AUTHORISATION FOR THE DEVELOPMENT
OF THE KNYSNA RIVER RESERVE (KRR)

18 February 2008 - Media Statement - Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism - MONDAY, 18 FEBRUARY 2008: The Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, Mr. Marthinus van Schalkwyk, has considered the appeals lodged against the Department’s decision to grant an environmental authorisation for the development of the Knysna River Reserve (KRR) by the West River Development Company on portion 45 of the farm Westford No. 191 and on a portion of the remainder of farm No. 488, district of Knysna.

After evaluating all the appeals and relevant information submitted to him, the Minister has reached a decision, a copy of which is attached hereto. Also find attached the revised record of decision.

APPEAL DECISION

APPEALS LODGED AGAINST THE ENVIRONMENTAL AUTHORISATION FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE KNYSNA RIVER RESERVE (KRR) BY THE WEST RIVER DEVELOPMENT COMPANY ON PORTION 45 OF THE FARM WESTFORD NO. 191 AND ON A PORTION OF THE REMAINDER OF FARM NO. 488, DISTRICT OF KNYSNA

1. INTRODUCTION

In terms of section 22 of the Environment Conservation Act (ECA), 1989, read with the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, published in Government Notice No. R1182 of 5 September 1997, the Director-General of the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT), on 28 March 2006, authorised the West River Development Company to proceed with the development of the KRR on the abovementioned farms. After the Record of Decision had been issued, three appeals were lodged against this authorisation.

2. BACKGROUND

The environmental authorisation of the KRR by the Director-General of DEAT envisaged that it would be developed as a sport based resort which is linked to the South African “Hall of Fame.” It was proposed that it would comprise the following:

A sports precinct that will include a sports club with clubhouse, a general purpose practice field suitable for a variety of sports, a “Hall of Fame” and accommodation units consisting of 60 stadium resort units, 275 clustered resort units and a resort hotel with 60 suites;
A nature resort precinct with 91 units comprising of 15 hillside; 34 forest fringe and 42 terrace units, for use by tourists and holiday makers;
A golf precinct which will include a golf course and 87 residences earmarked for permanent occupation;
A nature reserve precinct where no development is planned and within which the land will be afforded the highest conservation status.

3. APPEALS

Three appeals opposing the decision by the Director-General were lodged in terms of section 35(3) of the ECA. The following emerged as the major grounds of appeal:

An anticipated restriction of the use of public areas. Specific reference is made of the Old Drift picnic spot and the Phantom Pass road which runs through the property.
The possible detrimental effect of the development on the character of the Knysna River Valley.
The financial viability of the project. Should a lack of resources necessitate that the project be abandoned, a scarred and degraded landscape will be left behind.
Concerns relating to water supply and consumption.
Inadequate investigation of alternatives.
The possible effects of the development on the Knysna River ecosystem.
No reference was made in the ROD of the management of sewage.
The proposed development does not fully conform to the principles laid down in the Provincial Urban Edge Guidelines, the Western Cape Provincial Spatial Development Framework and the Guidelines for Golf Estates, Polo Fields and Polo Estates in the Western Cape.

4. DECISION

4.1 In reaching my decision I have taken into consideration the following documents and information listed below:

The project file, the record of decision (ROD), reference number 12/12/20/472 dated 28 March 2006 and the documents associated therewith.
The appeals lodged by the appellants.
The comments by West River Development Company and their consultants regarding the grounds of appeal.
Conditions subject to which this development could be allowed to proceed, as recommended by government institutions consulted.
The resolution of the Knysna Municipal Council on this proposed development (reference number KNY 191/45, dated 2 May 2007) and the conditions contained therein.
Information presented by the Minister of Water Affairs and Forestry on the availability of water for this development.
The decision of the Western Cape MEC for Environment, Planning and Economic Development on the application by the Knysna Municipality for amendments of the Knysna-Wilderness-Plettenberg Bay Regional Structure Plan (Ref.: E17/2/2/1/AK11 Prtn 45 Farm 191 & rem Farm 488 Knysna, dated 5 February 2008) and the conditions contained therein. These amendments had been applied for and were approved to provide for the development of the KRR.
4.2. The reasons for my decision are, inter alia, as follows:

