MOUNTAIN VIEW: NOTICE OF AUTHORISATION: PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF PORTION 2 OF THE FARM NOOITGEDACHT 176-IR (GDACE REF GAUT 002/08-09/N0757)
I have lived in Drumblade since 1984 and have valued the farm life and the proximity to Johannesburg and surrounds. Over the last 27 years I have seen some changes some of which were welcomed, like tar roads and municipal water, but these changes did not change the face of the area.
What is being planned for this development leaves me horrified and saddened that yet another agricultural area of Johannesburg is going to be turned into a suburb. There are so many empty homes and developments there cannot be a housing shortage in Johannesburg and surrounds, so why make more homes that people will not live in.
As a resident I cannot sub-divide my property but not only does it look like Mountain View will allow for 3 storey developments but the development mentions clusters and Mountain View is outside of the Urban Edge and some thirty five clusters per hectare are being planned, that is not in keeping with the rules of the agricultural holdings in the Drumblade area as only one house per 5 acres is allowed.
Perdeberg mountain has some historical value to us, a battle in the Anglo-Boer war was fought there and the caves that haven’t been mentioned on the GDACE RoD policy could have some historical significance.
Furthermore there are so many inconsistencies between in the four ROD’s that this proposed development’s powers that be have no clue as to what they are proposing.
Before any further go ahead is granted I urge you to overturn these developments till developers that are serious about the area and preservation of our historical and agricultural heritage are found.
Yours faithfully
Samantha Houniet
To whom it may concern:
Re: The Grace
The proposal to erect building classed as “Res 3” in such a rural area is preposterous. In my view developers should take note of the current stand sizes “plots” in this area and redesign another layout plan taking into account larger stand sizes. I for one did not move into the “proposed Grace area” to be crowded in by three story houses with absolutely no space to “swing a cat” – figure of speech; so am therefore totally against the proposed stand sizes on the ROD.
The area proposed for this development consists mainly of agricultural and smallholdings farms and no mention has been made of ensuring the placement of the Sewerage pump station to ensure the safety of the current community (who mostly make use of borehole water) is maintained. Sensitive areas in this proposed development have not been adequately included in the ROD with lots of houses being built on top of these areas.
Plants growing naturally on the site should be incorporated into the landscape plan
Besides all the comments I have made above, no participatory process was followed with regards to this development. The community in which the development is set to occur was not informed at all. This makes me vary wary of the developer’s intentions.
Regards
Jacqueline Murphy
WOODACRES: NOTICE OF AUTHORISATION: PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF
PORTIONS 4, 24 AND 30 OF THE FARM HARTSENBERGFONTEIN 332-IQ (GDACE Ref Gaut 002/08-09/N0756)
I wish to place on record my objection to the development of Woodacres, as detailed above.
The fact that your department has given positive RoD’s for each of the four developments requested by Dr R Graca, albeit with the odd – totally inconsistent – constraints, is frankly disturbing.
Were you to consider the totally flawed public participation procedure, one would imagine a department of your stature would instantly insist that the applicant revert back to step one and adhere to the correct procedures.
Notwithstanding the above, the fact that you note that the development is outside the Urban Edge should – again – be sufficiently significant to halt these projects instantly.
Your own policies clearly state that outside of the Urban Edge the only land uses permitted are –
Agriculture
Tourism
Agricultural holdings and rural residential use
I quote part of the definition of the above on “rural residential use” –
“Rural residential land uses are … typically lower densities … which provides a residential component for the sparsely populated rural communities … The establishment of residential estates with lower densities in urban fringe areas should however not be deemed a form of rural residential development”.
So, not even on urban fringes would this development be allowed – so why would you allow it in the middle of nowhere?
There are number of other anomalies in your RoD but, since the above should be sufficient to overturn the positive RoD, I see no point in listing them!
Yours faithfully
(MRS) A L CLARKE
The Drumblade Conservancy is extremely concerned about these potential developments and objects due to the following matters:
These developments ALL fall outside the urban edge, on arable farm portions that have no infrastructure. The developments are in contradiction of the Gauteng Urban Edge Policy which calls for the Conservation of Environmental resources, these developments are right in the middle of and included in a number of rural conservancies and as such will threaten the species and historical aspects of the areas that the conservancies are trying to protect.
The Black Stork has been proven to be in the Drumblade / The Grace / Mountain View & Woodacres area. The Black Stork is listed as a rare and uncommon resident. You may confirm this information with John Heywood at heywood.john@yahoo.com or 084 615 9784. This has been reported to GDACE. Hartzenberg valley have found 3 red-data species on Platberg - a snake, a hedgehog and a grass specie!!
There is a high conservation potential in Drumblade – those of us who live here do so because of the sense of nature and the extreme beauty of the area – It is a home to birds, insects, duikers etc whether red data or not and it provides important open space and green lung areas, which we are becoming dearly short of in Gauteng, thanks to the indiscriminate way developments have been built.
It appears that the Clayton Cooks Habitat and Faunal survey was not conducted during the most appropriate time and GDACE requires a study during summer and winter and after rain, this was not done so the study is irrelevant, inconclusive and is trying to shortcut the issue!!
“Ideally the herpetological survey should have been undertaken after the first heavy summer rains (November-January). It is only during this period accurate or actual frogs species lists be compiled. During this survey; fieldwork was augmented with species lists compiled from personal records; data from sites surveyed for the South
African Frog Atlas Project (SAFAP) and published data and the list provided in
Appendix is therefore regarded as likely to be fairly comprehensive.”
