GEORGE NEWS - George Municipality's use of public funds for the rezoning application for the proposed Garden Route Dam development "on behalf of private developers" is being questioned by one of the opponents to the development, Dr Bool Smuts, chairman of the Landmark Foundation.

According to Sharples Environmental Services (SES), the environmental consultants in the application, they have received hundreds of e-mails and comments on the draft environmental impact assessment report (DEIAR), which is available at George Library and the SES website for comment before 11 March.

The development proposal includes a residential and commercial waterfront component as well as a university campus complete with multi-storey apartment blocks for student housing, and sport fields.

Last week, in an open e-mail to the planning department, Smuts asked who the private development entities are:

"What private partners were involved and did they have any connection to elected officials that facilitated the involvement of a public body in the application for the development which ended up being paid for with public funds? How was such a role assumed (by the municipality)?"

Response
When George Herald approached the municipality for answers, we were referred to SES, and their response only pointed out that comments relating to environmental impacts would be sent to specialists for their input, that would then be incorporated into the final comments and responses report.

On Tuesday 8 March, the municipality sent out a statement "addressing concerns" pertaining to the development, but with no direct response to Smuts' questions.

It read, "In and around 2018 Council received several queries from the private sector requesting access to land to establish a tertiary education or research institution. After careful consideration Council took a decision instructing the administration to investigate the use of Erf 464, adjacent to the Garden Route Dam as a site for such a development. Council also resolved that there be a process to attain the environmental approvals and the town planning or land rights. Finally, Council resolved that once the latter processes were completed, the matter must revert to Council for further consideration.

"At no time did Council indicate any intent to undertake such a development itself. The unfortunate and misinformed contentions that Council is acting in the interests of any business or individual is rejected with the contempt it deserves. Council land is a valuable asset and, as any landowner will know, ensuring that property is correctly and appropriately zoned maximises the value of the property."

Smuts says the municipality's response that it is not undertaking the development itself, is "even more damning" than "perhaps (it) wanted to divulge".

Move development to Sallywood property
One upset resident, André Potgieter, says an excellent alternative site for the development would be the property along the N2 to the south of the Garden Route Mall where a group of Chinese developers had wanted to establish Sallywood, which was canned due to Covid.

"That is closer to the support base of the university and it lessens the impact on the dam. "The job creation and socio-economic advantages that the municipality is looking for will still be attainable.

"The initial proposals by Destiny Africa for a smart city for that property did include a large higher education component," says Potgieter.

Website to enable easy comment
The main concerns among residents about the proposed development are pollution of the city's only water source, the environmental and visual impact, and increased traffic and noise in the area.

During the past week, a group of dismayed residents have put up notices at the entrance to the Garden Route Dam to make visitors aware of the proposed development and the deadline for comments on the DEIAR.

They have also established a website (www.gardenroute101.co.za) and Facebook page (Save George Dam - search for @savegeorgedam) where persons who would like to register as an interested and affected party and submit comment, can do so easily.

Dr Bool Smuts, open letter to the planning department of George Municipality:
• The fact of the matter is that the municipality is the applicant. What you assert here is even more damning than perhaps you wanted to divulge. Are you suggesting that you as a public entity are applying on behalf of a private entity to do a development?
• How may I ask was such a role assumed?
• How were public funds (as I assume as applicant you are paying for the work as applicant) allocated for this fronting exercise for private interests?

Additionally:
• Were any Council elected official(s)’s private interests served by the municipality assuming the task and costs of being the applicant for these private interests?
• What private partners were involved and did they have any connection to elected officials that facilitated the involvement of a public body in the application for the development which ended up being paid for with public funds?
• What interest and role did any officials in the municipality have to facilitate this fronting exercise, and what benefits may have accrued to them, may still be accruing or will in the future accrue to them?
• Why do you employ “consultants” that misrepresent ecological facts in furtherance of this fronting scheme? They blatantly misrepresent the facts about leopards.
• Why, when the SDF requires municipal support for the CBD rejuvenation, is the Council supporting green field developments in sensitive and ecologically valuable environments on the urban edge?
• Why has the municipality failed to eradicate alien and invasive plants (as directed by legislation) and now suggesting that the presence of these listed invaders (which the municipality have allowed to run rampant without management) should promote and justify the development? Was this deliberate neglect?
These questions are not going to go away. I urge you to answer them.

