08
May 2008 - Speech
SPEECH BY MARTHINUS VAN SCHALKWYK, MINISTER
OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS AND TOURISM, INTRODUCTION
OF THE INTEGRATED COASTAL MANAGEMENT BILL
IN THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY ON THURSDAY 8 MAY
2008
Introduction
The coast is a unique
part of our environment. It is a distinctive
system in which a range of considerations
- biophysical, economic, social and institutional
- interconnect, in a manner which requires
a dedicated and integrated management approach.
Unfortunately, our coastline
is currently not being managed and developed
in a way that optimizes its resources and
opportunities. Economic and social opportunities
for wealth creation and equity are being
missed while coastal ecosystems are being
systematically degraded. This Bill sets
out to correct this.
The Integrated Coastal
Management Bill which I am introducing today
will replace the existing 1935 Seashore
Act. The Bill also replaces the 1980 Control
of Dumping at Sea Act and introduces, for
the first time, a comprehensive national
system for planning and managing South Africa’s
spectacular and valuable coastal areas.
I am therefore pleased
that the Environmental Affairs and Tourism
Portfolio Committee has approved this Bill
for tabling in Parliament. It should therefore
be enacted speedily to safeguard both people
and property, while at the same time promoting
access to the coast and facilitating integrated
development.
PURPOSE OF THE BILL
Fundamentally, the purpose
of the National Coastal Management Bill
is to:
Provide a legal and
administrative framework that will promote
cooperative, coordinated and integrated
coastal development;
Preserve, protect and enhance the status
of the coastal environment as the heritage
that belongs to us all.
Ensure coastal resources are managed in
the interest of the whole community;
Ensure there is equitable access to the
opportunities and benefits derived from
the coast; and
To give effect to certain of South Africa‘s
international legal obligations.
This Bill declares the seashore, coastal
waters (including estuaries) and South Africa’s
territorial seas, to be coastal public property.
It therefore also requires the state to
act as the trustee of coastal public property.
This Bill will also require that appropriate
public access servitudes are established
along the coast to ensure that access for
our people to our natural heritage, remains
unhindered.
You will recall the
devastating effects of the sea storms this
time last year - especially along the KwaZulu-Natal
coastline. The cost to property and municipal
infrastructure has been estimated at well
over R1 billion rand and repairs are still
underway, one year later. Unfortunately,
with the increase in sea levels and the
forecast of more frequent storms due to
erratic weather patterns which is attributed
to climate change, the situation will only
get worse. This Bill will therefore establish
a coastal protection zone inland of the
high-water mark within which certain activities
will be prohibited and additional development
controls will be applied - such as stricter
Environmental Impact Assessments.
It also gives government
the power to prevent development too close
to the sea by establishing ‘set-back lines’.
These measures are important not only to
preserve the beauty of coastal landscapes
but also to respond to threats posed by,
for example, rising sea-levels associated
with climate change or dynamic coastal processes.
Excellent coastal water
quality is not only essential to our burgeoning
tourism sector but also to ensure the maintenance
and expansion of the aquaculture industry.
There have been a number of recent reports
in the media about sewage spills and sub-standard
effluent from fish factories being discharged
into harbours and the coastal zone - with
devastating effects. This Bill makes provision
for coastal waters discharge permits and
dumping permits and stipulates that all
existing effluent discharges into the sea
and estuaries should be critically reviewed.
Another innovation of
the Bill is the establishment of a comprehensive
system of coastal planning. National government,
coastal provinces and coastal municipalities
will be given powers to establish coastal
management programmes (“CMPs”) that set
specific, enforceable, coastal management
objectives that will guide decision-makers.
I would like to draw your attention to an
important amendment that was introduced
following the consultative public participation
process. A subtext has been added to Section
49 that now places an obligation on municipalities
with regard to their Municipal Coastal Management
Programmes. This means that their strategies
and priorities will make provision for the
equitable designation of zones for the purpose
of mixed-cost housing. This not only takes
into account the needs of previously disadvantaged
individuals but will also ensure that people
across all income groups are able to own
property along the coast in the future.
In all four the coastal
provinces government is involved in legal
action against people that have erected
illegal structures, often on state land,
with no regard for the environment and the
existing laws of the country. These are
normally costly and drawn out processes.