I am of the view that the Director-General, in making her decision, adequately considered the major anticipated environmental impacts of the proposed development. By implementing the mitigating measures proposed in the EIR and the conditions contained in my Record of Decision (ROD) on this matter, as well as the conditions which are to be imposed by the Knysna Municipality, the anticipated environmental impacts of this development will be reduced to acceptable levels and will comply with the legislative prescripts.
The assurance given by the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry on the availability of water for the Knysna area and the comprehensive agreement to be entered into between the developer and the Knysna Municipality on water provision and the development and management of water infrastructure for the KRR will alleviate the concerns expressed about water supply and consumption.
By involving the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry in the design of the sewerage treatment plant and through the implementation of the relevant conditions in my ROD, the problems foreseen with the treatment of sewerage will be countered.
The approval of the relevant amendments to the Knysna-Wilderness-Plettenberg Bay Regional Structure Plan by the Western Cape Provincial Government and the concomitant adjustment of the development proposal (omission of the permanent residences associated with the golf course) have addressed the concerns regarding the alleged non-compliance with the provincial planning guidelines and have reduced the overall impact on the environment.
Through servitudes that will be registered by the developer, the right of access by the public to the Old Drift and the Phantom Pass, will be guaranteed.
4.3 In terms of section 35 of the Environment Conservation Act, 1989 (Act 73 of 1989), I have decided to dismiss the appeals lodged against the decision to authorise the development of the KRR on the relevant portions of Farms 191 and 488 in the Knysna area in the Western Cape

MARTHINUS VAN SCHALKWYK
MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS AND TOURISM

REVISED RECORD OF DECISION

KNYSNA RIVER RESERVE: REFERENCE 12/12/20/472

By virtue of the power vested in me in terms of section 22(3) of the Environment Conservation Act, (Act 73 of 1989) (“the Act”), I hereby authorise the West River Development Company (Pty) Ltd to undertake the activity specified/ detailed below subject to the indicated conditions.

1. DESCRIPTION, EXTENT AND LOCATION OF THE ACTIVITY:

The Knysna River Reserve (KRR) will be located on Portion 45 of the Farm Westford 191 and on a portion of the Remainder of Farm 488 in Knysna and will cover an area of 257,312ha. The development will be constructed in accordance with the site development plan No. 21, dated 13 October 2004, by Chittenden Nicks de Villiers. This plan is included in Appendix 1 of the environmental impact report (EIR) dated December 2004. To accommodate the proposed development on these properties, amendments to the Knysna-Wilderness-Plettenberg Bay Regional Structure Plan were necessary. The required amendments were approved on 5 February 2008 by the Western Cape Provincial Government, subject to certain conditions stipulated therein.

The development consists of the following:

- Construction of a resort which includes:

- A Sports precinct including a Sports Club with club house, a general purpose practice field suitable for a variety of sports, a “Hall of Fame” and accommodation units including a resort hotel with 60 suites, 60 stadium resort units and 275 clustered resort units;
- A Nature Resort precinct with 91 units, including 15 hillside, 34 forest fringe and 42 terrace units for use by tourists and holiday makers;
- A Golf precinct which includes a golf course;
- A Nature Reserve precinct where no development is planned and the land will be afforded the highest conservation status.

- Construction of a sewage treatment plant with a capacity of 462m³/d.

- Construction of roads.

- The construction of a permanent water reservoir for bulk water supply.

- The construction of a temporary storage facility for bulk fuel supply during construction.

The project falls within the ambit of sub-regulations 2 (c), 1(c), 1(d), 1(k) and 1(m) of Government Notice R.1182 (as amended) promulgated under sections 21, 26 and 28 of the Act.