MEDIA STATEMENT: Addressing concerns on the Garden Route Dam Proposed Development , Second Edition
Issued George Municipality, 8 March 2022

George Municipality is aware of concerns raised on social media and in petitions pertaining to the proposed development at the GRD, namely the DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED TERTIARY AND MIXED-USE PRECINCT DEVELOPMENT AT THE GARDEN ROUTE DAM AND ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE ON A PORTION OF THE REMAINDER OF ERF 464, GEORGE (reference DEA&DP Ref: 16/3/3/2/D2/19/0000/22). These concerns have also been recorded as part of the extensive public participation process.

The Draft Environmental Impact Assessment Report (DEIAR) has been made available by the relevant Environmental Assessment Practitioners (Sharples Environmental Services), for comment, following the consent of the Western Cape Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning: Environmental Impact Management Services (DEADP) to proceed with the second round of public participation. The Draft EIA for the proposed development has been sent to all registered Interested and Affected parties for comment, but anyone is welcome to submit comments before 11 March 2022.

INITIAL APPLICATIONS FOR AUTHORISATIONS COMMENCED IN 2006
The current EIA is the second round of processes to attain land rights for Erf 464, situated at the Garden Route Dam. In the mid-2000s the Council sought to attain zoning rights for residential and business. After several years, in 2014, DEADP granted partial environmental authorization in support of a hotel business, tourism elements allowing for the appropriate management of the conservation areas; and open space and access from Stander Str. Conditions were imposed regarding environmental management; the use of specialists needed during construction; and the use of gravity sewer systems were proposed to reduce risk of contamination of the water course.

However, the residential components were not authorised and DEADP indicated that they would not support an extensive residential development. The reasons for not supporting the full proposal included uncertainty about the imposition of long-term management provisions; the integration of social, economic, and environmental factors was not adequately demonstrated in the application; there was concern over visual impacts; the demand for residential erven was questioned; and the proposal did not redress segregated communities.

Based on the EIA outcome, Council elected not to take the matter any further, except for requesting (and receiving) approval for the extension of the approvals granted in 2014. In 2019 the rights were extended to 2024 by DEADP.

COUNCIL RESOLUTION
In and around 2018 Council received several queries from the private sector requesting access to land to establish a tertiary education or research institution. After careful consideration Council took a decision instructing the administration to investigate the use of Erf 464, adjacent to the Garden Route Dam as a site for such a development. Council also resolved that there be a process to attain the environmental approvals and the town planning or land rights. Finally, Council resolved that once the latter processes were completed, the matter must revert to Council for further consideration.

At no time did Council indicate any intent to undertake such a development itself. The unfortunate and misinformed contentions that Council is acting in the interests of any business or individual is rejected with the contempt it deserves. Council land is a valuable asset and, as any landowner will know, ensuring that property is correctly and appropriately zoned maximises the value of the property.

The Municipality went ahead and appointed consultants to undertake these two processes. This process has taken the better part of three years and the two applications will soon have to be adjudicated by the relevant authorities, namely the Western Cape Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning (to assess the EIA) and the Eden Municipal Planning Tribunal (to assess the town planning application).

CURRENT STATUS: THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT APPLICATION
The Environmental Impact Assessment application has now been completed and is accompanied by specialist reports including case studies, an urban design report, heritage impact and recommendations, a visual impact assessment, engineering report, stormwater management plan and traffic impact assessment. There were also extensive discussions with Cape Nature and SANParks whose input was that a butterfly study was required.

The document is available for download from the Sharples Environmental Services (SES)website (www.sescc.net) under the “Public Documents” section, as well as over WeTransfer from the following link: https://we.tl/t-wt8lUk3DLA. The other process- and technical documentation relating to this project is available on www.sescc.net, Public Documents.