For example, a civil court case against
a group of illegal developers along the
Wild Coast in the Eastern Cape has taken
some 5 years. The Bill provides for government
to exercise better control over structures
erected illegally in the coastal zone e.g.
houses, jetties and retaining walls.
Bad catchment management
practices coupled with development pressures
have had severe impacts on many of our estuarine
systems. The Bill makes provision for improved
estuarine management in South Africa through
the development of an over-arching national
estuarine management protocol and management
plans for individual estuaries.
Conclusion
The new Integrated Coastal
Management Bill is both far-reaching and
progressive. We are now on an accelerated
path to decisive action that will provide
clear parameters for the planning of future
coastal developments, and create economic
and recreational opportunities by increasing
access to our coastal public property.
Honorable Members, I’m
sure that I can provide you with numerous
examples where indiscriminate decisions
have adversely affected our coast and coastal
communities. We can, as a country, no longer
afford to take decisions without taking
all relevant factors and stakeholders into
account. And this includes considering the
inputs of all coastal stakeholders. This
Bill requires the Premiers of the coastal
provinces to appoint lead agents for coastal
management in their provinces. This Bill
further provides for coordinating structures
in the form of a national and four provincial
coastal committees - which will be mandatory.
The Bill will also empower municipalities
to establish municipal coastal committees.
While the latter will not be mandatory,
we hope that municipalities will see the
benefits of establishing these structures.
In conclusion, this
Bill promotes a holistic way of thinking
by promoting coordinated and integrated
coastal management, which views the coast
as a system and emphasizes the importance
of managing it as such.
Madam Speaker, I cannot
adequately express my appreciation and thanks
to the Chairperson and Members of the Portfolio
Committee for their thorough deliberations,
guidance and support for this Bill.
I thank you.
+ More
Appeal decision - proposed
construction of a 765kV transmission line
and its associated infrastructure from Zeus
substation, Mpumalanga, to Mercury substation
09 May 2008 - Media
Statement - Department of Environmental
Affairs and Tourism - FRIDAY, 09 MAY 2008:
The Minister of Environmental Affairs and
Tourism, Mr Marthinus van Schalkwyk, has
considered the appeals against the Department’s
decision to grant authorisation to the applicant
for the proposed construction of a 765kV
transmission line and its associated infrastructure
from Zeus substation, Mpumalanga, to Mercury
substation, North West Province.
After evaluating all
the appeals and relevant information submitted
to him, the Minister has come to a decision
as attached hereto.
APPEAL DECISION
APPEALS AGAINST THE
ENVIRONMENTAL AUTHORISATION OF THE PROPOSED
CONSTRUCTION OF A 765kV TRANSMISSION LINE
AND ITS ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE FROM ZEUS
SUBSTATION, MPUMALANGA, TO MERCURY SUBSTATION,
NORTH WEST PROVINCE
1.INTRODUCTION
In terms of section
22 of the Environment Conservation Act,
1989 (ECA), 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 2 March 2007 authorised Eskom to proceed
with the construction of a 765kV transmission
line and its associated infrastructure between
the Zeus substation near Secunda, Mpumalanga,
and the Mercury substation near Orkney,
North West Province. After the record of
decision (ROD) had been issued, eight appeals
were submitted against the authorisation.
2.BACKGROUND
2.1 This transmission
line will form part of an important component
of the Alpha (near Standerton, Mpumalanga);
Hydra (near De Aar, Northern Cape); Gamma
(near Koeberg, Western Cape) 765kV network.
This network will also be extended with
a 765kV link between the Hydra substation
and the Grassridge substation near Port
Elizabeth. Thus, the current 400kV transmission
network providing the Eastern and Western
Cape will be substantially upgraded. The
400kV network is expected to reach its transfer
limits during 2008.
2.2 The development
will comprise of a transmission line of
approximately 260km in length and of the
expansion of the Mercury and Zeus substations
to accommodate the new 765kV transformers.
At Zeus the additional area will be 28 ha
(700m x 400m), while at Mercury the additional
area will be 44 ha (1000m x 400m). Access
and service roads will also have to be constructed
where necessary.
3.APPEALS
3.1 Eight appeals were
submitted against the authorisation of the
proposed transmission line by the DEAT.