2. KEY FACTORS INFORMING THE DECISION:

In reaching my decision in respect of the application, I have taken, inter alia, the following into consideration:

2.1 The information contained in:

The record of decision (ROD), reference number 12/12/20/472, dated 28 March 2006 and the documents associated therewith;
The appeals lodged by the appellants;
The comments by West River Development Company and their consultants regarding the grounds of appeal;
Conditions subject to which this development could be allowed to proceed, as recommended by government institutions consulted;
The resolution of the Knysna Municipal Council on this proposed development (reference number KNY 191/45, dated 2 May 2007) and the conditions contained therein;
Information presented by the Minister of Water Affairs and Forestry on the availability of water for this development;
The decision of the Western Cape MEC for Environment, Planning and Economic Development on the application by the Knysna Municipality for amendments of the Knysna-Wilderness-Plettenberg Bay Regional Structure Plan (Ref.: E17/2/2/1/AK11 Prtn 45 Farm 191 & rem Farm 488 Knysna, dated 5 February 2008) and the conditions contained therein. These amendments had been applied for and were approved to provide for the development of the KRR.
I have accordingly decided to grant the West River Development Company (Pty) Limited authorisation in terms of Regulations R 1182 and R 1183, promulgated under section 21, 22 and 26 of the Act for the activities specified below, subject to the conditions and provisions listed below.

3. CONDITIONS

3.1 DESCRIPTION AND EXTENT OF THE ACTIVITY

This authorisation applies in respect of:

<
The construction of a resort;
The construction of a sewage treatment plant;
The construction of access roads;
The construction of a reservoir for bulk water supply;
The construction of a temporary storage facility for storage of fuel during the construction period;
The change in land use as provided for by the amendment of the Knysna-Wilderness-Plettenberg Bay Regional Structure Plan, as approved by the Western Cape Government on 5 February 2008.
3.2 SPECIFIC CONDITIONS

3.2.1 Independent Environmental Control Officer (ECO)

3.2.1.1 The developer must appoint an Independent Environmental Control Officer (ECO) who will act on behalf of the Environmental Monitoring Committee (EMC) (see section 3.2.2). During the construction phase, the ECO will on a daily basis monitor the compliance of construction activities with the conditions of this ROD; relevant environmental legislation and with the recommendations contained in the Environmental Management Plan (EMP). The cost of the ECO shall be borne by the developer.

3.2.1.2 The ECO shall ensure that periodic environmental performance audits, as agreed upon by the EMC, are undertaken on the project activities both during and after construction.

3.2.1.3 The ECO shall submit an environmental compliance report on a monthly basis, in writing, to the Director-General of the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT), copied to the Western Cape Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning (DEADP), the Knysna Municipality, the EMC and the developer.

3.2.1.4 The ECO shall maintain the following on site:

A daily site diary;
A non-conformance register;
A public complaint register.
3.2.2 Environmental Monitoring Committee (EMC)

3.2.2.1 This development is authorised on condition that the developer establish an EMC. The EMC must report to the Director-General of DEAT, copied to the Western Cape DEADP, the Knysna Municipality and the developer. The EMC must meet on a regular basis, as agreed from time to time by the Committee from the initiation of the project until completion of the final rehabilitation works.

3.2.2.2 Members of the EMC shall be drawn from the following sectors:

The developer;
Representatives of the public, selected from registered I&APs and/or non-governmental organisations of good standing;
Environmental Control Officer;
Authorities (DEAT, Western Cape DEADP and the Knysna Municipality will only act as observers and will not be active members of the EMC).
3.2.2.3 The EMC must appoint a Chairperson from the members of the EMC.

3.2.2.4 The developer shall provide a secretariat service to the EMC. This shall include but not be limited to the arrangement of meetings, preparing agendas after consultation with the Chairperson and compiling and distributing minutes or any other relevant documentation to the members of the EMC.

