park, Office Development and Residential Estate in Paarl with Lazercor

Developments (Pty) Ltd and Meadowbridge (Pty) Ltd. (2016)

• New single residential, and retirement village, with Hotel, Hospital and Retail in Bredasdorp with

Braaf Environmental Practitioners. (2017)

Transmission Lines

• Eskom 400kV Transmission lines, servitude and screening issues, for De Wijnlanden Residential

Estate, Stellenbosch, W Cape with the Residents Association and Eskom. (2009).

• 132kV Transmission Lines to evacuate power generated from a WEF to the south-west of De Aar

at Maanhaarberg, direct to Eskom Hydra substation with Aurecon Group. (2011).

• 132kV Transmission Lines to evacuate power generated from a WEF north-east of De Aar at the

Eastern Plateau, direct to Bushbuck substation with Aurecon Group. (2011).

• 132kV Transmission Lines to evacuate power generated from a WEF north-east of De Aar at the

Eastern Plateau, direct to Eskom Hydra substation with Aurecon Group. (2013).

Industry and Agri-Industry

• Scrap Metal Yard at Blackheath, Cape Town; yard extension and screening concerns with Braaf

Environmental Practitioners. (2009).

• Meerlust Wine Estate, Proposed Bottling Plant in an agricultural area with Ron Martin Heritage.

(2009).


Revision nr 01

• A proposed industrial estate off the R101 between Paarl and Klapmuts for Agri-Industrial uses

with Braaf Environmental Practitioners. (2009).

• Value Logistics Warehouse Signage, Kraaifontein, with FJC Consulting, Cape Town and Goldcoast

Management, Wilderness. (2014)

• Geodetic Observatory, Matjiesfontein, with Ecosense, Stellenbosch (2015)

• Agri-industry vegetable plant, Aquaculture, West Coast with EnviroLogic, Cape Town. (2017)

• Canola Processing Plant, Klapmuts, with Ecosense, Stellenbosch (2017)

• Ernita Blueberry Farm Wellington, Visual Statement for Aikman Associates. (2017)

• New Guest Cottages, and Spa for Morgenster Wine Estate with Aikman Associates. (2017)

Education

• University of Cape Town Middle Campus, Rondebosch, for Urbanscapes, MLH Architects and

UCT; to assess impacts derived from change of use of multi-level piazza to new lecture theatre

and administration buildings. (2009).

Tourism

• Visual baseline study for tourism development at Kogel Bay Tourist Resort, Western Cape as part

of the Development Framework Policy document, for the City of Cape Town. (2009).

• New Airport Hotel, Edinburgh Airport, Scotland, assessment of relationship with other built form

on the land-side. (1997).

• Berg River Mouth Development; Vacation Apartments, Laaiplek Harbour, W Cape, with Dudley

Janeke Environmental Consultants, Somerset West. (2014)

Heritage

• Groote Schuur Estate, Rondebosch, Cape Town, Visual and Heritage Study for the Department of

Public Works (2009).

• Worcester Transport Interchange, W Cape, a proposed transport hub in the old centre with

Jakupa Architects and Urban Designers, and Cape Winelands Municipality. (2013).

• Bakkerskloof, house dated from 1792, Somerset West, W Cape, an assessment of development

works adjacent to an historic building with Herman Heunis Family Trust and Heritage Architects.

(2013).

Alternative Energy

• Scoping Study for Wind Turbines and Wind Measuring Masts in a number of sites around the N

and W Cape with D J Environmental Consultants. (2010).

• Wind Measuring Masts in Vredendal, Worcester, and De Aar with D J Environmental Consultants.

(2010).

• Wind Farms, Photovoltaic installations and Concentrating Solar Power Installations in six centres

in Western and Northern Cape, (De Aar, Vredendal, Worcester, Bitterfontein/Namaqualand,

Springbok, Copperton/Prieska) with D J Environmental Consultants. (2010).