The appeals originated from an area limited
to a stretch of line approximately 12km
in length, situated between Potchefstroom
and the Vredefort Dome World Heritage Site
(VDWHS). Three different route alternatives
had been identified in this area, namely
an eastern alternative (closest to the VDWHS),
a western alternative (farthest away from
the VDWHS) and a central alternative, which
follows the route of the existing 400kV
transmission line. While the eastern alternative
was singled out as the preferred option
in the environmental impact report (EIR),
the western alternative was authorised by
the DEAT. All the appeals were submitted
by land owners along the western alternative.
3.2 The following emerged
as the major grounds of appeal:
The authorisation of
the western alternative is contradictory
to the recommendation of the eastern alternative
as the preferred route in the EIR. No reasons
were provided for the authorisation of the
western alternative.
None of the land owners
along the western route were consulted about
the identification of that route as the
preferred route.
Although the visual
impact on the VDWHS of a line along the
western route will be minimal, the line
will have a major visual impact as well
as an impact on land use in the area which
it will traverse.
3.3 The appellants persuaded
Eskom to undertake an extended study of
the three alternative route alignments as
well as of any other reasonable route options
in the area. During the EIA phase of the
project, the study of the three alternatives
focused mainly on visual aspects. It was
then agreed that the study team for the
extended study, in addition to a visual
impact specialist, would also include an
ecologist, archaeologist, ornithologist
and a social specialist. In view of the
additional information assembled during
the extended study, it was concluded that
the anticipated impact of a line along the
central route will be more acceptable than
on any of the other alignment options.
4. DECISION
4.1 In reaching my decision
on the appeals against the authorisation
of this proposed development, I have taken
the following into consideration:
4.1.1 The information
contained in:
The project file (ref.
12/12/20/433).
The appeals submitted by the eight appellants
against the authorisation of the construction
of the transmission line along the western
route alignment in the area between Potchefstroom
and the VDWHS.
The response of the applicant and the DEAT
to the grounds of appeal.
The report on the Vredefort Dome Extended
Study.
4.1.2 The dire need for the establishment
of this 765kV link to ensure a stable supply
of electricity to the Western Cape and to
essential development initiatives such as
the Coega Industrial Zone near Port Elizabeth.
4.1.3 The indication
in the Vredefort Dome Extended Study that,
with the exception of its visual impact,
the anticipated impact of a line along the
central route on the biodiversity of the
area, on the avifauna, on land-use, on sense
of place and on social attributes is more
acceptable than on any of the other alignment
options.
4.1.4 The fact that
none of the alternative route alignments
identified encroaches upon the buffer zone
of the VDWHS. With a buffer zone of 5km,
the direct impact on the Dome area itself
of a transmission line along any of the
identified routes will be minimal.
4.2 Having considered
the above information I have concluded that:
4.2.1 The need for the
development has been adequately demonstrated.
4.2.2 The appeals against
the construction of the transmission line
along the western route alignment are substantive.
4.2.3 The anticipated
impacts associated with the construction
of the transmission line along the central
route alignment will be more acceptable
than along any of the other identified route
alignments.
4.2.4 The VDWHS will
be minimally affected by the construction
of the transmission line along the central
route alignment option.
4.2.5 The conditions
enclosed in the attached Record of Decision
are deemed adequate to mitigate the identified
impacts to acceptable levels.
4.3 Hence, in terms
of section 35(4) of the Environment Conservation
Act, 1989 (Act 73 of 1989) I have decided
to -
4.3.1 Uphold the appeals
against the environmental authorisation
of this development by the Director-General
of the DEAT; and
4.3.2 vary the original
environmental authorisation in that, in
the area between Potchefstroom and the Vredefort
Dome World Heritage Site, the transmission
line must be erected along the central route
alignment option, as is described in paragraph
1(a) of the attached Record of Decision
and in accordance with the conditions set
out in paragraph 3 thereof.