3.2.2.5 The EMC shall undertake the following:

Monitoring compliance with the conditions of this ROD, with the conditions contained in the agreement between the Knysna Municipality and the developer, with any relevant environmental legislation and with the mitigation requirements contained in section 5 of the EIR;
Reporting and making recommendations to the Director-General of DEAT and to the Municipal Manager of Knysna on the issues mentioned in (a) above.
3.2.3 Environmental Management Plan (EMP)

3.2.3.1 The developer must submit an EMP for construction to DEAT and the Knysna Municipality for approval before commencement of any of the activities related to this authorisation. This EMP must cover the following aspects:

Rehabilitation of areas to be disturbed during the construction phase of the project;
Location and management of construction camps;
Access roads to individual construction areas;
Plant search and rescue before commencement of any construction activities;
Protection of heritage sites which may be impacted by the development;
Waste management during construction;
Management of traffic especially where the site access roads and other transportation networks overlap;
All mitigation measures, as described in section 5 of the environmental impact report, forms part of this record of decision and must be implemented as part of the EMP.
3.2.3.2 Once approved, the revised construction EMP will be regarded as a dynamic document. However, any substantial changes, although they may be environmentally justifiable, must be resubmitted for approval before they could be effected.

3.2.3.3 Compliance with the approved construction EMP must form part of all tender documentation for all contractors working on the project and must be endorsed contractually.

3.2.3.4 The developer must also submit an EMP for the operational phase of the development to DEAT and the Knysna Municipality for approval, prior to the completion of construction phase of the development. The revised operational EMP will be regarded as a dynamic document. However, any substantial changes, although they may be environmentally justifiable, must be resubmitted for approval before they could be effected.

3.2.3.5 All contractors working on site must be informed of the conditions of the ROD and the contents of the EMP.

i. Rehabilitation after construction

1.No exotic plant species may be used for rehabilitation purposes. Only indigenous plants may be utilised.
2.Implementation of measures aimed at controlling invasive plant species and weeds must be implemented.
3.No disturbance of the land at the rivers edge is allowed under any circumstances.

ii. Erosion control

1. The erosion potential of the plantation area is very high. Special precautions must be taken to protect that area against erosion.

2. Cover sands have a tendency to slump during periods of high rainfall. Special care must be taken with storm water management in such areas.

3. Any cleared areas or areas subject to earth moving must be adequately protected against erosion.

4. Construction of golf courses usually requires major earth works. To soften the impact thereof, earth works should be phased to prevent denudation of large areas for long periods. Revegetation should follow earth works with minimum delay.

iii. Sewerage treatment plant

1. Particular care must be taken to protect the sewerage treatment plant against inundation during periods of severe flooding.

2. The relevant comments of the appellants must be taken into consideration when operational guidelines for the plant are compiled.

iv. Use of public areas

1. No structures such as jetties must be allowed in the river.

2. No powerboats must be allowed in the river. The use of rowing boats must be encouraged.

3. Adequate toilet facilities must be provided where the general public has access to the terrain.

v. Compliance with other legislation

3.2.8.1 Archaeological remains, artificial features and structures older than 60 years are protected in terms of the National Heritage Resources Act, Act 25 of 1999. Should any archaeological artefacts be exposed during any excavation, construction in the vicinity of the finding must be stopped. An archaeologist must be called to the site for inspection. Under no circumstances shall any artefacts be destroyed or removed from the site. The South African Heritage Resource Agency must be informed immediately. Their recommendations should be included in the construction EMP and be adhered to.

3.2.8.2 No excavation of borrow pits shall be allowed before a permit to do so has been obtained from the Department of Minerals and Energy in terms of the Minerals and Petroleum Resources Development Act, Act 28 of 2002.

3.2.8.3 All provisions of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, Act 85 of 1993, and any other applicable legislation must be adhered to by the holder of this authorisation.

3.2.8.4 All provisions of the National Water Act, Act 36 of 1998, must be adhered to by the holder of this authorisation.

3.2.9 Conditions imposed by other organs of State

3.2.9.1 All conditions imposed by other organs of State, most notably, the Western Cape Provincial Government and the Knysna Municipality must be adhered to and must form part of this authorisation as if specifically incorporated herein.

3.3 GENERAL CONDITIONS

3.3.1 This authorisation is granted only in terms of section 22 of the Environment Conservation Act, Act 73 of 1989, and does not exempt the holder thereof from compliance with any other legislation.

3.3.2 This authorisation refers only to the activity as specified and described in the EIR dated December 2004. Any other activity listed under Government Notices R386 or R387 made in terms of the National Environmental Management Act (Act 107 of 1998 “NEMA”) which is not specified above, is not covered by this authorisation, and must therefore comply with the requirements of NEMA, and Government Notices R385, R386 and R387.