• Photovoltaic Installation in Vredendal, W Cape with D J Environmental Consultants. (2010).

• Wind Farm near Koekenaap, W Cape with Aurecon Group. (2011).

• Wind Farm at Copperton, N Cape with Aurecon Group. (2011).

• Matzikamma Solar Park, Vredendal, W Cape with D J Environmental Consultants. (2011).

• Visual Scoping Study, Photovoltaic Installation, Aggeneys, N Cape with D J Environmental

Consultants. (2011).

• Two Wind Farms, Eastern Plateau, De Aar, N Cape with Aurecon Group. (2012).

• Three Photovoltaic Installations, at Paarde Valley, Badenhorst Dam Farm, Annex du Plessis Farm,

at De Aar, N Cape with Aurecon Group. (2011).

• Photo-voltaic installation, Hoekplaas Farm, Copperton, N Cape with Aurecon Group. (2012).

• Photo-voltaic installation, Klipgats Pan Farm, Copperton, N Cape with Aurecon Group. (2012).

• Photo-voltaic installation, Struisbult Farm, Copperton, N Cape with Aurecon Group. (2012).

• Wind Farm at Gouda, W Cape with Aurecon Group. (2011).

• Photo-voltaic installation, Stella, NW Province with Savannah Environmental (Pty) Ltd. (2013).


Revision nr 01

• Photo-voltaic installation, Wolmaransstad, NW Province, with Savannah Environmental (Pty) Ltd.

(2013).

• Photo-voltaic installation, Boshof, Free State, with Savannah Environmental (Pty) Ltd. (2013).

• Photo-voltaic installation, Hibernia, NW Province, Savannah Environmental (Pty) Ltd. (2013).

• Photo-voltaic installation, Boundary, Kimberley, Free State, with Savannah Environmental (Pty)

Ltd. (2013).

• Photo-voltaic installation, Blackwood, Kimberley, Free State, with Savannah Environmental (Pty)

Ltd. (2013).

• Wind Farm at Springbok, N Cape with Holland Environmental. (2015).

• Vredefort, Solar Farm, Touws River, SESCC. (2015).

Mining

• Palmiet Quarry Extension, Grabouw, W Cape with Site Plan Consulting, Strand, W Cape. (2011).

• Abandoned open cast coal mines for British Coal Opencast, at Knockshinnoch Nature Reserve,

Ayrshire, Scotland, and other locations, for recreational uses. (1998)

• Elandsfontein Minerals and Mining, Hopefield W Cape with Braaf Environmental Practitioners.

(2013-14).

• Velvet Mountain, Malmesbury, application for mining right to extract granite aggregate, with

Femcotech. (2016).

Landscape Planning

• Assessment of Durbanville Inner Valley, comprising six wine estates, and their tourism related

developments, residential sites and varying agricultural sectors, analysing potential visual impact

from proposed development with Alwyn Laubscher and Associates, Cape Town. (2016)

Karen Hansen has no business, financial, personal or other interest other than fair remuneration for

work performed in connection with these studies and there are no circumstances that may

compromise her objectivity in pursuing and serving the interests of the public.

Contact Details Karen Hansen CMLI

Physical Address: 4 Colombard Avenue, die Wingerd, Somerset West, 7130. Postal Address: Postnet

Suite 15, P Bag 15, Somerset West 7129. Phone/Fax: 021 855 2997. Cell 0728 408 900 E:

[email protected] w: www.visual-la.co.za

Other Information

BEE Certification by Empowerdex, Cape Town: Level 4, Exempt Micro Enterprise.

PAIA Manual available

Software: Global Mapper Terrain Analysis; Adobe Photoshop, CAD, all Microsoft programs

VAT nr: 4100261926

Banking: Capitec Bank, savings a/c; bank code: 470010; bank a/c: 1305323260, a/c name: KHLA.

November 2017

appendix g4: visual impact assessment report · 2018-12-12 · addendum to visual impact assessment...

Documents