MARTHINUS VAN SCHALKWYK,
MP
MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS AND TOURISM
RECORD OF DECISION
ISSUED BY THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL
AFFAIRS AND TOURISM:
APPEALS AGAINST THE
ENVIRONMENTAL AUTHORISATION BY THE DEPARTMENT
OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS AND TOURISM OF
THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF A 765kV TRANSMISSION
LINE AND ITS ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE FROM
THE ZEUS SUBSTATION, MPUMALANGA, TO THE
MERCURY SUBSTATION, NORTH WEST PROVINCE
(PROJECT REFERENCE 12/12/20/433)
In terms of section
22(3), read with section 35(4) of the Environment
Conservation Act, 1989 (Act No. 73 of 1989)
(“the Act”) I, Marthinus van Schalkwyk,,
hereby authorise Eskom to undertake the
activity described below, subject to the
conditions contained herein.
1. DESCRIPTION, EXTENT
AND LOCATION OF THE ACTIVITY:
The proposed project
comprises of the following:
Construction of a 765kV
transmission line from the Zeus substation
near Standerton in Mpumalanga to the Mercury
substation, near Orkney in North West Province.
The proposed transmission line will be approximately
255km in length. It will follow the ZM 1
corridor as recommended in the environmental
impact report (EIR) dated July 2006. Eskom
will acquire an 80m servitude (40m on either
side of the centre line) within this corridor.
In the area north-west of the Vredefort
Dome World Heritage Site (VDWHS) and south-east
of Potchefstroom the ZM1 corridor must follow
the central alignment. Between the point
where the central alignment crosses the
boundary between the farm Rooipoortje 453
IQ and the farm Roodekraal 454 IQ, and the
point where the central alignment crosses
the road on the farm Vogelzang 467 IQ, the
ZM 1 corridor will be extended south eastwards
for a distance of two kilometres. Within
the extended corridor thus formed (hereinafter
called the ”Extended Corridor”), Eskom must
complete the determination of the final
alignment of the transmission line through
negotiation with every land owner whose
property will be traversed by the line.
Once the final alignment in the Extended
Corridor has been determined, it must be
submitted to me for approval.
The line will consist of 55m high cross-rope
suspension towers with strain towers on
difficult terrain and on bends greater than
3º.
; Expansion of the Mercury and Zeus substations
to accommodate the new 765kV transformers.
At Zeus the additional area will be 28 ha
(700m x 400m), while at Mercury the additional
area will be 44 ha (1000m x 400m).
Construction of access roads where necessary
and the installation of gates where the
line crosses farm boundaries.
The project falls within the ambit of items
1(a) and (d) of Government Notice R.1182
promulgated under section 21 of the Act.
2. KEY FACTORS INFORMING
THE DECISION:
2.1 In reaching my decision
on the appeals against the authorisation
of this proposed development, I have taken
the following into consideration:
2.1.1 The information
contained in:
The project file (ref.
12/12/20/433).
The appeals submitted by the eight appellants
against the authorisation of the construction
of the transmission line along the western
route alignment in the area between Potchefstroom
and the VDWHS.
The response of the applicant and the DEAT
to the grounds of appeal.
The Vredefort Dome Extended Study which
was produced by Margen Industrial Services
(Eskom’s consultants) in response to a request
by affected land owners.
2.1.2 The grounds of appeal which focused
on the following areas:
Dissatisfaction with
the process followed: none of the owners
along the western alternative were consulted
about the identification of that route as
the preferred one.
Concerns about the contradiction between
the EIR, which recommended the eastern alternative,
and the record of decision (ROD) which authorised
the western alternative.
Concerns about the visual impact and the
impact on the land-use of a line along the
western route on the area it will traverse.
2.1.3. The dire need for the establishment
of this 765kV link to ensure a stable supply
of electricity to the Western Cape and to
essential development initiatives such as
the Coega Industrial Zone near Port Elizabeth.
2.1.4. The indication
in the Vredefort Dome Extended Study that,
with the exception of its visual impact,
the anticipated impact of a line along the
central route on the biodiversity of the
area, on the avifauna, on land-use, on sense
of place and on social attributes is more
acceptable than on any of the other alignment
options.
2.1.5. No one of the
alternative route alignments identified
encroaches upon the buffer zone of the VDWHS.
With a buffer zone of 5km, the direct impact
on the Dome area itself of a transmission
line along any of the identified routes
will be minimal.
2.2 Having considered
the above information I have concluded that:
The need for the development
has been adequately demonstrated.
The appeals against the construction of
the transmission line along the western
route alignment are substantive.
