appendix g4: visual impact assessment report · 2018-12-12 · addendum to visual impact assessment...
TRANSCRIPT
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
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
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
6.8.2 No Go Alternative 22
6.9 Compatibility with Surrounding Landscape 22
6.9.1 Proposed Project 23
6.9.2 No Go Alternative 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
6.10.3 No Go Alternative 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
K Hansen Landscape Architect, Somerset West 2 St James, Erf 177476, VIA: February 2018
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
K Hansen Landscape Architect, Somerset West 3 St James, Erf 177476, VIA: February 2018
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.
K Hansen Landscape Architect, Somerset West 4 St James, Erf 177476, VIA: February 2018
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.
K Hansen Landscape Architect, Somerset West 5 St James, Erf 177476, VIA: February 2018
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
K Hansen Landscape Architect, Somerset West 6 St James, Erf 177476, VIA: February 2018
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
K Hansen Landscape Architect, Somerset West 7 St James, Erf 177476, VIA: February 2018
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
K Hansen Landscape Architect, Somerset West 8 St James, Erf 177476, VIA: February 2018
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
K Hansen Landscape Architect, Somerset West 9 St James, Erf 177476, VIA: February 2018
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
K Hansen Landscape Architect, Somerset West 10 St James, Erf 177476, VIA: February 2018
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
K Hansen Landscape Architect, Somerset West 11 St James, Erf 177476, VIA: February 2018
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.
K Hansen Landscape Architect, Somerset West 12 St James, Erf 177476, VIA: February 2018
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
K Hansen Landscape Architect, Somerset West 13 St James, Erf 177476, VIA: February 2018
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
K Hansen Landscape Architect, Somerset West 14 St James, Erf 177476, VIA: February 2018
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.
K Hansen Landscape Architect, Somerset West 15 St James, Erf 177476, VIA: February 2018
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
K Hansen Landscape Architect, Somerset West 16 St James, Erf 177476, VIA: February 2018
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.
K Hansen Landscape Architect, Somerset West 17 St James, Erf 177476, VIA: February 2018
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
K Hansen Landscape Architect, Somerset West 18 St James, Erf 177476, VIA: February 2018
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
K Hansen Landscape Architect, Somerset West 19 St James, Erf 177476, VIA: February 2018
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
K Hansen Landscape Architect, Somerset West 20 St James, Erf 177476, VIA: February 2018
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.
K Hansen Landscape Architect, Somerset West 21 St James, Erf 177476, VIA: February 2018
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.
6.8.2 No-Go Alternative
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
K Hansen Landscape Architect, Somerset West 22 St James, Erf 177476, VIA: February 2018
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.
6.9.2 No-Go Alternative
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.
K Hansen Landscape Architect, Somerset West 23 St James, Erf 177476, VIA: February 2018
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.
6.10.3 No-Go Alternative
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.
K Hansen Landscape Architect, Somerset West 24 St James, Erf 177476, VIA: February 2018
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
K Hansen Landscape Architect, Somerset West 25 St James, Erf 177476, VIA: February 2018
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.
K Hansen Landscape Architect, Somerset West 26 St James, Erf 177476, VIA: February 2018
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
K Hansen Landscape Architect, Somerset West 27 St James, Erf 177476, VIA: February 2018
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.
K Hansen Landscape Architect, Somerset West 28 St James, Erf 177476, VIA: February 2018
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.
K Hansen Landscape Architect, Somerset West 29 St James, Erf 177476, VIA: February 2018
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
K Hansen Landscape Architect, Somerset West 30 St James, Erf 177476, VIA: February 2018
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;
K Hansen Landscape Architect, Somerset West 31 St James, Erf 177476, VIA: February 2018
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
K Hansen Landscape Architect, Somerset West 32 St James, Erf 177476, VIA: February 2018
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
K Hansen Landscape Architect, Somerset West 33 St James, Erf 177476, VIA: February 2018
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.
K Hansen Landscape Architect, Somerset West 34 St James, Erf 177476, VIA: February 2018
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.
K Hansen Landscape Architect, Somerset West 35 St James, Erf 177476, VIA: February 2018
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.
K Hansen Landscape Architect, Somerset West 36 St James, Erf 177476, VIA: February 2018
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
K Hansen Landscape Architect, Somerset West 37 St James, Erf 177476, VIA: February 2018
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
K Hansen Landscape Architect, Somerset West 38 St James, Erf 177476, VIA: February 2018
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)
K Hansen Landscape Architect, Somerset West 39 St James, Erf 177476, VIA: February 2018
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.
K Hansen Landscape Architect, Somerset West 40 St James, Erf 177476, VIA: February 2018
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.
K Hansen Landscape Architect, Somerset West 41 St James, Erf 177476, VIA: February 2018
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:
K Hansen Landscape Architect, Somerset West 42 St James, Erf 177476, VIA: February 2018
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).
K Hansen Landscape Architect, Somerset West 43 St James, Erf 177476, VIA: February 2018
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).
K Hansen Landscape Architect, Somerset West 44 St James, Erf 177476, VIA: February 2018
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).
K Hansen Landscape Architect, Somerset West 45 St James, Erf 177476, VIA: February 2018
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