3.3.3 This authorisation is subject to the approval of the relevant local authorities in terms of any legislation administered by those authorities.

3.3.4 One week’s written notice must be given to DEAT before commencement of construction activities. Such notice shall make clear reference to the site location details and reference number given above.

3.3.5 The applicant shall be responsible for ensuring compliance with the conditions contained in this ROD by any person acting on his behalf, including but not limited to, an agent, servant, or employee or any person rendering a service to the applicant in respect of the activity, including but not limited to, contractors and consultants.

3.3.6 The applicant must notify DEAT in writing, within 24 (twenty four) hours if any condition of this authorisation cannot, or is not, adhered to. The notification must be supplemented with reasons for non-compliance.

3.3.7 A copy of the authorisation, ROD and the construction EMP shall be available on site during construction and all staff, contractors and sub-contractors shall be familiar with, or be made aware of, the contents of this authorisation, ROD and the construction EMP.

3.3.8 Compliance/non-compliance records must be kept and shall be made available on request from the authorities within five days of receipt of the request.

3.3.9 Any changes to, or deviations from, the project description set out in this letter must be approved, in writing, by DEAT before such changes or deviations may be effected. In assessing whether to grant such approval or not, DEAT may request such information as it deems necessary to evaluate the significance and impacts of such changes or deviations.

3.3.10 DEAT may review the conditions contained in this authorisation from time to time and may by notice in writing to the applicant, amend, add or remove a condition.

3.3.11 In the event that the predicted impacts exceed the significance as predicted by the independent consultant in the EIR dated December 2004 and supporting documentation, the authorisation may be withdrawn after proper procedures have been followed.

3.3.12 In the event of any dispute concerning the significance of a particular impact, the opinion of DEAT in respect of its significance will prevail.

3.3.13 The applicant must notify DEAT, in writing, at least 10 (ten) days prior to the change of ownership, project developer or the alienation of any similar rights for the activity described in this ROD. The applicant must furnish a copy of this document to the new owner, developer or person to whom the rights accrue and inform the new owner, developer or person to whom the rights accrue that the conditions contained herein are binding on them.

3.3.14 Where any of the applicant’s contact details change, including the name of the responsible person, the physical or postal address and/or telephonic details, the applicant must notify DEAT as soon as the new details become known to the applicant.

3.3.15 National, provincial or local government authorities or committees appointed in terms of the conditions of this authorisation or by or in terms of any other public authority or authorisation shall not be held responsible for any damages or losses suffered by the applicant or his successor in title in any instance where construction or operation subsequent to construction be temporarily or permanently stopped for reasons of non-compliance by the applicant with the conditions of approval as set out in this document or any other subsequent document emanating from these conditions of approval.

3.3.16 If any condition imposed in terms of this authorisation is not complied with, the authorisation may be withdrawn after 30 days written notice to the applicant in terms of section 22(4) of the Environment Conservation Act, 1989 (Act No. 73 of 1989).

3.3.17 Failure to comply with any of these conditions shall also be regarded as an offence and may be dealt with in terms of sections 29, 30 and 31 of the Environment Conservation Act, 1989, Act 73 of 1989, as well as any other appropriate legal mechanisms.

3.3.18 The applicant shall be responsible for all costs necessary to comply with the above conditions unless otherwise specified.

3.3.19 Any complaint from the public during construction must be attended to as soon as possible to the satisfaction of the parties concerned. A complaints register must be kept up to date and shall be produced upon request.

3.3.20 Officials of DEAT shall be given access, at all reasonable times, to the construction areas referred to under the project description above for the purpose of assessing and/or monitoring compliance with the conditions contained in this document.

3.3.21 All outdoor advertising associated with this activity, whether on or off the property concerned, must comply with the South African Manual for Outdoor Advertising Control (SAMOAC), which is available from DEAT.

3.4 DURATION OF AUTHORISATION

If the activity authorised by this ROD does not commence within 4 (four) years from the date of signature of the ROD, the authorisation will lapse and the applicant will need to reapply in terms of the applicable legislation or any amendments thereto.