The anticipated impacts associated with
the construction of the transmission line
along the central route alignment will be
more acceptable than along any of the other
identified route alignments.
The conditions enclosed in this ROD are
deemed adequate to mitigate the identified
impacts to acceptable levels.
By implementing the mitigation measures
contained in this ROD, the principles of
section 2 of the National Environmental
Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998)
(NEMA) can be substantially complied with.
3. CONDITIONS
3.1 Specific conditions
3.1.1 Environmental
Control Officer (ECO)
3.1.1.1 Eskom must appoint
an ECO one month before construction commences.
The Department of Environmental Affairs
and Tourism (DEAT) must be notified of such
an appointment.
3.1.1.2 The ECO will
be responsible for monitoring, on a daily
basis, compliance of the project with these
conditions as well as with relevant environmental
legislation and with the recommendations
contained in the environmental management
plan (EMP).
3.1.1.3 The ECO must
ensure that independent environmental performance
audits are undertaken quarterely for the
duration of construction. The audit reports
must be submitted to the Director-General
of the DEAT (attention Director: Environmental
Impact Evaluation).Copies of the audit reports
must also be submitted to the Mpumalanga
Department of Agriculture and Land Administration,
the Gauteng Department of Agriculture, Conservation
and Environment, the Northwest Department
of Agriculture, Conservation and Environment
and to the Free State Department of Tourism,
Environmental and Economic Affairs.
3.1.1.4 The ECO shall
maintain the following on site:
A daily site diary
A non-conformance register
A public complaint register
A register of audits
3.1.1.5 The ECO shall submit an environmental
compliance report on a two-monthly basis
to the Director-General of the DEAT of which
copies must also be submitted to the Mpumalanga
Department of Agriculture and Land Administration,
the Gauteng Department of Agriculture, Conservation
and Environment, the Northwest Department
of Agriculture, Conservation and Environment
and to the Free State Department of Tourism,
Economic and Environmental Affairs.
3.1.1.6 The ECO shall
remain employed until all measures required
for the rehabilitation of construction damage
have been completed and the site has been
handed over to Eskom by the contractor.
3.1.1.7 The ECO shall
report to and be accountable to Eskom.
3.1.2 Environmental
Management Plan (EMP)
3.1.2.1 Eskom must submit
a construction EMP, subject to clause 3.1.2.2
below, to the DEAT for approval before commencement
of any of the activities referred to in
this ROD. Copies of the EMP must also be
submitted to the Mpumalanga Department of
Agriculture and Land Administration, the
Gauteng Department of Agriculture, Conservation
and Environment, the Northwest Department
of Agriculture, Conservation and Environment
and to the Free State Department of Tourism,
Environmental and Economic Affairs to enable
them to comment to the DEAT on the EMP.
The envisaged construction EMP must cover,
but must not be limited to, the following
aspects:
Rehabilitation of areas
to be disturbed during the construction
of the transmission line and associated
structures.
Location and management of construction
camps.
Access roads to individual construction
areas.
Plant search and rescue before commencement
of any construction related activity.
Waste avoidance and minimisation during
construction.
Management of traffic during the construction
phase, especially where the power line crosses
roads and other transportation networks.
Measures to reduce soil erosion during the
construction phase.
Measures to control invasive plant species
and weeds.
3.1.2.2 A construction EMP for that section
of the line within the Extended Corridor,
must be compiled after the route alignment
in the Extended Corridor has been completed
and approved in terms of paragraph 1(a).
After approval of the EMP for the line in
the Extended Corridor by the DEAT, that
EMP must be added as an addendum to the
EMP for the rest of the line.
3.1.2.3 The EMP, as
approved by the DEAT, will be regarded as
a dynamic document. However, subsequent
changes in the EMP must be submitted to
the DEAT for approval before such changes
could be implemented.
3.1.2.4 Compliance with
the EMP must form part of the project documentation
of all contractors working on the project,
and must be clearly indicated in all contracts.
3.1.3 Rehabilitation
after construction
Eskom must ensure that
no exotic plant species are used for rehabilitation
purposes. Only indigenous plants endemic
to the area may be used.