Besides making the document available to all who have registered as Interested and Affected Parties, notices inviting comment were placed by Sharples Environmental Services (SES) as required by DEADP. Anyone may comment on the report. Any additional comment on the DEIAR document and proposed activity must be submitted in writing to SES: Betsy Ditcham on or before 11 March 2022 by means of the following: Fax: 086-575 2869, email: betsy@sescc.net or postal address: PO Box 443, Milnerton, 7435.

FINAL OUTCOME
There are two interrelated, legislated processes relating to the proposed development, both inviting public participation/input and support. These are the current Environmental Impact Assessment (SES EIA process), to be assessed by DEADP and the town-planning application, which will be independently evaluated by the Eden Municipal Planning Tribunal.

DEADP has about 5-months for comment and to make a final decision. Thereafter the town-planning application will be considered by the Tribunal. Neither the George Council nor any official will undertake any authorisation at all.

It must be noted that BOTH authorisations have to be in place for any development to go ahead. If either one of the applications are refused, then the other cannot succeed. The town planning application will only be submitted to the Tribunal for consideration once DEADP has issued their decision.

Once the decisions have been made, both processes allow for a 21-day appeals period.

Irrespective of the ultimate outcomes of both processes, the matter must revert to Council. This is in terms of the 2018 Council decision. If the outcomes are in favour of any form of development Council will have to decide if it wishes to further proceed to act upon the rights – whether in full or only elements of the approved development. For example, Council may decide to only proceed with the residential development, and Council may impose certain restrictions on any development opportunity. Council will also need to resolve as to whether the matter must go to tender or call for proposals. The latter will depend on what Council ultimately elects to do with the land in question.

PUBLIC COMMENT AND MISINFORMATION
Unfortunately, the public comments and petitions made on social media and other platforms about this application are not necessarily accurate nor representative of the type of development envisioned. Please guard against misinformation.

Aspects of the projects which may impact on the environment have been studied by qualified professionals and the required adjustments were made to the initial project proposal (footprint). Points raised in the Public Participation process thus far and responses thereto are noted in the Appendix E of the Draft Environmental Impact Assessment Report. All concerned residents are invited to read the relevant studies, view the adjusted development proposal, and review the responses compiled in project documentation. A hard copy of the report DEIAR has been made available in the George Public Library.

Should this project come to fruition, specifications include more than 75ha of the 118ha (64%) to be open space conservation area. Of the remaining 36%, only 5ha (4%) will be commercial, and the rest (32%) will be educational and residential. The intention is that all future users become custodians of the space and the site be managed by firm rules in terms of an Environmental Management Plan.

It is important to note that although the land is owned by Council and the Municipality contracted the required applications, Council will not have any role in the authorisations or approvals at all. Furthermore, as stated previously, Council has no intention to develop the property itself. It is noted that assumptions have been placed in the public domain which contend that the development has been earmarked for a potential developer (s). This is refuted in its entirety.

LAYOUT OF THE SITE
Aurecon (now Zutari) was appointed by George Municipality to design the precinct for the proposed university and to prepare a rezoning and subdivision application. The Zutari team included professional town planners, urban designers, and civil engineers and the team worked closely with the Municipal officials in the planning department as well as the civil and technical departments. The Zutari team also collaborated closely with the environmental consultants appointed by the municipality to apply for the environmental authorisation (Sharples Environmental Services), as well as other professional service providers such as traffic engineers, electrical engineers, geotechnical engineers, socio economic specialists etc. when the layout plan was designed.

The planning of the layout plan went through an iterative process before it was finalised and submitted as part of the rezoning and subdivision application. After a visioning workshop and a study to indicate sensitivity areas, concept development workshops were held where several stakeholders took part in developing three development concepts.

The three development concepts were then workshopped to work through the pros and cons of each concept and to select a preferred concept.

A draft site plan with the buildings displayed below is the campus proposal that was prepared by the urban designer and is the preferred concept that was developed through inputs from the various specialists and the outcomes of the concept development workshops.

'We bring you the latest George, Garden Route news'