4. CONSEQUENCES OF NON-COMPLIANCE

The applicant must comply with the conditions set out in this letter. Failure to comply with any of the above conditions may result, inter alia, in the withdrawal of the authorisation, the issuing of directives to address the non-compliance - including an order to cease the activity - as well as the institution of criminal and/or civil proceedings to enforce compliance.

5. APPLICANT:

West River Development Company (Pty) Ltd
P O Box 596
KNYSNA
6570

6. CONSULTANT:

Andrew West Environmental Consultancy
P O Box 9187
GEORGE
6530

MARTHINUS VAN SCHALKWYK
MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS AND TOURISM

Enquiries to:
Riaan Aucamp (Minister's Spokesperson)

Appeal decision - THE ENVIRONMENTAL AUTHORISATION OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF A REST CAMP IN THE AGULHAS NATIONAL PARK

22 November 2007 - Media Statement - Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism - MONDAY, 18 FEBRUARY 2008: The Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, Mr. Marthinus van Schalkwyk, has considered the appeals lodged against the Department’s decision to grant an environmental authorisation for the construction of a rest camp in the Agulhas National Park.

After evaluating all the appeals and relevant information submitted to him, the Minister has reached a decision, a copy of which is attached hereto.

APPEAL DECISION

APPEALS AGAINST THE ENVIRONMENTAL AUTHORISATION OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF A REST CAMP IN THE AGULHAS NATIONAL PARK

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1) The project in question relates to the establishment of a 70 bed tourist rest camp and associated infrastructure at “Pietie se Punt” in the Agulhas National Park (ANP) in the Western Cape. The total estimated surface area (“footprint”) of the proposed rest camp is approximately 24 000 square metres and includes:

a) 21 accommodation units covering an area of 50 square metres to 80 square metres per unit;
b) Upgrading of the existing 8 bed accommodation unit;
c) A main reception complex of approximately 250 square metres, which includes a reception area, administrative offices, public toilets and a convenience store; and
d) Gravel access road and internal roads, which are approximately 2.5 km long and 5m wide with surfacing of certain sections.

1.2) The applicant in this project is the South African National Parks (SANParks).

1.3) In terms of the environmental impact assessment (EIA) regulations as contained in the Environment Conservation Act, 1989 (Act No 73 of 1989 [ECA]), and which Act still governs this project, the construction of a facility of this nature is subject to EIA and an environmental authorisation.

1.4) A positive record of decision (ROD) was granted in respect of this development on 12 September 2007. However one appeal was received by my office against the
proposed project.

1.5) My decision regarding the administrative appeal lodged against the Department’s decision to grant authorisation in terms of section 22 of ECA for the proposed facility is indicated in paragraph 3 hereunder.

2. BACKGROUND

2.1 The appeal

After the ROD in this matter was issued, my office received one appeal from the Suidpunt Environmental Alliance, represented by its director, Ms M Cowper-Lewis. The grounds of appeal are briefly as follows:

a) Process allegedly flawed
The allegation is that the process was fatally flawed throughout since none of the several site proposals, already with existing infrastructure, made by the public and interested and affected parties (I&APs) during the public participation process were ever considered. The site chosen was one of three selected by SANParks.

b) Spirit and sense of place
The appellant submits that the rest camp, however environmentally friendly the planning may be, will destroy the spirit and sense of place of the unique coastal lagoon.

c) The effects of climate change
The appellant states that climate change is already with us, and is increasing incrementally year by year. The appellant furthermore refers to buildings and structures near Struisbaai that, according to the appellant, are proving this to be true, as some are falling into the sea. In the appellant’s opinion, it is therefore reckless and irresponsible to create any development as close to the high water mark as the proposed rest camp will be.

d) Destruction of historical landmark
It is the submission of appellant that by redesigning and upgrading the building known as “Pietie se Punt”, yet another authentic historical landmark will be destroyed for posterity. According to the appellant, the structure should rather be carefully restored to exactly the same condition in which it was when it was first built in the previous century, even though this restoration would not be ideally suitable for an upmarket guest lodge.