3.1.4 Monitoring and
auditing
3.1.4.1 The DEAT reserves
the right to monitor and audit the development
throughout its full life cycle to ensure
that it complies with the conditions stipulated
in this ROD as well as with the mitigation
measures contained in the EIR dated July
2006 and with the construction and operational
EMPs.
3.1.4.2 The ECO must
ensure that the records relating to monitoring
and auditing referred to in 3.1.1.2 and
3.1.1.3 are made available on a quarterly
basis to officials of the DEAT and of the
Mpumalanga, Northwest, Gauteng and Free
State provincial environmental authorities.
3.1.5 Land acquisition
3.1.5.1 This development
is authorised on condition that Eskom acquires
the necessary servitude for the corridor
of the transmission line. Eskom must negotiate
with all affected landowners within the
preferred corridor prior to commencing with
construction. Proof of negotiation with
affected land owners must be made available
on request to the DEAT.
3.1.5.2 Any route adjustment
outside the corridor necessitated by local
circumstances must be reported to the DEAT
in writing. Construction of the transmission
line may only commence once such route adjustments
have been accepted by the DEAT.
3.1.6 Compliance with
other legislation
3.1.6.1 Artificial features
and structures older than 60 years and archaeological
remains are protected in terms of the National
Heritage Resources Act, 1999 (Act No. 25
of 1999). Should any archaeological artefacts
or such artificial features and structures
be found during construction or be exposed
during excavation, all construction or excavation
activities in the vicinity of such a find
must be stopped. Under no circumstances
shall such artefacts, features or structures
be destroyed or removed from the site. The
ECO must call an archaeologist to the site
for an inspection and evaluation. Should
it be concluded that the finds are of real
value, the South African Heritage Resources
Agency must be consulted in this regard.
Their recommendations must be included in
the EMP and must be adhered to.
3.1.6.2 Eskom must ensure
that no prospecting or mining activities
or extraction of any material is conducted
within the proposed project area, or in
relation to the proposed project without
necessary authorisation in terms of the
Minerals and Petroleum Resources Development
Act, 2002 (Act No.28 of 2002).
3.1.6.3 The provisions
of the following Acts must be adhered to:
the Occupational Health
and Safety Act, 1993 (Act No. 85 of 1993);
the National Water Act, 1998 (Act No. 36
of 1998);
the National Environmental Management: Air
Quality Act, 2004 (Act No. 39 of 2004);
the Atmospheric Pollution Prevention Act,
1965 (Act No. 45 of 1965);
the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity
Act, 2004 (Act No. 10 of 2004)
any other relevant legislation.
3.1.6.4 Eskom must obtain a permit from
each relevant provincial department of nature
conservation for the removal of indigenous
protected plant and animal species.
3.1.7 Construction and
operational impacts
The construction team
must make use of existing access roads where
possible. In addition
Eskom must ensure that the following conditions
are adhered to during the implementation
of
the project:
3.1.7.1 The route of
the transmission line must be planned in
such a way that areas with a high potential
for bird strikes are avoided. Overhead earth-wires
must be used to increase visibility; Anti-collision
devices must be installed along those sections
of the line which have been identified by
an avi-fauna specialist as sections with
a high risk for bird strikes.
3.1.7.2 A safe distance
from sensitive bird habitats and breeding
areas such as wetlands, dams and river crossings
must be maintained.
3.1.7.3 No towers or
access roads must be placed in wetlands.
If this is unavoidable, authorisation from
the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry
must be obtained prior to construction.
3.1.7.4 Vegetation,
avi-fauna, wetland and heritage resources
specialists must undertake a site inspection
of the position of each tower and of any
new access roads to assess and ensure that
no endangered vegetation, sensitive avi-faunal
habitat or heritage resources are compromised
and to advise on mitigation prior to construction.
3.1.7.5 Self-supporting
strain towers must be protected with bird
guards.
3.1.7.6 The route must
be aligned in such a way that either distance
or a suitable topographical screening backdrop
will mitigate the visual impact of the line.
3.1.7.7 Alignment of
the route along the top of ridges must be
avoided. Should it be necessary to cross
a ridge it is preferable to cross the ridge
directly over rather than at an angle. This
will limit the visibility of the line. Where
possible, ridges must be crossed at a depression
such as a neck or saddle in the ridge. This
will limit the visual effect of any pylon
standing above the ridgeline.