There are some common species as well as red data species, identified on site, of amphibians, reptiles, etc. but with the extent of the development proposed in this area, everything would be obliterated to the great loss of mankind.
We have also identified 101 different bird species – in addition to which the Secretary Bird has been sighted but not proven yet – another threatened bird. The Secretary bird was a common sight in the area prior to the development of Blue Saddles ranches.
The developments will cause great expense in the installation, operation and maintenance of engineering and community services. Water is a problem as the current reservoir is insufficient even for present demand.
Roads and traffic will cause great disruption to the area – as well as the planned roads cutting directly through the conservancy. It will also cause pollution – air and noise which will disturb the conservancy.
The density of the housing is not at all conducive to rural living – the increased number of people, cars and accompanying change of lifestyle will ruin what we are trying to maintain for ever.
The EIA reports show sensitive areas that are completely ignored in the developers plans and are unprotected in the latest RODs – at the very least the sensitive and historical areas should be protected. How does a development that continues to plan construction over IDENTIFIED SENSITIVE areas comply with the requirements of the Open Space System?
Both the historical and geological surveys of all developments say that further research is required and that SAHRA needs to give permits – will we be informed of such further research and the outcomes?
It is also noted that one of the main principles of development is “discouragement of the phenomenon of “urban sprawl” and the promotion of a more compact town “if this is so then shouldn’t this development be on the outskirts of Meyerton or Alberton rather than in the middle of a rural area?
There is tourism potential within the area. Within 2 of these proposed developments there are historical features such as archaeological remains, bushman paintings and a cemetery that supposedly contains Charles Glass – about to be destroyed if these developments go ahead!.
Flora and Fauna – development is needed with regards to bird watching tours and school outings – within the Drumblade area over 101 species of birds have been identified– including the rare Black Stork (reported to GDACE) and it is hoped that the area will become part of the Sedibeng Tourism Department birding route. Sedibeng has got the potential to become a major Eco-Tourism attraction with all its natural open spaces, wetlands and rivers.
With regards to each development in turn, I quote and support the factors specified in the appeal placed by the Deep South Custodian.
Appeal against Woodacres – Portion’s 4, 24 and 30 of the farm Hartzenbergfontein 332-IQ. Gaut: 001/08-09/N756
Urban Edge / SDF
- The development is outside the Urban Edge, but Midvaal is not incorporating the development into the SDF.
- the agricultural value of the property is not recognized.
Stand Sizes
Only low density development may be undertaken – minimum sizes should be specified so that everyone is clear as to what is intended.
Layout Plan
- An amended lay-out plan taking all conditions into consideration is necessary before we go any further.
- The 1:100 flood line, river/stream and wetland areas must be clearly demarcated on the amended lay-out plan.
- The sensitive areas must be properly defined, and only then can the new plans be submitted
Sensitive Areas
- The RoD must include the fact that development is only allowed on areas previously impacted by agricultural activities.
- All sensitive areas should be protected throughout the development phase.
- Plants that would be destroyed during site clearing must be incorporated into the landscape plan.
Size of Development
Where are the 38 hectares referred to as “private land” – what is to happen to this? -
Environmental Committee
What guidelines are there to ascertain that the “Independent Environmental Officer” will enforce the conditions agreed to?
Appeal against Mountain View – Portion 2 of the farm Nooitgedacht 176-1R. Gaut: 002/08-09/N0757
Urban Edge / SDF
- The RoD does not acknowledge that the development is outside the Urban Edge
- Midvaal is not incorporating the development into the SDF
- The RoD does not acknowledge the agricultural value of the property
Res 3
We do not want any Res 3 included in the development.
Stand Sizes
The size of stands, from 900 – 1,500 m2 for Res. 1 (as given in the EIA) is very worrying. The RoD should be consistent with The Valleys in that only low density development should be allowed. It should be consistent with the 5 acres minmum size currently allowed in the surrounding areas.
Layout Plan
- The 1:100 flood line, river/stream and wetland areas must be clearly demarcated on a new lay-out plan.
- Specialist studies must be carried out by independent specialists in order to define the sensitive areas, and only then can the new layout plans be drawn.
- Only once this has been done can any mitigating conditions can be ascertained and only after that can the final authorisation be granted”.
Sensitive Areas
The following factors should also be considered in relation to this development:
- Sensitive areas must be incorporated into the open system and that no construction or landscaping activities will be allowed to take place.
- development is only allowed on areas previously impacted by agricultural activities
- Avoid fencing between neighbouring stands to allow free movement of faunal species
- It needs to be acknowledged that the development would have a detrimental impact.
- All sensitive areas should be demarcated with poles during the entire construction phase.
- No wetland has been acknowledged and therefore no conditions for its preservation and rehabilitation have been set.
- Alien vegetation must be removed from the wetland area
- Plants that would be destroyed during site clearing must be incorporated into the landscape plan
- The trend is moving towards green building design and technology – but what does this actually mean in practical terms?
- All caves on Perdeberg must be identified in the layout plans so that they can be protected.
Size of Development
- The ROD has the incorrect size of the development. Therefore how accurate can the layout plan be?
- What private land is there? What restrictions and conditions can apply here?
Environmental Committee
What guidelines are there to ascertain that the “Independent Environmental Officer” will enforce the conditions agreed to?
Yours sincerely
Dianne Kruger (Chairperson)
Drumblade Conservancy.