2.2 The applicant’s response to the appeal, the appellant’s reply and the Department’s comments

The alleged flawed process
The applicant denies that the site proposals of the public and I&APs were never considered. According to the applicant they were in fact considered, but were decided against for good reasons. The three coastal options considered by SANParks were guided by the Agulhas National Park Infrastructure Development Plan and Conservation Development Framework, as well as by I&AP inputs. The coastal placement of the development, rather than inland as advocated by the appellant, is in line with the key theme of the ANP, which is “at the southernmost tip of the African continent where the two oceans meet”. In the case of the ANP, the ocean/coast is a major attribute. In its comments, the Department agreed with the applicant’s response and added that development at “Pietie se Punt” was found to be environmentally acceptable and that the appellant’s reply to the comments of SANParks added nothing that could rebut the applicant’s arguments.
The alleged destruction of the spirit and sense of place
In its response, the applicant stated that the project was approved subject to conditions that were set in accordance with planning, legal and administrative requirements. In addition to these, approval was given subject to specific management and mitigation measures as contained in an Environmental Management Plan (EMP). The EMP describes the controls over the implementation, environmental restoration after construction and operational phase of the project, all in support of sustainable development. In its reply, the appellant merely reiterated that the rest camp, however environmentally friendly the planning may be, will destroy the spirit and sense of place of the unique coastal lagoon. The Department, in its comments, concurred with the applicant. While conceding that there will be negative impacts, the question that needs to be answered is how significant these impacts will be after mitigation measures have been applied. The EIA concluded that the net impact of the development is environmentally acceptable with significant positive impacts.
The alleged effects of climate change
SANParks responded to this by saying that the available information shows that there is no risk of inundation by storms and sea level rise. None of the recent extreme storms experienced caused inundation. The applicant stated that it is fully aware of the various viewpoints on the sea level rise, but must take decisions on the current information available. In its reply, the appellant reiterated the dangers of rising sea levels and referred to the massive destruction caused to property and our natural coastlines. The Department disagrees with the Appellant’s contentions in this regard.
d) The alleged destruction of a historical landmark
SANParks indicated in its response that it is fully aware of the historical and architectural significance of “Pietie se Punt” as a heritage resource. Therefore the upgrading, restoration and use of the site will be according to the conditions of the necessary permit in compliance with section 34(1) of the National Heritage Resources Act, 1999 (Act 25 of 1999). The appellant replied by repeating its argument that an authentic historical landmark will be destroyed for posterity. The Department has, however, been provided with proof that the Heritage Western Cape, on 17 January 2008, approved the proposed restoration work on the building. Concerning the site generally, it may be mentioned that Heritage Western Cape has also indicated that it is satisfied that the requirements of section 38 of Act 25 of 1999 have been met insofar as the conservation and mitigation of archaeological sites are concerned.

3. DECISION

In reaching a decision, the following information was taken in consideration-

The project file;
The ROD issued by the Director-General on 12 September 2007;
The appeal, the response of the consultant acting on behalf of SANParks thereto and the appellant’s reply thereto; and
The Department’s response to the grounds of appeal.
3.1 I am satisfied that the decision made by the Department in the original ROD was correct for, inter alia, the following reasons:

the documents before me indicate that the process followed was in line with the requirements of the Act;
I am satisfied that the Applicant has considered the environmental impact of this development and that the proposed mitigation measures adequately mitigate these impacts and conform to the requirements of the relevant legislative prescripts;
The development has significant benefits;
I am also satisfied with the approval granted by Heritage Western Cape, which will ensure compliance with the provisions of the heritage legislation and which will address the concerns raised around heritage issues.
3.2 I have accordingly, in terms of section 35 of the ECA, decided to uphold the decision issued by the Director General on 12 September 2007. The appeal lodged against the decision to grant environmental authorisation for the establishment of the proposed rest camp and its associated infrastructure is dismissed.
MARTHINUS VAN SCHALKWYK, MP
MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS AND TOURISM
Riaan Aucamp (Minister's Spokesperson)