3.1.7.8 The final route
of the transmission line must cross main
roads at an angle as close to 90º as
possible.
3.2 GENERAL CONDITIONS
3.2.1 This authorisation
is granted only in terms of section 22 of
the Act and does not exempt the holder thereof
from compliance with any other legislation.
3.2.2 This authorisation
refers only to the activity as specified
and described in the EIR dated July 2006.
Any other activity listed under section
21 of the Act which is not specified above,
is not covered by this authorisation and
must therefore comply with the requirements
of the NEMA and the environmental impact
assessment regulations issued there under.
3.2.3 This authorisation
is subject to the approval of the relevant
local authorities in terms of any legislation
administered by those authorities.
3.2.4 One week’s written
notice must be given to the DEAT before
commencement of construction activities.
Such notice shall make clear reference to
the site location details and must include
the reference number given above.
3.2.5 One week’s written
notice must be given to the DEAT before
commencement of the operation of the transmission
line. Such notice shall make clear reference
to the site location details and must include
the reference number given above.
3.2.6 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.
3.2.7 The applicant
must notify the DEAT in writing, within
24 hours if any condition of this authorisation
cannot, or is not, adhered to. The notification
must be supplemented with reasons for such
non-compliance.
3.2.8 A copy of the
authorisation and of this ROD shall be available
on site during construction. All staff,
contractors and sub-contractors shall familiarise
themselves with or be made aware of the
contents of this ROD.
3.2.9 Compliance/non-compliance
records must be kept and shall be made available
on request to any relevant authority within
five days of receipt of such a request.
3.2.10 Any changes to
or deviations from the project description
contained in this ROD must be approved,
in writing, by the DEAT before such changes
or deviations may be effected. In assessing
whether to grant such approval or not, the
DEAT may request such information as it
deems necessary to evaluate the significance
and impacts of such changes or deviations.
3.2.11 The Minister
of Environmental Affairs and Tourism may
from time to time, by notice in writing
to the applicant, amend, add or remove a
condition contained in this ROD.
3.2.12 In the event
of the anticipated impacts exceeding the
significance as predicted by the independent
consultant in the EIR dated July 2006, the
authorisation may be withdrawn after proper
procedures have been followed.
3.2.13 In the event
of any dispute concerning the significance
of a particular impact, the opinion of the
DEAT will prevail.
3.2.14 The applicant
must notify the DEAT in writing at least
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 ROD 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.
3.2.15 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 the DEAT
as soon as the new details become known
to the applicant.
3.2.16 National, provincial
or local government institutions or committees
appointed in terms of the conditions of
this ROD 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 is temporarily or permanently
stopped for reasons of non-compliance by
the applicant with the conditions contained
in this ROD or in any other subsequent document
emanating from these conditions.
3.2.17 If any condition
imposed in terms of this ROD is not complied
with, the authorisation of this development
may be withdrawn in accordance with Part
3 of Chapter 4 of the Environmental Impact
Assessment Regulations, 2006 (the Regulations),
published under the NEMA.
3.2.18 Failure to comply
with any of these conditions shall be regarded
as an offence and may be dealt with in terms
of regulation 81(1)(d) and regulation 81(2)
of the Regulations, as well as any other
appropriate legal mechanisms.
3.2.19 Unless otherwise
specified, the applicant shall be responsible
for all costs necessary to comply with the
conditions contained in this ROD.
3.2.20 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 maintained and
shall be produced upon request.
3.2.21 DEAT officials
shall be given access, at all reasonable
times, to the construction areas referred
to in the project description above for
the purpose of assessing and/or monitoring
compliance with the conditions contained
in this ROD.
3.2.22 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 the DEAT.
3.3 Duration of authorisation
If the activity hereby
authorised does not commence within 4 years
from the date of signature of this ROD,
the authorisation will lapse and the applicant
will need to reapply in terms of the applicable
legislation.
4. CONSEQUENCES OF NON-COMPLIANCE
The applicant must comply
with the conditions contained in this ROD.
Failure to comply with any of the above
conditions may result in, inter alia, the
Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism
withdrawing the authorisation, issuing directives
to address the non-compliance - including
an order to cease the activity - as well
as instituting criminal and/or civil proceedings
to enforce compliance.
